MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S851 Health-Related Quality of Life With Ustekinumab vs Adalimumab for Induction and Maintenance Therapy in Biologic-Naïve Patients With Moderate-To-Severe Crohn’s Disease: PROMIS-29 in the SEAVUE Study

2021· article· en· W4231027703 on OpenAlexaff
James D. Lewis, Matthieu Allez, Peter M. Irving, Timothy Hoops, James L. Izanec, Tony Ma, Zhijie Ding, Erik Muser, Christopher Gasink, Remo Panaccione, Edward V. Loftus, Silvio Danese, Bruce E. Sands

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdalimumabQuality of life (healthcare)AnxietyPhysical therapyUstekinumabInternal medicinePatient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information SystemRandomized controlled trialDepression (economics)Adverse effectDiseasePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Patients (pts) with Crohn’s disease (CD) suffer from systemic symptoms, including fatigue, that negatively affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In SEAVUE, we evaluated the changes in systemic symptoms through 1 year with ustekinumab (UST) vs adalimumab (ADA) in biologic-naïve pts with CD using the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-29 (PROMIS-29) questionnaire. PROMIS-29 measures anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain interference, pain intensity, physical function, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Methods: SEAVUE was a multicenter, randomized, blinded, parallel-group, active-controlled study in biologic-naïve adults with CD Activity Index (CDAI) scores ≥220/≤450. Pts were randomized 1:1 to UST (⁓6mg/kg IV at baseline then 90mg SC every 8 weeks) or ADA (160/80mg SC at baseline/Week 2, then 40mg SC every 2 weeks) per US-approved regimens. Dose modification was not allowed. Mean changes and clinically meaningful improvement from baseline were assessed for each PROMIS-29 domain. Results: Among 386 randomized pts, baseline mean PROMIS-29 scores were similar between treatment groups (anxiety: 60 UST, 60 ADA; depression: 57 UST, 57 ADA; fatigue: 62 UST, 61 ADA; sleep disturbance: 54 UST, 53 ADA; pain interference: 61 UST, 60 ADA; pain intensity: 6 UST, 5 ADA; physical function: 43 UST, 44 ADA; ability to participate in social roles and activities: 44 UST, 45 ADA). In both groups, improvements in all PROMIS-29 domain scores were observed as early as Week 8 (data not shown) and continued through Week 52 (Table). Improvements from baseline to Week 52 were similar between groups for all domains. When clinically meaningful improvement from baseline to Week 52 (change ≥5 points) was evaluated, significantly more pts in the UST vs ADA group achieved this endpoint for the fatigue (decrease ≥5 points: 58.6% UST, 47.7% ADA; nominal p=0.030) and ability to participate in social roles and activities (increase ≥5 points: 58.6% UST, 47.7% ADA; nominal p=0.032) domains; there was no significant difference between groups for the other domains. Conclusion: PROMIS-29 domain scores improved similarly with UST and ADA through Week 52 in biologic-naïve pts with moderate-to-severe CD. Clinically meaningful improvement in fatigue and ability to participate in social roles and activities scores was more commonly observed with UST vs ADA, potentially reflecting better HRQoL in biologic-naïve pts with CD.Table 1.: Change from baseline to Week 52 in PROMIS-29 domain scores and the percentage of pts who achieved a clinically meaningful improvement between baseline and Week 52.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.259
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 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→