OP28 The effect of guselkumab induction therapy on early clinical outcome measures in patients with Moderately to Severely Active Crohn’s Disease: Results from the phase 2 GALAXI 1 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Guselkumab (GUS), an IL-23 antagonist, is being investigated for the treatment of IBD. GALAXI 1 is a ph2, double-blind, PBO-controlled study in pts with moderately to severely active CD with inadequate response or intolerance to conventional therapies (corticosteroid, immunosuppressant) and/or biologics (TNF antagonist, vedolizumab). Here we report early clinical outcome measures during induction with GUS vs PBO. Methods Pts with moderate to severe CD (CDAI score 220–450) were randomized 1:1:1:1:1 to GUS 200, 600 or 1200mg IV at Wks 0, 4, 8; ustekinumab (UST) ~6mg/kg IV at Wk 0 and 90mg SC at Wk8; or PBO IV. Clinical remission (CDAI score<150), clinical response (≥100-point reduction from baseline in CDAI score or CDAI score<150), and clinical-biomarker response (clinical response and ≥50% reduction from baseline in CRP or fecal calprotectin) were evaluated at Wks 4, 8 and 12 for pooled GUS arms vs PBO. UST was a reference arm. Results Two hundred fifty pts were evaluated; about 50% failed previous biologic therapy. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally similar among treatment groups (mean CD duration, 8.8yr; mean CDAI, 306.2; median CRP, 5.4mg/L; median fecal calprotectin, 594.0mg/kg). At Wk4, clinical remission was achieved in 20.0% of GUS-treated pts compared with 11.8% of PBO-treated pts. A greater proportion of GUS-treated pts achieved clinical remission compared with PBO-treated pts at Wk8 (42.0% vs 15.7%) and Wk12 (54.0% vs 15.7%). Similarly, within each subgroup of pts who failed biologic therapy(BIO-failures) or conventional therapy(CON-failures), GUS-treated pts achieved a higher rate of clinical remission at Wks 4, 8 and 12 compared with PBO (Fig 1). The proportion of pts who achieved clinical response and clinical-biomarker response was also higher at Wks 4, 8 and 12 among GUS-treated pts compared with PBO-treated pts. From Wks 4 to 8 to 12, the proportion of GUS-treated pts in clinical response increased from 44.0% to 56.0% to 66.0%, respectively, and the proportion in clinical-biomarker response increased from 26.0% to 43.3% to 48.0%. In contrast, the proportion of PBO-treated pts who achieved clinical response and clinical-biomarker response remained stable or decreased from Wks 4 to 8 to 12: 25.5% to 25.5% to 23.5% and 13.7% to 9.8% to 7.8%, respectively (Fig 2). Conclusion In pts with moderately to severely active CD, induction treatment with GUS combined treatments versus PBO resulted in higher rates of overall clinical remission, clinical-biomarker response, and clinical response as early as Wk4. This continued to increase through Wk12 with treatment. The early trend for achievement of clinical remission was also evident in sub-groups of pts who failed biologic or conventional therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".