MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949235056 · doi:10.1055/s-0039-1691867

Effects of Ustekinumab Induction Therapy on Endoscopic and Histologic Healing in the UNIFI Phase 3 Study in Ulcerative Colitis

2019· article· en· W2949235056 on OpenAlexaff
K Li, FR Joshua, Colleen Marano, H Zhang, Feifei Yang, B. Feagan, Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, Gert De Hertogh

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Gastroenterologie · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUstekinumabUlcerative colitisMedicineInternal medicineGastroenterologyDiseaseInfliximab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Ustekinumab (UST) is an effective therapy for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC), however data regarding histologic healing and the combination of histologic and endoscopic healing are unknown. Methods: We evaluated the effects of UST on histologic and endoscopic activity in the UNIFI Phase 3 induction study of UST in moderate-to-severe UC (n = 961). Two colonic biopsies were collected from the distal colon at Week 8. Subjects not in response to PBO at Week 8 received UST6 mg/kg IV, and those not in response to UST IV received UST90 mg SC; biopsies were obtained from these groups at Week 16. Endoscopic healing (EH) was defined as a Mayo endoscopy score ≤1; histologic healing (HH) comprised the Geboes score-based criteria. Histo-endoscopic mucosal healing (HEMH) was defined as achieving both EH and HH. Results: At Week 8, EH was achieved in 26.6% and 13.8% of subjects treated with UST (combined 130 mg and 6 mg/kg IV doses) and PBO, respectively. HH was achieved in 36.8% and 21.9% of UST and PBO-treated subjects, respectively. HEMH was achieved in 19.3% and 8.9% of UST and PBO-treated subjects, respectively. Similar rates of EH, HH, and HEMH were achieved following induction treatment with UST130 mg or 6 mg/kg IV. Subjects not in response at Week 8 were treated with UST re-evaluated at Week 16; of these, 12.1% and 16.5% of subjects who initially received UST or PBO IV, respectively, achieved HEMH. HH at Week 8 or Week 16 was significantly associated with EH and HEMH (Tab. 1). Table 1: Clinical Outcomes for Subjects with or without Histologic Healing at Week 8 and Week 16 in the UNIFI Phase 3 Induction Study Clinical Outcomes Histologic Healing a Without Histologic Healing a p-value b Week 8 N = 283 N = 533 Mayo Score 3.95 ± 2.57 6.89 ± 2.53 < 0.0001 Partial Mayo Score 2.45 ± 1.84 4.39 ± 2.21 < 0.0001 Stool Frequency 1.09 ± 0.95 1.81 ± 1.03 < 0.0001 Rectal Bleeding 0.30 ± 0.56 0.86 ± 0.89 < 0.0001 Change in Mayo Score -4.53 ± 2.65 -2.15 ± 2.39 < 0.0001 Change in Partial Mayo Score -3.46 ± 2.14 -1.89 ± 2.12 < 0.0001 Change in Stool Frequency -1.08 ± 1.01 -0.63 ± 0.90 < 0.0001 Change in Rectal Bleeding -1.18 ± 0.91 -0.69 ± 0.96 < 0.0001 Week 16 N = 140 N = 209 Mayo Score 3.71 ± 1.94 6.01 ± 2.43 < 0.0001 Partial Mayo Score 1.98 ± 1.27 3.44 ± 2.08 < 0.0001 Stool Frequency 0.96 ± 0.83 1.56 ± 1.02 < 0.0001 Rectal Bleeding 0.13 ± 0.38 0.51 ± 0.69 < 0.0001 Change in Mayo Score -4.95 ± 2.02 -3.08 ± 2.32 < 0.0001 Change in Partial Mayo Score -4.04 ± 1.63 -2.83 ± 2.07 < 0.0001 Change in Stool Frequency -1.31 ± 0.90 -0.92 ± 0.99 0.0003 Change in Rectal Bleeding -1.30 ± 0.89 -0.99 ± 0.85 0.0012 a: Values are reported as mean ± SD. b: P-values based on t-test. Conclusions: Among subjects with moderately-to-severely active UC, those receiving IV UST induction had higher rates of EH, HH, and HEMH than those receiving PBO. Approximately 10% of subjects who did not achieve clinical response 8 weeks after IV UST achieved HEMH following a second dose.

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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift für GastroenterologieSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207