MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S747 Mirikizumab Improves Mental and Physical Health Outcomes in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: Results From the Phase 3 LUCENT-1 Induction and LUCENT-2 Maintenance Studies

2022· article· en· W4316086213 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce E. Sands, Brian G. Feagan, Kristina A. Traxler, Nathan Morris, Xingyuan Li, William Eastman, Stefan Schreiber, Vipul Jairath, Alessandro Armuzzi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUlcerative colitisInternal medicinePlaceboRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologyPhysical therapyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Mirikizumab (miri), an anti-IL-23p19 monoclonal antibody, demonstrated efficacy vs. placebo (PBO) in adult patients (pts) with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) in phase 3, randomized, double-blind, PBO-controlled 12-week (W) induction (LUCENT-1/NCT03518086) and 40-W maintenance (LUCENT-2/NCT03524092) studies.1,2 Here we evaluated the effect of miri vs. PBO on Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36; version 2) scores. Methods: In the induction study, 1162 pts who had an inadequate response/loss of response/intolerance to conventional/biologic therapy were randomized (3:1) to receive miri 300 mg IV (N=868) or PBO (N=294) every 4 weeks (Q4W). Pts who achieved clinical response with miri at W12 in the induction study (miri clinical responders; N=544) were re-randomized (2:1) to miri 200 mg subcutaneous (N=365) or PBO (N=179) Q4W through W40 (i.e., W52 of continuous therapy) in the maintenance study. Least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component scores, and 8 domain scores (physical functioning, role-physical, role-emotional, bodily pain, vitality, social functioning, mental and general health) of the SF-36 survey were evaluated at W12 and W40. Treatment comparisons were made using analysis of covariance. Results: During the induction period, significant improvements in PCS (LSM difference vs. PBO [95% CI]: 2.07 [1.21, 2.93]; p< 0.001) and MCS (1.60 [0.56, 2.63]; p=0.002), and all domain scores (p< 0.05) of SF-36 were achieved with miri vs. PBO at W12. These improvements in SF-36 scores were sustained throughout the maintenance period with significant improvements seen with miri vs. PBO group in PCS (2.30 [1.12, 3.49]; p< 0.001) and MCS (1.48 [0.13, 2.82]; p=0.031), and 6/8 domain scores (p< 0.05) at W40 (Table). Conclusion: Miri significantly improves SF-36 mental and physical component scores in patients with moderately to severely active UC during induction (W12) and maintenance (W40). Table 1. - Change From Baseline (ANCOVA with mBOCF*) in SF-36 Physical and Mental Component Scores and Domain Scores at W12 and W40 (Modified Intent-to-treat Population) Induction (W12 analysis) Maintenance (W40 analysis)Miri clinical responder LSM (SE) change from baseline † LSM Diff (95% CI) vs. PBO p-value LSM (SE) change from baseline † LSM Diff (95% CI) vs. PBO p-value PBO IV (N=294) Miri 300 mg IV (N=868) PBO SC (N=179) Miri 200 mg SC (N=365) PCS 3.90 (0.393) 5.97 (0.242) 2.07 (1.21, 2.93) < 0.001 6.66 (0.541) 8.97 (0.412) 2.30 (1.12, 3.49) < 0.001 MCS 3.42 (0.472) 5.02 (0.291) 1.60 (0.56, 2.63) 0.002 5.54 (0.611) 7.02 (0.465) 1.48 (0.13, 2.82) 0.031 Domain scores Physical Functioning 6.57 (0.950) 10.16 (0.585) 3.59 (1.51, 5.67) < 0.001 10.82 (1.221) 13.97 (0.928) 3.16 (0.48, 5.84) 0.021 Role-Physical 10.50 (1.304) 17.21 (0.803) 6.71 (3.86, 9.57) < 0.001 18.51 (1.667) 26.14 (1.266) 7.63 (3.97, 11.28) < 0.001 Role-Emotional 5.25 (1.135) 9.06 (0.701) 3.81 (1.33, 6.30) 0.003 10.35 (1.338) 12.95 (1.019) 2.60 (−0.34, 5.54) 0.083 Bodily Pain 13.40 (1.218) 18.43 (0.751) 5.03 (2.37, 7.70) < 0.001 20.93 (1.663) 26.12 (1.263) 5.19 (1.54, 8.84) 0.005 Vitality 10.38 (1.059) 14.72 (0.652) 4.34 (2.02, 6.65) < 0.001 16.85 (1.493) 21.54 (1.133) 4.70 (1.42, 7.97) 0.005 Social Functioning 11.69 (1.254) 16.74 (0.772) 5.05 (2.30, 7.79) < 0.001 17.25 (1.487) 23.95 (1.129) 6.70 (3.44, 9.96) < 0.001 Mental Health 6.55 (0.887) 9.56 (0.548) 3.00 (1.06, 4.94) 0.002 10.25 (1.233) 12.93 (0.940) 2.67 (−0.04, 5.38) 0.053 General Health 7.03 (0.959) 12.30 (0.592) 5.27 (3.17, 7.37) < 0.001 14.23 (1.362) 19.83 (1.035) 5.59 (2.61, 8.58) < 0.001 *Patients with missing values had their last value carried forward, with the exception that patients who discontinued due to an adverse event had their baseline value carried forward.†Baseline for both Induction and Maintenance is defined as the last non-missing assessment recorded on or prior to the date of the first study drug administration at Visit 1 of Induction.ANCOVA, analysis of covariance; CI, confidence interval; Diff, difference; IV, intravenous; LSM, least squares mean; MCS, mental component score; mBOCF, modified baseline observation carried forward; miri, mirikizumab; PBO, placebo; PCS, physical component score; SC, subcutaneous; SE, standard error; SF-36, medical outcomes study 36-Item short-form health survey; W, week.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.262 · 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→