Long-Term Outcomes of Early vs Delayed Responders to Vedolizumab and Adalimumab: A Post Hoc Analysis of the VARSITY Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It is uncertain whether patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and delayed symptomatic response to therapy have as robust and durable a response as earlier responders to therapy. We compared clinical outcomes of early and delayed responders to vedolizumab and adalimumab for patients with moderate-severe UC. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the VARSITY study. Patients with early partial Mayo score (PMS) remission (PMS ≤1 at week 4/6 of therapy) were compared with those with delayed PMS remission (PMS ≤1 at week 14 and not week 4/6). Differences in proportions of patients achieving week 52 clinical remission (CR) (PMS = 0), endoscopic improvement (EI) (Mayo endoscopic subscore ≤1), and histoendoscopic mucosal improvement (HEMI) (Mayo endoscopic subscore ≤1 and Geboes score highest grade <3.2) were assessed. Confounders were adjusted for using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 147 vedolizumab-treated and 110 adalimumab-treated patients attained early or late PMS remission. Those who attained early PMS remission with vedolizumab were more likely to attain week 52 CR than participants with delayed PMS remission with vedolizumab (69.1% [67/97] vs 50.0% [25/50], aOR 2.43 [95% CI 1.11-5.33], P = 0.027). Week 52 HEMI was more likely among early vedolizumab PMS remitters (63.9% [62/97] vs 40.0% [20/50], aOR 2.60 [95% CI 1.20-5.62], P = 0.015). Week 52 EI was similar between early and delayed PMS remitters to vedolizumab. No differences were observed in week 52 CR, EI, or HEMI between early and delayed PMS remitters to adalimumab. DISCUSSION: Patients with UC who achieve early PMS remission with vedolizumab have greater odds of week 52 remission compared with delayed responders.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".