MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Tofacitinib for Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Active Ulcerative Colitis in the Phase 3 OCTAVE Sustain Trial: Results by Local and Central Endoscopic Assessments

2017· article· en· W2914423557 on OpenAlexaff
Brian G. Feagan, Séverine Vermeire, William J. Sandborn, Walter Reinisch, Julián Panés, Dino Tarabar, Chinyu Su, Wojciech Niezychowski, Haiying Zhang, Gary S. Friedman, Deborah Woodworth, Bruce E. Sands

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTofacitinibUlcerative colitisConcomitantPlaceboClinical endpointInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologyPhases of clinical researchClinical trialSurgeryRheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Tofacitinib is an oral, small molecule JAK inhibitor that is being investigated for ulcerative colitis (UC). A Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled maintenance study (OCTAVE Sustain, NCT01458574) demonstrated the efficacy of tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg twice daily (BID) vs placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with moderate to severe UC.1 Methods: We describe clinical efficacy endpoints assessed by local endoscopy readings and previously reported results assessed by central readings, to compare local vs central readings in the assessment of tofacitinib efficacy. Pts who completed OCTAVE Induction 1 (NCT01465763) or OCTAVE Induction 2 (NCT01458951) studies and achieved clinical response (decrease of baseline Mayo score ≥3 points and ≥30%, with decrease in rectal bleeding subscore ≥1 or absolute rectal bleeding subscore ≤1) were eligible to participate in OCTAVE Sustain. 593 pts were randomized (1:1:1) to PBO, tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID for 53 weeks (wks). Pts' eligibility was assessed based on central endoscopic reading. Pts were permitted concomitant treatment with oral corticosteroids; tapering was mandatory from baseline. Concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants and biologics was prohibited. Efficacy endpoints at Wk 52 included remission (primary endpoint: Mayo score ≤2, no subscore >1 and rectal bleeding subscore of 0), mucosal healing (Mayo endoscopic subscore ≤1) and clinical response. Results: At Wk 52, remission was achieved by significantly more pts with both tofacitinib doses vs PBO, as demonstrated by both central and local endoscopic readings, and similar results were observed with mucosal healing, clinical response and sustained steroid-free remission among pts in remission at baseline. Efficacy assessed by local endoscopic readings was numerically greater than central readings, except for clinical response. There was good agreement between locally and centrally read endoscopic subscores (kappa=0.6 [95% CI 0.5, 0.6]). Conclusion: Efficacy assessed by local endoscopic readings was numerically greater than efficacy assessed by central readings for tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID vs PBO. Overall, local endoscopic readings were consistent with central readings. Both methods demonstrated that both tofacitinib doses were more effective than PBO for maintenance therapy in pts with moderately to severely active UC. Funded by Pfizer Inc.Table: Table. Summary of efficacy endpoints at Wk 52, determined by local and central reading

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→