P544 Histological remission following ozanimod treatment is associated with concurrent clinical remission and endoscopic mucosal healing: Results from the TOUCHSTONE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TOUCHSTONE was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial of ozanimod 1 and 0.5 mg vs. placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). In this trial, a significantly greater proportion of patients on ozanimod 1 mg vs. placebo achieved clinical remission, response, and endoscopic mucosal healing based on Mayo score at Weeks 8 and 32. We also assessed whether ozanimod leads to histologic improvement and healing. 197 patients were randomised (1: 1: 1) to ozanimod 1 mg (n = 67), 0.5 mg (n = 65), or placebo (n = 65), with 103 (52.3%) entering a maintenance period and 91 (88.3%) completing. Baseline, Weeks 8 and 32 biopsies were scored by a central pathologist blinded to treatment and visit. Histologic improvement was based on the change from baseline in Geboes score (range 0–22). Histologic remission was defined as Geboes <2. Endoscopic remission was defined as endoscopic score ≤1. Clinical remission was defined as total Mayo score ≤2, with no subscore >1. Baseline mean Geboes score was similar in the 1 mg, 0.5 mg, and placebo groups (12.92, 14.36, and 13.94, respectively). Histologic improvement as measured by mean change in Geboes score was greater in the 1 mg group than placebo at both Week 8 (−4.37 vs. −2.20, p = 0.0345) and Week 32 (−5.50 vs. 2.24, p = 0.0033). The 0.5 mg group showed the same trend but the difference vs. placebo was not significant at Week 8 (−3.31 vs. −2.20, p = 0.5885) or Week 32 (−4.31 vs. −2.24, p = 0.2448). Histologic remission (Geboes <2) at Week 8 occurred in 15 of 67 (22.4%) for 1 mg (p = 0.0705 vs. placebo), 9 of 65 (13.8%) for 0.5 mg (p = 0.6294, vs. placebo) and 7 of 65 (10.8%) for placebo, and for Week 32 in 21 of 67 (31.3%) for 1 mg (p = 0.0006, vs. placebo), 15 of 65 (23.1%) for 0.5 mg (p = 0.0164 vs. placebo), and 5 of 65 (7.7%) for placebo. In patients treated with ozanimod, endoscopic remission and clinical remission were highly concordant with histologic remission (87.1% and 82.6%, respectively) at Week 32. Concordance between endoscopic remission and histologic remission at Week 32 was high in both the 1 and 0.5 mg groups (83.6% and 90.8%, respectively). Across ozanimod patients, concordance between histologic remission and normalised Physician Global Assessment (PGA = 0) was 75.8%, the absence of diarrhoea (SFS = 0) was 73.5%, and rectal bleeding (RBS = 0) was 65.2%. Ozanimod was effective in the induction of clinical, endoscopic, and histologic remission at Week 32 in patients with moderate-to-severe UC. Histologic remission at Week 32 following treatment with ozanimod is highly concordant with endoscopic and clinical remission.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".