P52 Benefits of high versus low dose upadacitinib as maintenance treatment in ulcerative colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Upadacitinib (UPA) has been shown to induce and maintain clinical response and remission in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients (Pts). The benefits of high (30 mg) versus low (15 mg) dose UPA as maintenance treatment in UC remains to be established. Methods Pts with a clinical response after 8 weeks of UPA 45 mg once daily (OD) induction (16-week induction responders excluded from analysis) were re-randomised into maintenance 1:1:1 to UPA 15 mg OD, UPA 30 mg OD, or placebo (PBO) OD. The percentage of Pts in each group with mild, moderate and severe (Adapted Mayoscore <5, 5 to ≤7 and >7 respectively) UC was assessed at weeks 0 and 52 of maintenance. For each UPA dose, area under the curve (AUC) analysis of Pts in clinical remission per Partial Adapted Mayo score (score ≤2 with no subscore >1) at Weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, 20, 28, 36, 44 and 52 of maintenance was used to calculate the number of weeks patients were in clinical remission. Results At Week 0 of maintenance, at least 91% of Pts had mild disease and no Pts had severe disease across treatment groups (see table 1). At week 52of maintenance, 19.7% more Pts in the UPA 30 mg group were in a lesser disease severity state (10.5% and 9.2% more Pts with mild and moderate disease, respectively) compared with the UPA 15 mg group. Based on AUC analysis, Pts in the PBO, UPA 15 mg and UPA 30 mg groups were in clinical remission for 15.8 (95% CI: 12.2, 19.5), 30.5 (95% CI: 26.4, 34.6), and 34.4 (95% CI: 30.5, 38.3) weeks, respectively. Pts in the UPA 30 mg group were in clinical remission for an additional 3.8 weeks over a year of maintenance versus UPA 15 mg group. Conclusions After 52-weeks of maintenance treatment with UPA 30 mg OD, Pts had less severe disease and were in clinical remission for approximately 1 additional month/year vs patients treated with UPA 15 mg OD indicating a clinical benefit of 30mg UPA as maintenance treatment in 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".