MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318539067 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac190.0791

P661 Clinical response over 24 weeks for initial and delayed responders to induction therapy with risankizumab in Crohn’s disease: data from the ADVANCE and MOTIVATE studies

2023· article· en· W4318539067 on OpenAlexaff
Remo Panaccione, Idit Dotan, Maria Rosaria Ferrante, Silvio Danese, Peter Bossuyt, Kristina Kligys, Ezequiel Neimark, Javier Zambrano, Xiaoli Liao, Geert D’Haens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCrohn's diseasePlaceboClinical trialInternal medicinePost-hoc analysisGastroenterologyInduction therapyAbdominal painMaintenance therapySurgeryDiseaseChemotherapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The efficacy and safety of risankizumab (RZB) in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) has been demonstrated.1,2 We reported that an additional 12 weeks (ie, induction period 2) of RZB therapy could induce clinical response in patients with CD who did not achieve clinical response after an initial 12-week induction period.3 In this post hoc analysis, we report the proportion of patients who achieved clinical response over 24 weeks (initial and delayed responders to RZB induction therapy). Methods Data were pooled from the ADVANCE and MOTIVATE phase 3 RZB studies. Patients who had not achieved stool frequency (SF)/abdominal pain score (APS) clinical response (≥ 30% decrease in average daily SF and/or ≥ 30% decrease in average daily APS and both not worse than baseline) after an initial 12-week induction with intravenous (IV) RZB (600 mg or 1200 mg) at weeks 0, 4, and 8 were rerandomized 1:1:1 in induction period 2 to receive IV RZB 1200 mg (at weeks 12, 16, and 20) or subcutaneous (SC) RZB (180 mg or 360 mg at weeks 12 and 20) in a double-dummy–blinded fashion. In this post hoc analysis, efficacy was analysed in patients treated with either 600 mg RZB IV or placebo (PBO) for 12 weeks in the PBO-controlled induction period and patients who did not achieve clinical response with 600 mg RZB IV for 12 weeks and were rerandomized to 360 mg RZB SC every 8 weeks during induction period 2 (currently marketed RZB doses). SF/APS clinical response was assessed at week 12 for initial responders and at week 24 for delayed responders in induction period 2. Non-responder imputation with no special data handling for data missing due to COVID-19 was used. No multiplicity adjustment was performed. Results Of the 889 patients randomised to 600 mg IV RZB or PBO in the induction studies, 70.0% (369/527) in the RZB group compared with 45.6% (165/362) in the PBO group achieved SF/APS clinical response at week 12. Of the 47 patients who did not achieve initial clinical response to 600 mg IV RZB and received 360 mg SC in induction period 2, 32 (68.1%) achieved delayed SF/APS clinical response at week 24. The proportion of patients achieving SF/APS clinical response over 24 weeks (either initial or delayed responders) was 89.1% (401/450). The safety profile of RZB in patients with CD has been reported.1,2 Conclusion In patients with moderate-to-severe CD, RZB treatment leads to approximately 9 of 10 patients achieving either initial (600 mg IV) or delayed (600 mg IV followed by 360 mg SC) clinical response over 24 weeks. References: 1. D’Haens G, et al. Lancet. 2022; 399: 2015-30. 2. Ferrante M, Panaccione R, et al. Lancet. 2022; 399: 2031-46. 3. D’Haens G, et al. United European Gastroenterol J. 2021; 9(S8): 96-7.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and ColitisSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207