MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318539652 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac190.0762

P632 Etrasimod induction therapy in moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease: results from a phase 2, randomised, double-blind substudy

2023· article· en· W4318539652 on OpenAlexaff
Geert D’Haens, Marla C. Dubinsky, Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, Silvio Danese, B E Sands, Douglas C. Wolf, Andrés Yarur, Michael Chiorean, D Dray, Irene Modesto, Huaming Tan, G Gu, Ciro Lopez, Chunyan Su, J Zhang, Fabio Cataldi, A McDonnell, Stefanie Schreiber, B G Feagan, Séverine Vermeire

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointTolerabilityInternal medicineCrohn's diseaseAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialInflammatory bowel diseaseIntention-to-treat analysisGastroenterologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Etrasimod is an investigational, once-daily, oral, selective sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 1,4,5 (S1P1,4,5) modulator in development to treat immune-mediated inflammatory disorders. CULTIVATE (NCT04173273) is a seamless phase 2/3 trial comprising 5 substudies designed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of etrasimod in subjects with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD). Here, we report the induction data from the first substudy (Substudy A). Methods Substudy A was a phase 2, randomised, double-blind study using a 14-week induction period followed by a 52-week extension period. Adults (18-80 years) with moderately to severely active CD and an inadequate response, loss of response to, or intolerance to ≥1 conventional or advanced treatments for CD were randomised 1:1 to once-daily etrasimod 2 mg or 3 mg. Subjects were stratified by baseline biologic failure status and oral corticosteroid use. The primary efficacy endpoint was achievement of endoscopic response (defined as endoscopic remission [SES-CD ≤4 and ≥2-point reduction from baseline with no subscore >1] or ≥50% decrease in SES-CD score) at week 14. Secondary/exploratory endpoints included achievement of endoscopic remission, clinical remission (CDAI <150), and IBDQ remission (IBDQ ≥170) at week 14. Outcomes were analysed in the Full Analysis Set (all randomised subjects treated with ≥1 dose) using NRI or observed data. Results Of 83 subjects randomised to etrasimod 2 mg or 3 mg, respectively, 32/42 (76.2%) and 36/41 (87.8%) completed week 14 (Table 1). Overall, 21.4% and 9.8% of subjects in the 2-mg and 3-mg groups, respectively, achieved the primary endpoint of endoscopic response, 14.3% and 7.3% achieved endoscopic remission, 31.0% and 43.9% achieved clinical remission, and 33.3% and 40.0% achieved IBDQ remission at week 14 (Figure 1). Most treatment-emergent AEs were mild or moderate, with more AEs reported in the 3-mg vs 2-mg group. The incidence of serious AEs (4.8% and 2.4%) and AEs leading to discontinuation (4.8% and 7.3%) was low in the 2-mg and 3-mg groups, respectively (Table 2). Two subjects in the 3-mg group experienced second degree atrioventricular block type 1 TEAEs (during 2-mg titration). Conclusion Data from this substudy of subjects with moderately to severely active CD suggest endoscopic and clinical improvement with both etrasimod 2 mg and 3 mg. However, the small sample size and lack of placebo arm limit the ability to draw conclusions about efficacy including comparison between the 2-mg vs 3-mg groups. Both doses were well tolerated and safety was consistent with other etrasimod clinical programmes. Data from the extension phase of Substudy A and the placebo-controlled, dose-ranging phase 2b Substudy 1 are forthcoming.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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