MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S0725 Impact of Infliximab-dyyb (Infliximab Biosimilar) on Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes: 1-Year Follow-Up Results From an Observational Real World Study Among Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease (ONWARD Study)

2020· article· en· W3093998083 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bincy Abraham, Bertus Eksteen, Khan Nedd, Hrishikesh Kale, Dipen Patel, Jennifer Stephens, Ahmed Shelbaya, Richard Chambers, Arif Soonasra

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsAlberta Science Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfliximabMedicineUlcerative colitisBiosimilarInflammatory bowel diseaseInternal medicineAdverse effectObservational studyProspective cohort studyGastroenterologyPhysical therapyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to describe the effects of infliximab-dyyb, a biosimilar to reference product (RP) infliximab, on clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) including Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) patients in a real-world setting. METHODS: In this prospective, observational study, patients with IBD in the US and Canada were recruited to begin treatment with infliximab-dyyb. Patients, divided into biological naive users of infliximab-dyyb (naive users) and those switching from RP infliximab to infliximab-dyyb, were followed for 1 year. Clinical outcomes assessed were partial Mayo score (PMS) and Harvey Bradshaw Index (HBI) for the UC and CD cohort, respectively. Clinical response (PMS/HBI reduction ≥3 points) and remission (PMS <3 or HBI <5) were measured. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) included: Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (SIBDQ) and EuroQol Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS). Changes from baseline were assessed using mixed models for repeated measures. Adverse events (overall/treatment-related) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 67 CD and 48 UC patients initiating treatment with infliximab-dyyb were enrolled (51% female; mean age 44 years; 87% Caucasian; mean BMI 27.9). Of them, 39 patients were naive users, 57 were switched from RP infliximab, and 19 were switched from other biologics. Among UC naïve users, PMS improved (P < 0.0001) and remission rate increased from baseline (P = 0.0015; Table 1). For UC patients switching from RP infliximab to infliximab-dyyb, PMS improved from baseline (P = 0.0103; Table 1). CD naive users and patients switching from RP infliximab had low baseline HBI scores which where maintained over time (Table 2). Among all naïve users, SIBDQ and EQ-VAS scores improved from baseline (P < 0.0001 and 0.0135; Table 3). Patients switching from RP infliximab maintained SIBDQ and EQ-VAS scores (P = 0.1416 and 0.0675; Table 3). Regarding adverse events, 22 occurred related to treatment (including 5 lack of response, 4 infusion reaction, 2 immunogenicity, and 2 hypersensitivity reaction). Overall, 19 (17%) patients discontinued infliximab-dyyb. CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes among naive users of infliximab-dyyb improved for UC and were maintained for CD patients. Naive users of infliximab-dyyb showed significant improvements in PROs. Patients switching from RP infliximab to infliximab-dyyb maintained their clinical outcomes and quality of life.Table 1Table 2Table 3

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsFrench-language works237,207