MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4207033793 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab232.699

P573 The safety profile of upadacitinib maintenance therapy in ulcerative colitis in the Phase 3 U-ACHIEVE study is consistent with that in approved indications

2022· article· en· W4207033793 on OpenAlexaff
J F Colombel, Remo Panaccione, Hiroshi Nakase, Gerd R Burmester, Stanley Cohen, Philip Mease, Emma Guttman‐Yassky, J Liu, Wen Zhou, Dapo Ilo, Peter Higgins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectDiscontinuationUlcerative colitisContext (archaeology)Internal medicinePlaceboRheumatoid arthritisPsoriatic arthritisAnkylosing spondylitisMaintenance therapyJanus kinase inhibitorGastroenterologySurgeryTofacitinibChemotherapyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The oral, small-molecule, selective and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib (UPA) is approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) and ankylosing spondylitis, and is under investigation in ulcerative colitis (UC). This assessment reviewed adverse event (AE) data for UPA maintenance therapy in UC in the context of the known long-term safety profile of UPA in its approved indications. Methods Safety data were collated from patients with UC who responded to 8 weeks’ induction treatment with UPA 45 mg once daily (QD) and were enrolled in U-ACHIEVE to receive maintenance treatment (UPA 15 mg, 30 mg QD or placebo) for ≤52 weeks. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were defined as AEs with an onset on or after the first dose, and ≤30 days after the last dose, of study drug. Safety data were also collected from two AD (15 and 30 mg doses), six RA (15 mg dose in all, 30 mg dose in four) and two PsA (15 and 30 mg doses) Phase 3 trials. Exposure-adjusted event rates were calculated for TEAEs and AEs of special interest (AESIs). Results Data were available for 746 patients with UC who received 8 weeks’ induction with UPA 45 mg and were randomised to maintenance treatment as follows: placebo, n=245; UPA 15 mg, n=250; UPA 30 mg, n=251. Rates of any AEs, serious AEs, severe AEs and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were lower with both UPA doses versus placebo (Table 1). No deaths occurred. Rates of the above AE categories in patients with UC who received maintenance treatment with UPA 15 or 30 mg were within the ranges previously reported in AD, RA and PsA, apart from neutropenia (Table 1). AESI rates in UC were generally similar with UPA and placebo, except for higher rates of herpes zoster, creatine phosphokinase elevation, hepatic disorder, and venous thromboembolism (VTE), but lower rates of anaemia, with UPA (Table 2). Non-melanoma skin cancer was reported only with UPA 30 mg. One adjudicated major cardiovascular event was reported in each of the placebo and UPA 30 mg arms. VTE only occurred with UPA treatment (two events per arm). Based on the limited number of patients exposed, and apart from a higher VTE rate, AESI rates in the UC maintenance study were generally similar to those reported in patients receiving long-term treatment with UPA 15 or 30 mg QD in AD, RA or PsA. Conclusion The safety profile of UPA maintenance treatment in UC is consistent with that in its approved indications. Although VTE rates were higher in UC, background VTE risk is known to be increased in UC versus AD, RA and PsA. This review identified no new important safety risks.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and ColitisSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207