P179 Comparative benefit-risk profile of induction and maintenance therapy with upadacitinib versus placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Upadacitinib (UPA) demonstrated efficacy and safety as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis (UC) in Phase 3 trials U-ACHIEVE (NCT02819635) and U-ACCOMPLISH (NCT03653026). This post-hoc analysis aims to characterise the benefit-risk profile of UPA induction and maintenance therapy vs placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with moderately to severely active UC based on a number needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) analysis. Methods Efficacy and safety data from the pooled intention-to-treat population of U-ACHIEVE and U-ACCOMPLISH trials were included. Pts received UPA 45 mg (UPA45) once daily (QD) or PBO for 8 weeks (induction trials). Clinical responders (per Adapted Mayo score) at Week 8 of induction were re-randomised to receive UPA 15 mg (UPA15) or 30 mg (UPA30) QD, or PBO in the 52-week maintenance study. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical remission per Adapted Mayo score. Secondary outcomes are listed in Table 1 and safety outcomes are listed in Table 2. N, percentages, and outcome differences compared by Z test were reported. NNT/NNH was calculated as the inverse of the difference in proportions achieving efficacy/safety outcomes for UPA vs PBO. Positive NNT values indicate greater efficacy and negative NNH values imply lower safety risk for UPA vs PBO. Results A significantly greater proportion of pts achieved clinical remission at induction (UPA45 29.9% vs PBO 4.4%) and maintenance (UPA15 40.4%, UPA30 53.6% vs PBO 10.8%) with UPA vs PBO, as well as all secondary endpoints (all p<0.001; Table 1). The NNT for clinical remission at Week 8 was 4.0, ranging from 2.1 to 9.6 for secondary endpoints. At Week 52, the NNT for clinical remission was 2.4; NNTs for secondary endpoints ranged from 1.8 to 5.9 (Table 1). At Week 8, adverse events (AEs) were lower for worsening of UC for UPA45 vs PBO-treated pts and greater for creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevation, acne, neutropenia, and lymphopenia (p≤0.01). At Week 52, AEs were lower for UPA15 and UPA30 vs PBO for worsening of UC, AEs leading to discontinuation (UPA15 only), and arthralgia (UPA30 only), and greater for CPK elevation, herpes zoster, hepatic disorder (UPA15 only), and neutropenia (UPA30 only) (p≤0.05; Table 2). All other AEs were similar between UPA and PBO. Among the safety outcomes significantly different between UPA and PBO, the NNH for UPA vs PBO ranged from –16.1 to 25.6 (Table 2). Conclusion This post-hoc Phase 3 analysis demonstrates greater efficacy and generally comparable safety of UPA vs PBO, indicating a favourable benefit-risk profile for UPA in pts with moderately to severely active UC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".