MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4207041654 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab232.024

OP25 Patients with moderate to severe Crohn’s Disease with and without prior biologic failure demonstrate improved endoscopic outcomes with risankizumab: Results from phase 3 induction and maintenance trials

2022· article· en· W4207041654 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Ferrante, Qian Cao, Toshimitsu Fujii, Astrid Rausch, Ezequiel Neimark, Alexandra Song, Kori Wallace, Kristina Kligys, Qing Zhou, Jasmina Kalabic, Brian G. Feagan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboInternal medicineSubgroup analysisMaintenance therapyCrohn's diseaseRandomized controlled trialPopulationGastroenterologyEndoscopySurgeryDiseaseConfidence intervalChemotherapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Risankizumab (RZB), a selective interleukin-23 inhibitor, demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in endoscopic outcomes in patients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease (CD) during two phase 3 induction trials (ADVANCE and MOTIVATE) and the maintenance study (FORTIFY). Here, we compared the efficacy of RZB in inducing and maintaining improvements in endoscopic outcomes in patients with CD who demonstrated intolerance and/or inadequate response (IR) to biologic therapies (with prior bio-failure) versus those who demonstrated IR to conventional therapies only (without prior bio-failure). Methods Data included in this subgroup analysis included pooled data from patients randomized to receive intravenous (IV) RZB 600mg (N=527) or placebo (PBO) IV (N=362) every 4 weeks (wks) for 12wks during induction (ADVANCE+MOTIVATE), and data from patients receiving subcutaneous (SC) RZB 360mg (N=141) or withdrawn from RZB IV to receive PBO SC (withdrawal [PBO SC], N=164) every 8wks for 52-wks during maintenance. At Wks 12 and 52, endoscopic response, endoscopic remission, ulcer-free endoscopy (absence of ulceration), and deep remission (Wk52 only) were evaluated both in the overall population and in subpopulations of patients with and without prior bio-failure. (Endpoints are defined in Table footnotes). Safety was assessed throughout the studies. Results Approximately three-quarters of randomized patients included in this subgroup analysis had prior bio-failure (ADVANCE+MOTIVATE: 75.4%; FORTIFY: 73.8%). Higher rates of endoscopic response, endoscopic remission, and ulcer-free endoscopy were observed at Wk12 among patients receiving induction with RZB IV versus PBO IV. Subgroup analysis demonstrated treatment effects with risankizumab in patient subpopulations with and without prior bio-failure, with greater adjusted differences versus PBO in patients without prior bio-failure (Figure). At Wk52, endoscopic response, endoscopic remission, ulcer-free endoscopy, and deep remission rates favored RZB SC compared to withdrawal (PBO SC). Again, treatment effects were observed in patients with and without prior bio-failure, with greater adjusted differences versus withdrawal (PBO SC) in patients without prior bio-failure. RZB maintenance treatment was well-tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. The safety profile of RZB has been reported previously.1,2 Conclusion Induction and maintenance therapy with risankizumab achieved higher rates for endoscopic endpoints in patients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease versus placebo, regardless of prior bio-failure status. However, numerically higher efficacy rates were observed in patients without prior bio-failure. 1 D’Haens, G. et al. in DDW 2021 2 Ferrante, M. et al. in UEGW 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)0.004
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: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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