MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4207016245 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab232.123

DOP84 Risankizumab maintenance therapy results in sustained improvements in endoscopic outcomes in patients with moderate to severe Crohn’s Disease: Post-hoc analysis from the phase 3 study FORTIFY

2022· article· en· W4207016245 on OpenAlexaff
Peter M. Irving, María T. Abreu, Jeffrey Axler, Xiang Gao, Joana Torres, Ezequiel Neimark, Alexandra Song, Kori Wallace, Kristina Kligys, Sjoerd A.A. van den Berg, Xiaoli Liao, Remo Panaccione

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryTD Bank GroupSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMaintenance therapyPlaceboPost-hoc analysisCrohn's diseaseInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologySurgeryDiseaseChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Data from Phase 3 studies in Crohn’s disease (CD) demonstrated significant improvements in endoscopic outcomes with risankizumab (RZB) versus placebo (PBO) following 12-weeks (wks) induction therapy. Continued maintenance therapy with 360mg RZB SC led to significantly higher rates of endoscopic response and remission at Wk52 compared to withdrawal/placebo. This post-hoc analysis examined the durability of SC RZB maintenance therapy for endoscopic outcomes among patients achieving these endpoints at the end of induction Methods Patients achieving clinical response with 12-wks IV RZB induction therapy in ADVANCE or MOTIVATE entered the maintenance study, FORTIFY, and received either RZB SC or had RZB withdrawn and received placebo for 52 wks. For this analysis, endoscopic outcomes in the RZB 360 mg SC (N=141) and withdrawal/placebo (N=164) arms are reported. Maintenance of endoscopic response, endoscopic remission, and/or an SES-CD score of 0–2 were assessed at Wk52 in patients who achieved these endpoints at Wk0 of maintenance (Wk12 of induction). Safety was assessed throughout the study. Results Following 12-wks of IV RZB induction therapy (FORTIFY Wk0), 141 patients were randomized to RZB 360 mg (patients achieving endoscopic response, 55/141; endoscopic remission, 39/141; SES-CD score of 0–2, 29/141) and 164 were randomized to withdrawal (PBO SC) (patients achieving endoscopic response, 73/164; endoscopic remission, 46/164; SES-CD 0–2, 32/164). Maintenance of endoscopic response at Wk52 was demonstrated in 70.2% (39/55) of patients receiving RZB 360 mg SC versus 38.4% (28/73) of patients in the withdrawal (PBO SC) arm (P<0.001). Maintenance of endoscopic remission at Wk52 was demonstrated in 74.4% (29/39) of patients receiving RZB 360 mg versus 23.9% (11/46) of patients in the withdrawal (PBO SC) arm (P<0.001). Maintenance of an SES-CD score from 0–2 at Wk52 was demonstrated in 65.5% (19/29) of patients receiving RZB 360 mg versus 21.9% (7/32) of patients in the withdrawal (PBO SC) arm (P<0.001).RZB maintenance treatment was well-tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. The safety profile of RZB has been reported previously.1–5 Conclusion RZB IV induction followed by SC maintenance therapy led to sustained improvements in endoscopic outcomes, demonstrating the durability of efficacy with continued RZB treatment in patients with moderate to severe CD. Reference 1. Feagan, B. G. et al. Lancet 389, 1699–1709 (2017) 2 Feagan, B. G. et al. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 3, 671–680 (2018) 3 Ferrante, M. et al. Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis jjab093 (2021) 4 Ferrante, M. et al. in UEGW 2021 5 D’Haens, G. et al. in DDW 2021

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)0.005
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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