A17 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF FILGOTINIB AS MAINTENANCE THERAPY FOR PATIENTS WITH MODERATELY TO SEVERELY ACTIVE ULCERATIVE COLITIS: RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 2B/3 SELECTION STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims SELECTION (NCT02914522) Maintenance evaluated filgotinib (FIL), a preferential JAK1 inhibitor, as maintenance therapy for patients (pts) with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) who achieved clinical remission or Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) response after 10 weeks of FIL 200mg QD, FIL 100mg QD or placebo (PBO) induction. Methods Pts randomized to FIL induction were rerandomized 2:1 to their induction FIL dose or PBO; pts randomized to PBO induction continued PBO maintenance. Steroid tapering was mandatory. The primary endpoint was clinical remission at Week 58. Key secondary endpoints and exploratory endpoints were assessed at Week 58. Results 664 pts were treated in the Maintenance Study (n=93, 270, and 301 from induction with PBO, FIL 100mg and FIL 200mg); efficacy analyses included only FIL induction pts. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally balanced across treatment arms; 40% were biologic experienced. Significantly higher proportion of pts on FIL 200mg or FIL 100mg were in clinical remission vs PBO. Significantly higher proportions of pts achieved key secondary endpoints with FIL 200mg vs PBO. More pts on FIL 200 mg or FIL 100mg achieved an MCS response and endoscopic improvement vs PBO. Incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were similar across arms. Serious infection (<2%) and herpes zoster (<1%) were infrequent among FIL-treated patients. There were no venous thromboses, including pulmonary embolism, among FIL-treated pts. Two pts on FIL 200mg died, both AEs leading to death were considered unrelated to FIL. Conclusions FIL 200mg and FIL 100mg were effective as maintenance treatment for pts with moderately to severely active UC who had achieved clinical response to FIL induction treatment. FIL 200 mg met all key secondary endpoints including endoscopic, histologic and 6-month corticosteroid-free remission. FIL was well tolerated in pts with moderate to severely active UC. Funding Agencies None
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".