MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P012 Ozanimod Reduced Fecal Calprotectin Levels in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis in the Phase 3 True North Study

2020· article· en· W3111776575 on OpenAlexaff
Subrata Ghosh, DʼHaens Geert, Vipul Jairath, Rieder Florian, Petersen AnnKatrin, Keith Usiskin, Chitkara Denesh, Colombel Jean-Frédéric

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCalprotectinUlcerative colitisPlaceboCohortPopulationGastroenterologyInflammatory bowel diseasePathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ozanimod is an orally-administered sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator that binds with high affinity to S1P1 and S1P5 receptor subtypes. Ozanimod demonstrated efficacy and safety for up to 52 weeks of treatment in patients with moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) in the double-blind, randomized, phase 3 True North study. Fecal calprotectin (FCP), which occurs as a consequence of neutrophils in the gastrointestinal tissue from an inflammatory process, is strongly correlated with endoscopic activity in UC. The aim of this analysis was to assess the change in FCP in a prespecified biomarker analysis of patients in the True North study. METHODS: True North was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating the efficacy and safety of oral ozanimod HCl 1 mg/day (equivalent to ozanimod 0.92 mg) vs placebo once daily over a 10-week induction period and a 42-week maintenance period in patients with moderately-to-severely active UC. In the induction period, patients in Cohort 1 were randomized to receive double-blind ozanimod or placebo and patients in Cohort 2 received open label ozanimod. Patients in either cohort who responded to ozanimod at week 10 were re-randomized to receive double-blind ozanimod or placebo for the maintenance period up to week 52. FCP was assessed at baseline, week 10, and week 52. The proportion of patients with FCP response stratified by baseline FCP was evaluated at weeks 10 and 52. RESULTS: At baseline, mean FCP levels were 2509 µg/g in patients randomized to ozanimod (n = 422) and 3440 µg/g in those randomized to placebo (n = 214) in Cohort 1. A total of 451 patients who responded to ozanimod in the induction period (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2) were re-randomized in the maintenance period and had FCP data; 226 continued to receive ozanimod (mean baseline FCP, 2284 µg/g) and 225 received placebo (mean baseline FCP, 2987 µg/g). FCP levels were significantly improved with ozanimod vs placebo in both induction and maintenance periods. Mean (SD) change in FCP with ozanimod vs placebo was -470.2 (6887.9) µg/g vs 21.1 (7919.1) µg/g at week 10 (P = 0.002) and -1575.1 (4427.9) µg/g vs -463.3 (7370.6) µg/g at week 52 (P = 0.019). Of patients with elevated FCP at baseline using cutoffs of >50 and >150 µg/g, significantly more patients had reduced FCP levels below those respective cutoffs at week 10 with ozanimod vs placebo: 21% vs 6% and 33% vs 9.5% for baseline FCP >50 and >150 µg/g, respectively (P < 0.001, both). At week 52, patients with elevated FCP at baseline who remained on ozanimod were significantly more likely to have FCP levels below these cutoffs vs those clinical responders re-randomized to placebo, 46% vs 24% and 57% vs 38% for baseline FCP >50 and >150 respectively (P < 0.01, both). CONCLUSION: In patients with moderately-to-severely active UC, ozanimod led to significant reductions in FCP during induction and maintenance therapy, with a greater proportion of patients achieving FCP response with ozanimod vs placebo across multiple baseline FCP cutoffs. These results are consistent with the inhibition of inflammation in the gut by ozanimod in patients with moderate-to-severe UC.

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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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