MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

OA27 Sustainability of response between upadacitinib and adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results through 3 years from the SELECT-COMPARE trial

2022· article· en· W4224327104 on OpenAlexaff
Maya H Buch, Peter Nash, Arthur Kavanaugh, Bernard Combe, Louis Bessette, In Ho Song, Tim Shaw, Yanna Song, J. Suboticki, R. Fleischmann

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdalimumabRheumatoid arthritisInternal medicineDiscontinuationPlaceboConcordanceMethotrexatePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Aims A greater proportion of patients with RA and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) receiving upadacitinib (UPA), achieved REM/LDA compared with adalimumab (ADA), both with background MTX, through 26 weeks in the phase 3, SELECT-COMPARE trial. Here we assessed sustainability of response over 3 years. Methods SELECT-COMPARE included a 26-week, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled period, a 48-week, double-blind active comparator-controlled period, and an ongoing long-term extension for up to 10 years. Patients on background MTX received UPA 15 mg once daily, PBO, or ADA 40 mg every other week. Patients not achieving at least 20% improvements in tender/swollen joint counts (Weeks 14-22) or LDA (CDAI ≤10 at Week 26) were rescued from UPA to ADA or PBO/ADA to UPA. This post hoc analysis evaluated clinical REM (CDAI ≤2.8; SDAI ≤3.3), LDA (CDAI ≤10; SDAI ≤11), and DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2 at first occurrence (prior to treatment switch [rescue]), and over 3 years following initial response in patients randomized to UPA or ADA. For those patients who achieved REM/LDA, Kaplan-Meier was used to define time from when the response was first achieved to the earliest date at which the response was lost at two consecutive visits, discontinuation of study drug, or losing response at the time of rescue. Predictive ability of time to CDAI REM/LDA was assessed using Harrell’s concordance (c)-index (range: 0 [all predictions wrong] to 1.0 [perfect predictive ability]). Non-responder imputation was used for missing data. Results Through 3 years, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving UPA + MTX vs ADA + MTX achieved CDAI REM (47% vs 35%, P = 0.001) as well as CDAI LDA (70% vs 60%, P = 0.001). At 30 months after first occurrence of response, CDAI REM/LDA was sustained in 19%/42% of patients randomized to UPA and 10%/30% of patients randomized to ADA. Time to initial clinical response did not appear to be predictive of sustained disease control. C-index for CDAI REM/LDA was 0.50/0.60 on UPA vs 0.49/0.56 on ADA. Through last follow-up visit, 37%/58% of patients receiving UPA and 27%/48% on ADA remained in CDAI REM/LDA, respectively. Of patients who lost CDAI REM, 68% on UPA and 55% on ADA remained in LDA. Roughly similar proportions on UPA and ADA recaptured CDAI REM/LDA (UPA, 40%/17%; ADA, 48%/19%). Similar results were observed for REM/LDA based on SDAI and for DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2. Conclusion Among patients with inadequate response to MTX, a higher proportion receiving UPA + MTX achieved remission or LDA across disease activity measures vs ADA + MTX. UPA-treated patients demonstrated a consistently higher sustained response rate over 3 years compared to those receiving ADA. Furthermore, significant proportions of patients who lost response on either UPA or ADA were able to recapture remission or LDA. Disclosure M.H. Buch: Consultancies; M.H.B. has received consulting fees/meeting support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingleheim, Eli Lilly, Merck-Serono, and Sanofi. Grants/research support; M.H.B. has received research grants from Pfizer, Gilead, and UCB. P. Nash: Honoraria; P.N. has received honoraria for lectures and advice from AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Gilead/Galapagos, Sanofi, Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, Janssen, UCB, Samsung, MSD, Roche. Grants/research support; P.N. has received research funding for clinical trials. A. Kavanaugh: Consultancies; A.K. has provided expert advice to AbbVie Inc., Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Grants/research support; A.K. has has received grants/research support. B. Combe: Consultancies; B.C. has received consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche Chugai. L. Bessette: Consultancies; L.B. has received consulting fees from Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novartis. Sandoz, Gilead, Fresenius Kabi, and Teva. Member of speakers’ bureau; L.B. has served as a speaker for Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novartis. Sandoz, Gilead, Fresenius Kabi, and Teva. Grants/research support; L.B. has received grants/research support from Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novartis. Sandoz, Gilead, Fresenius Kabi, and Teva. I. Song: Shareholder/stock ownership; IH.S. is an employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options. T. Shaw: Shareholder/stock ownership; T.S. is an employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options. Y. Song: Shareholder/stock ownership; Y.S. is an employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options. J.L. Suboticki: Shareholder/stock ownership; J.L.S is an employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options. R. Fleischmann: Consultancies; R.F. is a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Grants/research support; R.F. has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Regeneron, Roche,Sanofi-Aventis.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 venueLara D. VeekenSame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207