MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318580171 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac190.0678

P548 Efficacy outcomes of placebo maintenance treatment in patients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease who responded to placebo induction therapy: Post-hoc analysis of the Phase 3 ADVANCE, MOTIVATE, and FORTIFY Risankizumab Studies

2023· article· en· W4318580171 on OpenAlexaff
Raja Atreya, Peter M. Irving, Mikihiro Fujiya, J F Colombel, Silvio Danese, Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, Talat Bessissow, Remo Panaccione, Geert D’Haens, Stijn Van Haaren, Ezequiel Neimark, Javier Zambrano, Y Zhang, Kristina Kligys, Maria Rosaria Ferrante

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboPost-hoc analysisInternal medicineClinical trialMaintenance therapyGastroenterologyCrohn's diseaseClinical endpointAbdominal painDiseaseSurgeryChemotherapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background In the risankizumab (RZB) phase 3 clinical programme, Crohn’s disease (CD) patients who responded to RZB intravenous (IV) induction were re-randomised to RZB or placebo (PBO) (withdrawal PBO subcutaneous [SC] in maintenance (FORTIFY), while responders to PBO induction continued receiving PBO. Patients in the withdrawal (PBO SC) arm of FORTIFY who received IV RZB induction achieved high rates of clinical response/remission at Week (Wk) 52 likely due to the prolonged PK/PD effect of RZB and robust efficacy during induction.1 Here, we describe disease activity outcomes in non-randomised patients who received PBO during both induction and maintenance. Methods: This post-hoc analysis included patients who received PBO IV in the induction study (ADVANCE or MOTIVATE), achieved clinical response (definition in Figure footnote) at Wk 12, and continued on PBO SC during FORTIFY.1,2 Subjective measures of disease activity (clinical remission [per CD Activity Index (CDAI)] and per stool frequency [SF] and abdominal pain score [APS], CDAI clinical response, and SF/APS enhanced clinical response), as well as objective measures of biomarkers (high sensitivity C-Reactive Protein and faecal calprotectin) levels and endoscopic outcomes (response, remission, and ulcer-free endoscopy), during FORTIFY were evaluated (endpoint definitions in Figure footnotes) at Wk 52. Biomarkers were additionally evaluated at induction baseline. For reference only, previously reported data from patients who were clinical responders to RZB IV induction and were re-randomised in FORTIFY are presented alongside data from the continuous PBO patients subgroup.1,2 Results In the 104 patients who received PBO during both induction and maintenance, clinical response and remission rates decreased steadily during FORTIFY (Figure), while biomarker levels were relatively unchanged from induction baseline to FORTIFY Wk 52. In contrast, a slower rate of loss of response per clinical response/remission and lower biomarker levels over time were observed in RZB IV induction responders re-randomised to PBO in FORTIFY. Although already low, endoscopic response rates in the continuous PBO group decreased from FORTIFY Wk 0 to Wk 52, whereas endoscopic remission and ulcer-free endoscopy rates remained unchanged. Conclusion The symptomatic improvement achieved in patients clinically responding to PBO during induction was not maintained with continued PBO treatment in maintenance, unlike that observed in patients withdrawn from RZB, underscoring the durability of RZB induction response.1 Most objective measures of disease activity in patients receiving continuous PBO were relatively unchanged over time, with biomarkers remaining elevated and endoscopic rates of response low.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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