Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Ozanimod in Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: Results From the Open-Label Extension of the Randomized, Phase 2 TOUCHSTONE Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This analysis examined the long-term safety and efficacy of ozanimod in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis [UC] with ≥ 4 years of follow-up in the phase 2 TOUCHSTONE open-label extension [OLE]. METHODS: Patients receiving placebo or ozanimod HCl 0.5 mg or 1 mg during the double-blind period could enter the OLE [ozanimod HCl 1 mg daily]. Partial Mayo score [pMS] clinical response and remission were assessed through OLE week 200 and summarized descriptively using observed cases [OC] and non-responder imputation [NRI]. Endoscopy was required at OLE week 56 and the end of treatment. Parameters associated with endoscopy were summarized at weeks 56 and 104 [OC], and week 56 [NRI]. C-reactive protein and faecal calprotectin were assessed. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Of 197 patients receiving double-blind treatment, 170 entered the OLE. Discontinuation rates were 28% at year 1 and 15-18% annually through year 4. Partial Mayo measures indicated clinical response and remission rates at OLE week 200 of 93.3% and 82.7%, respectively, using OC and 41% and 37% with the more conservative NRI analysis. At weeks 56 and 104, respectively, histological remission rates were 46.3% and 38.5%, and endoscopic improvement rates were 46.4% and 46.5% [OC]. No new safety signals were identified during ≥ 4 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high rate of continued study participation and long-term benefit with ozanimod HCl 1 mg daily based on clinical, histological and biomarker measures in patients with moderately to severely active UC in the TOUCHSTONE OLE. [NCT02531126].
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".