P358 Efficacy of golimumab for the treatment of ulcerative colitis patients in clinical practice: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Golimumab is the third anti-TNF agent which received marketing authorization for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) patients who are refractory to conventional therapies. To date, only few data are available regarding its efficacy in UC patients in clinical practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of golimumab for the treatment of UC patients in two tertiary French referral centers. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study including all consecutive UC patients treated with golimumab for induction of clinical remission in two French tertiary referral centers from August 2014 to April 2016. Clinical response and clinical remission during the induction phase was defined according to physician judgment. Previous treatments, duration, optimization and withdrawal of golimumab were also collected. Results: Twenty-four UC patients (13 Female and 11 Male) were included in the study. Montreal classification in UC patients at the time of golimumab introduction was a proctitis in 4% (1/24) of the patients, a left-sided colitis in 38% (9/24) and a pancolitis in 58% (14/24). Median delay between UC diagnosis and golimumab introduction was 81.7 months (IQR 1–3: 45–158). Golimumab was started in 7 (29%) patients who were naïve from biotherapies, in 4 (17%) patients who already received another anti-TNF and in 13 (54%) who already received more the one anti-TNF. Golimumab was associated with a concomitant immunosuppressant in 25% (6/24) of the cases. Short-term clinical response was achieved in 60% (13/22) of the patients. Clinical remission evaluated after a median treatment duration of 5 months (IQR 1–3: 3–5.3) was achieved in 29% (7/24) of the patients. A secondary loss of response was observed in 28% (2/7) of the UC patients who achieved clinical remission. Among UC patients with primary non-response to golimumab, 4 (24%) patients had an optimization of golimumab therapy with a clinical efficacy in 25% of the cases (1/4). Cumulative probability of golimumab withdrawal free survival was 27.4% ± 9.9 at one year. In univariate analysis, there was no association between failure of golimumab (withdrawal and/or optimization) and previous exposure to anti-TNF or disease extent. However, there was a trend regarding the association between the concomitant use of an immunosuppressant and the maintenance of golimumab therapy without optimization (RR=0.4; CI 95%: 0.12–1.4, p=0.163). Conclusions: In our cohort, golimumab was maintained with clinical efficacy in about 30% of the UC patients at one year. Previous exposure to anti-TNF seems to have non influence on treatment efficacy. Use of concomitant immunosuppressant may increase the efficacy of golimumab in the treatment of UC in clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".