MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S785 Alicaforsen Enema in Chronic Pouchitis: Results of a Phase 3 Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial

2021· article· en· W3208625944 on OpenAlexaff
Brian G. Feagan, James O. Lindsay, Gerhard Rogler, Gordon W. Moran, Nermeen Varawalla

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunodeficiency and Autoimmune Disorders
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePouchitisPlaceboInternal medicineOdds ratioGastroenterologyClinical endpointTolerabilityRandomized controlled trialEnemaPouchSurgeryAdverse effectUlcerative colitisDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Antibiotic refractory pouchitis is an intractable disorder with no evidence based medical therapies available. Alicaforsen, a selective, antisense oligonucleotide that inhibits ICAM-1 was evaluated in the largest ever randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Methods: 138 subjects were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to 240 mg alicaforsen or placebo enema, self-administered once daily. Eligible subjects had active pouchitis for at least 4 weeks defined as a Mayo endoscopy score modified for pouchitis of ≥2, stool frequency of ≥6 stools and ≥3 stools per day above the post IPAA baseline, and histology. Following a 6-week treatment course subjects were followed for safety assessment for the sooner of 20 weeks or disease flare. The primary objectives were to determine the effect of alicaforsen enema on endoscopic remission and stool frequency at week 10. Secondary objectives included assessment of safety and tolerability, changes in histology and pharmacokinetic analysis. Results: At Week 10, 94% of subjects in the alicaforsen and placebo groups had a unchanged modified Mayo Endoscopy Score making the odds ratio of endoscopic remission 0.93 (95% CI: 0.181, 4.819). It was found that ulceration covered a minimal area of the pouch, hence questioning the value of modified Mayo endoscopy score for patient selection or efficacy. Whilst 33.8% of subjects in the alicaforsen vs 26.2% in the placebo group achieved clinical remission, with an odds ratio of 1.44 (95% CI: 0.668, 3.103). There were no differences for any of the secondary endpoints. Although the treatment was safe and well tolerated, 33.3% of subjects in the alicaforsen and 36.2% in the placebo group dropped out. Pharmacokinetic data confirmed minimal systemic exposure to alicaforsen. Conclusion: The study demonstrates the clinical benefit of alicaforsen enema in chronic pouchitis as determined by improvement of stool frequency and confirms its safety and tolerability. The modified Mayo endoscopy score is inappropriate for patient selection and disease assessment in chronic pouchitis. Statistical efficacy analysis was likely to have been compromised by the 35% discontinuation rate, a result of disallowing antibiotics and rectal budesonide. In view of the possible clinical benefits, robust safety and tolerability of alicaforsen enema; further evaluation is warranted not only in chronic pouchitis but also with priority in distal ulcerative colitis which has better defined measures for patient selection and treatment assessment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.282
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicImmunodeficiency and Autoimmune DisordersFrench-language works237,207