MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

836 Tofacitinib Efficacy in Patients With Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis: Subgroup Analyses of OCTAVE Induction 1 & 2 and OCTAVE Sustain by 5-Aminosalicylates Use

2019· article· en· W2979818193 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen B. Hanauer, David T. Rubin, Paolo Gionchetti, Chinyu Su, Deborah Woodworth, Daniel Quirk, Leonardo Salese, Wenjin Wang, Amy Marren, Nervin Lawendy, Remo Panaccione

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTofacitinibMedicineOctave (electronics)ConcomitantInternal medicinePlaceboUlcerative colitisRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologySurgeryRheumatoid arthritisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Tofacitinib is an oral, small molecule JAK inhibitor for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The efficacy and safety of tofacitinib were demonstrated in 3 Phase 3 trials (OCTAVE Induction 1 & 2, NCT01465763 & NCT01458951; OCTAVE Sustain, NCT01458574) in patients (pts) with moderate to severe UC (1). In this post-hoc analysis, we explored tofacitinib efficacy for pts with (c5-ASA) and without (n5-ASA) concomitant 5-aminosalicylates use. METHODS: In OCTAVE Induction 1 & 2, pts received placebo (PBO) or tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily (BID) for 8 weeks; clinical responders were re-randomized into OCTAVE Sustain for 52 weeks and received PBO, tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID. c5-ASA were permitted at entry, provided doses were stable for ≥4 weeks prior to and during the trials. Remission and mucosal healing were summarized at Week 8 (OCTAVE Induction 1 & 2) and Week 52 (OCTAVE Sustain) by c5-ASA status. Generalized linear models were used to compare adjusted treatment effects between 5-ASA subgroups (Tables 1 and 2). RESULTS: A smaller proportion of c5-ASA pts had prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and immunosuppressant failure versus n5-ASA pts, at baseline of OCTAVE Induction and OCTAVE Sustain (OCTAVE Induction 1 & 2: TNFi failure, 42.7% vs 74.5%; immunosuppressant failure, 69.4% vs 78.3%; OCTAVE Sustain: TNFi failure, 36% vs 70%; immunosuppressant failure, 67.9% vs 80%). For both the 5-ASA subgroups, a higher proportion of tofacitinib-treated pts achieved efficacy endpoints, versus PBO-treated pts, at Week 8 of OCTAVE Induction 1 & 2 and Week 52 of OCTAVE Sustain (Tables 1 and 2). Without controlling for baseline variables, higher treatment effects were observed within the c5-ASA subgroup versus the n5-ASA subgroup. When controlled for prior TNFi and immunosuppressant failure (and baseline remission status in OCTAVE Sustain), the differences were not statistically significant in treatment effects between the 5-ASA subgroups in terms of adjusted odds ratios (Tables 1 and 2). CONCLUSION: When controlling for prior UC treatment status, efficacy of tofacitinib, based on adjusted odds ratios, was similar regardless of 5-ASA status. These post-hoc analyses were not intended to evaluate incremental benefit of 5-ASA as combination therapy for tofacitinib.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.009
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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