MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S723 Duration of Response to Ozanimod After Treatment Withdrawal: Results From the Phase 3 True North Study

2022· article· en· W4316077848 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce E. Sands, Bincy Abraham, Brian Bressler, Walter Reinisch, Anjali Jain, Arteid Memaj, Lucy Akukwe, W. Jerry Liu, Mark T. Osterman, James B. Canavan, Séverine Vermeire

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscontinuationMedicinePlaceboDermatologySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The phase 3 True North (TN) randomized trial demonstrated efficacy and safety of ozanimod (OZA) in patients (pts) with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). Temporary discontinuation of UC treatment can occur in clinical practice. Understanding the duration of response after treatment discontinuation can assist in clinical decision making. This analysis examined time to loss of OZA response in pts who discontinued OZA and switched to placebo (PBO) in the TN maintenance period (MP). Methods: In TN, pts were randomized to once-daily oral OZA 0.92 mg or PBO or to open-label OZA during a 10-week induction period (IP). Pts with clinical response to OZA at Week 10 were rerandomized to OZA (OZA-OZA) or PBO (OZA-PBO) in the MP through Week 52. Disease relapse was defined as an increase in partial Mayo score (PMS) of ≥2 points vs Week 10 with absolute PMS ≥4, endoscopic subscore ≥2, and exclusion of other causes of increased disease activity unrelated to UC. A subanalysis compared outcomes in OZA-OZA and OZA-PBO pts who entered the MP after achieving clinical remission (CRM) or clinical response (CRS only, excluding pts in CRM) at Week 10. Results: In the TN MP, 230 pts continued OZA (CRM, n=82; CRS only, n=148) and 227 pts switched to PBO (CRM, n=79; CRS only, n=148). Baseline characteristics were generally similar between groups. Pts in CRS only at Week 10 had a numerically higher proportion with severe disease and prior immunosuppressive medication use vs CRM pts (Table). Differences in disease relapse between groups became apparent after MP Week 8, after which a significantly higher proportion of OZA-OZA pts were without relapse vs OZA-PBO pts (Figure). MP Week 42 Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates of no relapse were 86.1% and 62.6% for OZA-OZA and OZA-PBO pts, respectively. Additionally, pts in CRM at Week 10 had higher rates of nonrelapse during the MP vs those in CRS only at MP entry. KM estimates of non-relapse at MP Week 42 were 67.9% and 59.7% in OZA-PBO pts with CRM and CRS, respectively, and 90.9% and 83.4% in OZA-OZA pts with CRM and CRS, respectively. Conclusion: This analysis shows that OZA is effective at preventing disease relapse over 42 weeks of maintenance treatment in pts who achieve clinical response at Week 10. These data show that OZA maintains disease control even in the event of temporary discontinuation. However, extended discontinuation should be minimized in clinical practice.Figure 1 Table 1. - Baseline characteristics in pts in CRM vs pts in CRS only at Week 10 Pts in CRM a at IP Week 10 Pts in CRS b only at IP Week 10 OZA-PBO (n=79) OZA-OZA (n=82) OZA-PBO (n=148) OZA-OZA (n=148) Age, years, mean ± SD 45.0 ± 13.5 42.7 ± 13.9 42.0 ± 13.8 42.3 ± 13.4 Males, n (%) 45 (57.0) 41 (50.0) 77 (52.0) 76 (51.4) Years since UC diagnosis, mean ± SD 7.3 ± 7.0 7.4 ± 7.2 7.2 ± 7.3 8.9 ± 7.4 Prior therapies, n (%) 5-ASA CS Immunomodulator Anti-TNF Non-anti-TNF biologic 75 (94.9)51 (64.6)24 (30.4)13 (16.5)3 (3.8) 81 (98.8)54 (65.9)26 (31.7)15 (18.3)9 (11.0) 146 (98.6)117 (79.1)61 (41.2)52 (35.1)30 (20.3) 146 (98.6)109 (73.6)63 (42.6)61 (41.2)33 (22.3) Complete Mayo score c >9, n (%) 12 (15.2) 19 (23.2) 51 (34.5) 76 (51.4) Mayo endoscopic score = 3 (severe), n (%) 22 (27.8) 25 (30.5) 94 (63.5) 107 (72.3) Fecal calprotectin, median IQR, mg/kg 1027.8 (295.0, 2689.3) 851.6 (251.4, 2694.6) 1085.2 (434.4, 2579.3) 1285.0 (486.5, 2673.4) All data are reported at IP baseline.aCRM was defined as complete Mayo score of ≤2 with no individual subscore of >1 point.bCRS was defined as decrease from baseline of ≥3 points and at least 30% in the complete Mayo score and a decrease of ≥1 in RBS or an absolute RBS of ≤1.cThe sum of the rectal bleeding subscore, stool frequency subscore, Physician’s Global Assessment subscore, and endoscopy subscore.ASA, aminosalicylic acid; CRM, clinical remission; CRS, clinical response; CS, corticosteroid; IP, induction period; SD, standard deviation; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.253
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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