MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3170606020 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab075.030

OP31 RESTORE: Interim analysis of a Phase 2 study of QBECO SSI for the induction and maintenance of clinical and endoscopic remission in subjects with Moderate to Severe Crohn’s Disease

2021· article· en· W3170606020 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Bressler, John K. Marshall, Kenneth G. Atkinson, Simon Sutcliffe, Jim Pankovich, Mark Jones, Shirin Kalyan, Hal Gunn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityRoyal Columbian HospitalCanadian Society of Intestinal Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterim analysisInternal medicineGastroenterologyClinical endpointClinical trialRandomized controlled trialSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Innate immune defects play a role in the pathogenesis of CD. Enhancing innate immune competency and restoring mucosal barrier function provide a novel approach to treat CD. QBECO SSI is a first-in-class immunotherapy designed to correct innate immune dysfunction underlying CD. This analysis is from subjects in the open label portion of a planned controlled trial. Objectives were to assess endoscopic response at Wks 16 and 26, and select the optimal induction timepoint for the RCT. Safety and treatment compliance were also evaluated. Methods 20 pts with moderate-to-severe CD were enrolled and received QBECO SSI by sc injection every other day for up to 52 wks. Minimum eligibility: Simple Endoscopic Score for CD (SES-CD) ≥7 (ileitis ≥4), abdominal pain (AP) score >21 (11-point scale) or liquid/very soft stools (SF) (BFS Type 6 or 7) >10 for 7 consecutive days during screening. Pts were evaluated for clinical symptoms and endoscopy at Wks 16, 26, and 52. After evaluation at the induction period (Wk 26) pts could continue in maintenance up to Wk 52. Endoscopies were evaluated by central blinded read and pts reported daily symptoms. Endoscopic response defined as ≥50% reduction in SES-CD from baseline. Clinical remission defined as AP and SF ≤21. Results Mean age was 43.6 (SD 13.6) yrs; 60% men and 60% previously treated with biologics. Mean yrs since CD diagnosis was 14.4 (10.1), AP score 30.4 (15.8), SF score 36.2 (19.1) and mean SES-CD at baseline was 12.5 (6.7) indicating a more difficult to treat population. Endoscopic response rate by central read during the induction period was 30% (6/20) overall, 38% (3/8) for biologic naïve and 25% (3/12) biologic experienced pts (ITT analysis). Similar number of pts achieved endoscopic response at Wk 16 (4 pts) as 26 (3 pts). Mean SES-CD improved through Wk 26 with a 0.6 point greater reduction at Wk 26 compared to 16. Change in SES-CD from baseline in biologic naïve pts was -2.9 (5.8) at Wk 16 and -4.1 (6.7) at 26. Clinical remission was achieved by 45% (9/20) of pts at Wk 16 and 40% (8/20) at Wk 26; 16 pts continued into the maintenance phase of the study. By central evaluation, 13% (2/16) were in endoscopic response at Wk 52. QBECO SSI was very well tolerated. 8/20 (40%) pts reported AEs related to treatment. Most frequency reported related AE was injection site erythema (2/20, 10% pts). Majority of AEs were mild and no other related AE was reported by more than 1 patient. Conclusion Week 26 was the optimal endoscopic evaluation timepoint for QBECO SSI treatment and will be utilized in the larger RCT. Both biologics naïve and experienced patients showed response to QBECO SSI treatment by Weeks 26 and 52, with higher response rates in biologics naïve patients. QBECO SSI was well tolerated.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→