MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167877919 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab075.022

OP23 Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib as induction therapy in patients with Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: Results from phase 3 U-ACCOMPLISH study

2021· article· en· W3167877919 on OpenAlexaff
Séverine Vermeire, Silvio Danese, Wen Zhou, Aileen L. Pangan, Susan Greenbloom, Geert D’Haens, Julián Panés, Pascal Juillerat, James O. Lindsay, Edward V. Loftus, William J. Sandborn, Walter Reinisch, Yuri Sánchez González, B Huang, Wenhui Xie, J Liu, Michael Weinreich, Remo Panaccione

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointInternal medicineUlcerative colitisPlaceboPopulationGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialClinical trialAdverse effectSurgeryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Upadacitinib (UPA) is a selective and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor.U-ACCOMPLISH is one of two phase 3 induction trials that evaluated the safety and efficacy of UPA 45 mg once daily (QD) in adults with ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods U-ACCOMPLISH was a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (NCT03653026) that enrolled patients with moderate-to-severe UC (defined as adapted Mayo score 5–9 with centrally read endoscopic score 2–3) who had inadequate response, loss of response, or intolerance to aminosalicylates, immunosuppressants, corticosteroids and/or biologics. Patients were randomized 2:1 to UPA 45 mg QD or placebo (PBO) for 8 weeks. At week 8, responders entered the maintenance phase and non-responders entered the extended treatment period to receive open-label UPA 45 mg QD for additional 8 weeks.The primary endpoint (clinical remission per adapted Mayo Score) and ranked secondary endpoints including symptomatic, endoscopic– histologic evaluations from the 8-week PBO-controlled period are reported here. Non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation for missing data due to COVID-19 are reported. Results 522 patients were randomized (UPA, n=345; PBO, n=177); the intent-to-treat population included 341 patients in UPA and 174 patients in PBO group. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar between groups; 50.7% and 51.1% were biologic inadequate responders in UPA and PBO groups, respectively (Table 1). A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving UPA 45 mg QD (33.5%) versus PBO (4.1%) achieved the primary endpoint (adjusted treatment difference: 29.0% [23.2, 34.7]; P<0.001). A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving UPA versus PBO also achieved all ranked secondary endpoints (all P<0.001; Figure 1).Serious adverse events were reported by 3.2% and 4.5% of patients in UPA and PBO groups, respectively (Table 2). Similar rates of serious infection were observed in both groups (0.6%); 2 events each of herpes zoster and opportunistic infection were reported in UPA group. No active tuberculosis, malignancy, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events, or deaths were reported in the study. One patient with venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) and 1 patient with gastrointestinal perforation were reported in the placebo group. Conclusion In U-ACCOMPLISH, 8-week UPA 45 mg QD induction treatment led to statistically significant improvements in clinical, endoscopic, and combined endoscopic-histologic endpoints. The treatment was well tolerated, and the safety profile and AE prevalence was comparable with previous studies of UPA with no new safety signals identified.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and ColitisSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207