MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318184532 · doi:10.1093/ibd/izac247.118

SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE WITH UPADACITINIB FOR REFRACTORY PEDIATRIC INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE

2023· article· en· W4318184532 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Suzannah Bergstein, Elizabeth A. Spencer

Bibliographic record

VenueInflammatory Bowel Diseases · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeConcomitantInflammatory bowel diseaseInternal medicineTofacitinibInfliximabSingle CenterAdalimumabUlcerative colitisGastroenterologyAdverse effectDiseaseRheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Upadactinib (UPA) was recently approved for ulcerative colitis (UC) for patients 18 and older, and there is promising data for its use in adult Crohn’s disease (CD). It is currently also approved for use in atopic dermatitis (AD) down to the age of 12, but doses used are lower than in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). There is currently no data on its use for pediatric IBD; we present here a case series of patients ≤18 years on UPA. METHODS We identified ≤18yo patients who were started on UPA for the indication of IBD +/- AD and completed ≥58 days of therapy at a single, US center. Data, with relevant descriptive statistics, were gathered on demographics, disease subtype, Montreal classification, indication for UPA, time on UPA, number of biologic failures, tofacitinib use, concomitant biologic use, adverse events, and clinical and biomarker remission (8-16 week clinical remission: HBI <5, pMS <3; 2-6 month CRP normalization). RESULTS 12 patients (Median age at UPA start: 16.5y, Interquartile Range [IQR]: 4; 67% female) completed 8 or more weeks (Median [IQR] days: 118 [80]) of UPA (Table 1). Two-thirds of patients had CD. A quarter of patients (25%) had concomitant AD. All patients were diagnosed <17 years, with 67% patients diagnosed below or at the age of ten. The majority of patients (75%) had failed three or more biologics. UPA was used as monotherapy in 50% of patients. Four patients were exposed to and had a partial response to tofacitinib. The majority of patients (75%) had clinically active disease at UPA start. Most patients (83%) were induced with 45 mg, one patient was induced with 30mg, and one patient initiated 15mg as part of AD protocol, later increasing to 30mg. Out of the 12 total patients, 11/12 (92%) were in clinical remission between 8-16 weeks of therapy; in the subset of patients ≤17 years, 6/7 (86%) were in clinical remission. Nine patients had CRP levels measured 2-6 months after initiating UPA treatment; 8/9 (89%) of these patients achieved CRP normalization during this time. No serious adverse events occurred; one patient, who was on UPA monotherapy, developed recurrent styes that responded to hot compresses and antibiotic ointment. Joint involvement (sacroiliitis, arthritis, arthralgias) at the start of their treatment occurred in 3 patients; all of these patients had resolution of joint pain by 8 or more weeks. All patients had previously received vaccination for varicella; no patients were vaccinated for zoster, including the 5 who were 18 years of age. CONCLUSION No new safety signals were seen during induction dosing of UPA in teenage patients with IBD. In this very refractory group, nearly all patients achieved clinical & biomarker remission. Further study on the effectiveness and safety of UPA needs to be performed in pediatric patients.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInflammatory Bowel DiseasesSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207