MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Ustekinumab Is Effective for the Induction and Maintenance of Response in Crohnʼs Disease: A Multi-center Cohort Study

2016· article· en· W2977577170 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Ma, Richard N. Fedorak, Gilaad G. Kaplan, Levinus A. Dieleman, Karen I. Kroeker, Cynthia Seow, Yvette Leung, Kerri L. Novak, Brendan P. Halloran, Vivian Huang, Karen K. Wong, Shane Devlin, Subrata Ghosh, Remo Panaccione

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUstekinumabDiscontinuationMaintenance therapyCrohn's diseaseInternal medicineRegimenRetrospective cohort studyClinical trialInterquartile rangeSurgeryDiseaseAdalimumabChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: While ustekinumab is not yet approved to treat Crohn's disease (CD), clinicians have begun to prescribe it off-label due to promising clinical trials. We assess the real-world efficacy of ustekinumab for induction of clinical response in CD patients. We also evaluate the proportion of ustekinumab primary responders who develop secondary loss of response during maintenance therapy. Methods: A retrospective multicenter cohort study was performed at two academic institutions on patients with CD who received ustekinumab between 2011-2016. The primary outcome was induction of clinical response at 3 months, defined by reduction in Harvey Bradshaw Index of >2 points and tapering off corticosteroids. Secondary loss of response was defined by clinical, endoscopic, or radiographic disease activity requiring dose escalation, rescue steroids/immunomodulators, surgical resection, or ustekinumab discontinuation. Patients were stratified by weight-adjusted induction dose (3 vs. 6mg/kg), method of induction (intravenous vs. subcutaneous), and initial maintenance regimen (q8 vs. 12 weeks). The proportion of patients on ustekinumab with clinical response was determined at 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: 82 CD patients met inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 45.6 weeks (IQR 33.0-66.6). 75 patients (91.4%) had previously failed anti-TNF therapy and 61 patients (74.4%) had failed more than one biologic. 55 patients (67.1%) had clinical response to induction therapy at 3 months. Among 78 CD patients who were followed for or discontinued drug prior to 6 months, 67.9% (53/78) were still on treatment and in clinical response. 49.3% (33/67) of patients followed for 12 months or discontinuing drug prior to 12 months were on drugt and responding at 1 year. There were no differences in proportion of patients achieving response at 3, 6, or 12 months when stratified by induction dose (p=0.40-0.94), maintenance dose (p=0.30-0.75), or induction method (p=0.12-0.58). Among 55 primary induction responders, 60.0% (33/55) maintained response to end of follow-up. Median time to secondary loss of response was 45.6 weeks (IQR 33.0-66.6 weeks). Twenty-six patients (31.7%) experienced an adverse effect, predominantly arthralgias (11.0%) and infections (13.4%). Conclusion: In this cohort of CD outpatients, the majority of whom had previously failed multiple biologic agents, ustekinumab was effective for inducing clinical response and this response was maintained over long-term follow-up.Table 1: Baseline patient demographic and clinical characteristics of 82 patients treated with ustekinumab between 2011 and 2015

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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