MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318539772 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac190.0537

P407 Efficacy and safety of etrasimod in subjects with moderately to severely active isolated proctitis: a subgroup analysis of the phase 3 ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 trials

2023· article· en· W4318539772 on OpenAlexaff
Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, Marla C. Dubinsky, B E Sands, Julián Panés, S Schreiber, Walter Reinisch, B G Feagan, Silvio Danese, Andrés Yarur, Geert D’Haens, M Goetsch, K Wosik, Joseph Wu, Irene Modesto, A McDonnell, Lauren Bartolome, Christopher J. Rabbat, Séverine Vermeire

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsPfizer (Canada)Western University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProctitisPlaceboInternal medicineUlcerative colitisSubgroup analysisGastroenterologyAdverse effectClinical trialRandomized controlled trialCorticosteroidConfidence intervalDisease

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 for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). Although ≈30% of UC patients initially present with isolated proctitis, most phase 3 trials of systemic therapies in UC excluded this subgroup. We report the efficacy and safety of etrasimod in subjects with isolated proctitis enrolled in the ELEVATE UC programme. Methods In ELEVATE UC 52 (NCT03945188) and ELEVATE UC 12 (NCT03996369), subjects (16-80 years) with moderately to severely active UC were randomised 2:1 to once-daily etrasimod 2 mg or placebo (PBO). ELEVATE UC 52 comprised a 12-week induction period followed by a 40-week maintenance period with a treat-through design. ELEVATE UC 12 comprised a 12-week induction period. Both trials allowed inclusion of subjects with isolated proctitis (<10 cm rectal involvement) provided they met all other eligibility criteria (enrolment capped at 15%). Predefined endpoints were assessed at week 12 (data pooled from both studies) and week 52 (UC 52 only). Sustained and corticosteroid (CS)-free clinical remission were assessed at week 52 (UC 52 only). Changes from baseline in rectal bleeding (RB) were assessed using pooled data through week 12, and UC 52 data from week 14 through week 52. Urgency Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) was assessed at baseline, week 12 (pooled), and week 52 (UC 52 only). Results This analysis included 64 pooled subjects with isolated proctitis at week 12 (42 etrasimod, 22 PBO) and 36 subjects from UC 52 at week 52 (27 etrasimod, 9 PBO). Greater proportions (P<0.05) of subjects randomised to etrasimod vs PBO achieved clinical remission, endoscopic improvement, symptomatic remission, and endoscopic improvement-histologic remission at week 12 and week 52 and clinical remission and symptomatic remission at week 52 (Figure 1). Differences were also observed in sustained clinical remission and 12-week CS-free clinical remission at week 52. Etrasimod demonstrated numerical decreases in RB subscores as early as week 2 through week 52 (Figure 2). Improvement (P<0.05) in urgency NRS were observed at week 12 (Figure 3). Safety was consistent with results from the overall trial populations. Conclusion Efficacy and safety of etrasimod in subjects with isolated proctitis was consistent with the overall population of the ELEVATE programme.1 The analysis was performed on a small dataset and should be interpreted with caution but informs on the efficacy of etrasimod in a subpopulation of UC subjects commonly excluded from drug development trials. Reference: 1. Sandborn WJ, et al. Presented at: DDW 2022; May 24, 2022. Abstract 968a.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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