MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206941171 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab232.618

P491 Efficacy and safety outcomes of long-term treatment with filgotinib 200 mg among patients with Ulcerative Colitis: An interim analysis of SELECTIONLTE

2022· article· en· W4206941171 on OpenAlexaff
B G Feagan Senior Scientific Officer, Katsuyoshi Matsuoka, Gerhard Rogler, Margaux Faes, Alessandra Oortwijn, Antje Haas, C Rudolph, Haridarshan Patel, Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUlcerative colitisAdverse effectInternal medicineInterim analysisQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical endpointIncidence (geometry)PlaceboSurrogate endpointPropensity score matchingClinical trialSurgeryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Filgotinib (FIL) is a once-daily, oral, Janus kinase 1 preferential inhibitor in development as an ulcerative colitis (UC) therapy. In the phase 2b/3 SELECTION trial, FIL 200 mg (FIL200) was well tolerated and effective in inducing and maintaining clinical remission vs placebo (PBO) in patients with UC.1 We assessed the efficacy and safety of continued FIL200 therapy in the SELECTION long-term extension (LTE) study. Methods The SELECTION programme comprised SELECTION (NCT02914522)1 and an ongoing LTE study, SELECTIONLTE (NCT02914535). Adults with moderately to severely active UC received induction (IND) FIL200 or FIL100 or PBO for 11 weeks in SELECTION. Patients in clinical remission or Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) response at week 10 (responders) could enter the 47-week Maintenance (MNT) Study. Patients who completed the SELECTION IND and MNT studies (completers), IND non-responders and patients with disease worsening during MNT could enter SELECTIONLTE. This interim analysis assessed the efficacy of open-label FIL200 among completers and non-responders in SELECTIONLTE up to LTE weeks 48 and 96, respectively. Partial MCS (pMCS) and achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in total health-related quality of life (HRQoL) IBDQ score (≥16-point increase vs baseline) were assessed over time. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates per 100 patient-years of exposure (PYE) of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and TEAEs of interest were assessed in patients treated with open-label FIL200 in the LTE. Results These analyses included 147 completers and 372 non-responders (IND FIL200, n=160; IND FIL100, n=212). Data were available for 136 completers at LTE week 48 and for 97 IND FIL200 and 139 IND FIL100 non-responders at LTE week 96. Among completers, the mean pMCS reductions observed in SELECTION were maintained up to LTE week 48 (Figure 1). Among IND FIL200 and FIL100 non-responders, mean pMCS decreased from LTE baseline to week 96 (Figure 2). The proportion of patients achieving the MCID in total IBDQ score increased over time among completers (IND week 10, 90.4%; LTE week 48, 96.1%) and IND FIL200 non-responders (LTE week 48, 60.6%; LTE week 96, 66.7%) (Table 1). Safety events among patients treated with open-label FIL200 in the LTE study (total PYE, 970.9) to the date analysed are reported in Table 2. Conclusion FIL200 was effective in maintaining long-term improvements in UC symptoms and HRQoL among patients who completed SELECTION. Among non-responders, initiating open-label FIL200 in the LTE study led to improvements in UC symptoms and HRQoL that were sustained over time. Safety events were as expected in the LTE study based on initial data. Reference 1. Feagan BF et al. Lancet 2021;397:2372–84.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and ColitisSame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207