MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206933741 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab232.038

OP39 Shorter disease duration is associated with better outcomes in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s Disease treated with risankizumab: Results from the phase 3 ADVANCE, MOTIVATE, and FORTIFY studies

2022· article· en· W4206933741 on OpenAlexaff
Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, J F Colombel, Édouard Louis, Marc Ferrante, Satoshi Motoya, Remo Panaccione, Joana Torres, Ryan C. Ungaro, Kristina Kligys, Jasmina Kalabic, Javier Zambrano, Y Zhang, Geert D’Haens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMaintenance therapyInternal medicineCrohn's diseasePlaceboClinical trialPost-hoc analysisConfidence intervalPost hocInduction therapyDiseaseGastroenterologySurgeryChemotherapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background An association between shorter disease duration and improved clinical efficacy has been shown in post hoc analyses of clinical trial data with biological therapies in Crohn’s disease (CD). The efficacy and safety of risankizumab (RZB) as induction and maintenance therapy have been recently reported. Here, the efficacy of RZB stratified by baseline CD duration is reported. Methods In ADVANCE (NCT03105128) and MOTIVATE (NCT03104413), patients with moderately to severely active CD received intravenous (IV) RZB induction therapy or placebo (PBO) for 12 weeks. Patients with clinical response to RZB IV induction were re-randomised in a 52-week maintenance study (FORTIFY, NCT03105102) to receive subcutaneous (SC) RZB or PBO (ie, withdrawal). For this post-hoc analysis, patient subgroups were stratified by years of CD duration at baseline (< 2, 2–5, > 5–10, and > 10 years). Induction analyses focused on patients who received RZB 600 mg IV or PBO for 12 weeks. As all patients who entered maintenance responded to RZB IV induction, maintenance analyses were limited to those patients who responded to induction and then received RZB 360 mg SC for 52 weeks. Clinical and endoscopic outcomes were evaluated using nonresponder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Safety was assessed throughout the studies. Results The induction and maintenance analyses included 527 patients who received RZB 600 mg IV and 141 patients who received RZB 360 mg SC, respectively. At the end of induction (week 12), patients with CD duration of < 2 years achieved higher rates of endoscopic outcomes with IV RZB induction vs patients with longer durations of disease (Figure 1), and regardless of baseline CD duration, greater proportions of RZB-treated patients achieved clinical remission (defined by stool frequency and abdominal pain), endoscopic response, endoscopic remission, and ulcer-free endoscopy vs PBO (P ≤ .05). Clinical remission rates at week 12 were numerically higher in patients with CD duration of < 5 years vs > 5 years (Figure 1). Similar results for improved clinical and endoscopic outcomes associated with shorter disease duration were observed at week 52 with RZB 360 mg SC maintenance treatment (Figure 2). RZB was well tolerated with lower rates of serious adverse events and serious infections vs PBO in induction, across CD duration subgroups. Conclusion RZB induction and maintenance therapy was effective and well tolerated with a safety profile generally similar across CD duration subgroups. Achievement of clinical and endoscopic endpoints were higher in patients with shorter duration of CD, suggesting that earlier introduction of RZB therapy may lead to improved outcomes.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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