MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318539711 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac190.0016

OP16 Endoscopic and clinical outcomes of upadacitinib in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease by number and type of prior biologics

2023· article· en· W4318539711 on OpenAlexaff
Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, G Parkes, C. Rodriguez, Jesse Siffledeen, J Wright, Efrat Broide, Sharanya Ford, Ana P. Lacerda, Jessica Oomen, A Garrison, Sjoerd A.A. van den Berg, David T. Rubin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsCovenant HealthGrey Nuns Community Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCrohn's diseasePlaceboPost-hoc analysisClinical trialGastroenterologyPost hocSubgroup analysisDiseaseConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Biologic therapies are used to treat moderate-to-severe Crohn’s Disease (CD), but many patients eventually lose response to them. With new potential therapies for CD, understanding their efficacy after patients undergo biologic treatment is important for clinical decision-making. This post hoc analysis assessed the outcomes of upadacitinib (UPA), an oral selective Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients with CD who had failed a biologic, by the number and type of prior biologic therapies. Methods In the 2 induction studies, U-EXCEL (NCT03345849) and U-EXCEED (NCT03345836), patients with moderate-to-severe CD received oral UPA 45 mg once daily (QD) therapy or placebo (PBO) for 12 weeks. Patients achieving clinical response to UPA induction were re-randomised in the maintenance study, U-ENDURE (NCT03345823), to receive UPA 15 mg QD, UPA 30 mg QD, or PBO for 52 weeks. This analysis assessed clinical, endoscopic, and safety outcomes in patients with inadequate response or intolerance to biologic therapy by number and type of biologics failed. Data from the U-EXCEL and U-EXCEED studies were pooled. Results At baseline, patient (n=733) characteristics were similar for UPA vs PBO within each subgroup by number of prior biologics (1, n=279; 2, n=223; >2, n=231); patients who received ≥ 2 prior biologics had longer disease duration (median, years: 1, 6.2; 2, 9.4; >2, 12.9) and were more likely to have used steroids (1, 27.7%; 2, 40.4%; >2, 45.0%). Across subgroups, greater proportions of patients receiving UPA vs PBO achieved clinical remission (Figure 1) and endoscopic response and remission (Figure 2) at week 12 of induction and week 52 of maintenance; response rates were generally higher for patients who had failed fewer biologics. When analyzed by type of prior biologic (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor [yes/no], n=704/29; ustekinumab [yes/no], n=272/461; vedolizumab or natalizumab [yes/no], n=220/513), the proportion of patients achieving clinical and endoscopic outcomes was slightly higher for those without prior exposure to each biologic. Adverse events (AEs) occurred at numerically higher rates for patients who had failed multiple biologics in the induction and maintenance studies across both PBO and UPA treatment arms. AEs of special interest occurred at similar rates across subgroups. No non-melanoma skin cancers, major adverse cardiovascular events, or venous thromboembolic events were reported. Conclusion Clinical and endoscopic improvements were observed with UPA induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe CD, regardless of number and type of prior biologics failed; greater benefits and fewer AEs were observed in patients who failed fewer biologic therapies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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