MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4212837931 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab049.036

A37 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF RISANKIZUMAB AS MAINTENANCE THERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH CROHN’S DISEASE: 52 WEEK RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 3 FORTIFY STUDY

2022· article· en· W4212837931 on OpenAlexaff
Remo Panaccione, Marc Ferrante, B G Feagan, William J. Sandborn, Julián Panés, Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, Jean-Frederick Colombel, Stefan Schreiber, Marla C. Dubinsky, Filip Baert, Tadakazu Hisamatsu, Ezequiel Neimark, B Huang, Xiaoli Liao, Alexandra Song, Sjoerd A.A. van den Berg, W. Rachel Duan, Yinuo Pang, Valerie Pivorunas, Kristina Kligys, Kori Wallace, Geert D’Haens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboGastroenterologyInternal medicineAbdominal painCrohn's diseaseClinical endpointPhases of clinical researchCalprotectinMaintenance therapyClinical trialRandomized controlled trialInflammatory bowel diseaseDiseaseChemotherapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Risankizumab (RZB), an anti-IL-23 p19 inhibitor, was well-tolerated and superior to placebo (PBO) in inducing clinical remission and endoscopic response in patients (pts) with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease (CD) in two phase 3 studies at 12 weeks. Aims FORTIFY (NCT03105102), was a 52-week (wk) phase 3 double-blind, re-randomized responder withdrawal study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of continuing RZB as subcutaneous (SC) maintenance therapy versus withdrawal to placebo in pts achieving induction response to RZB Methods Week 12 IV RZB responders were re-randomized 1:1:1 to: RZB SC 360mg (N=141), RZB 180mg (N=157), or PBO (withdrawal from IV RZB; N=164) every 8wks for 52wks. Co-primary endpoints were clinical remission (per CD Activity Index [CDAI] (US); or stool frequency/abdominal pain score [SF/APS] (OUS) and endoscopic response at wk52. Other clinical and endoscopic endpoints, inflammatory biomarkers, RZB serum levels, and safety were assessed over time. Results Rates of clinical remission (CDAI, SF/APS) and clinical response were similar for RZB and PBO groups through wk24, with rates lower for PBO thereafter. At wk52, clinical remission (CDAI, SF/APS) and endoscopic response rates were significantly higher with RZB 360mg than PBO ( P<0.01); RZB 180mg was superior to PBO for clinical remission per CDAI and endoscopic response ( P<0.01). Endoscopic remission and deep remission rates increased over time with 360mg, remained steady with 180mg, and decreased with PBO. Mean fecal calprotectin (FCP) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels decreased with SC RZB, but increased with PBO, over 52wks. Exposure-adjusted event rates (per 100 pts-years) of serious adverse event (AE) were generally similar among groups (360mg, 21.0 E/100PY and 180mg, 19.5 E/100PY vs PBO, 19.3 E/100PY), as were AEs leading to drug discontinuation (4.8 E/100PY and 2.4 E/100PY vs 3.7 E/100PY), and serious infections (6.0 E/100PY and 3.0 E/100PY vs 5.0 E/100PY). Conclusions In pts with moderate-to-severe CD, a robust pharmacodynamic effect on the IL-23 pathway after 12wks RZB IV induction was maintained with RZB SC maintenance therapy. The durability of RZB was demonstrated with high rates of efficacy over the 52-wk study. RZB was superior to PBO for achieving clinical remission and endoscopic response at wk52. Results for the more stringent endpoints (endoscopic remission\deep remission) and persistent improvements in inflammatory biomarkers are consistent with a dose response relationship. Continued RZB SC maintenance treatment was generally safe and well-tolerated. Funding Agencies AbbVie

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→