MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S1061 Efficacy and Safety of Etrasimod in Patients With and Without Concomitant Corticosteroid Treatment in the Phase 3 ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 Trials

2023· article· en· W4387733114 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce E. Sands, K Gecse, David T. Rubin, Yvette Leung, Julián Panés, Martina Goetsch, Wenjin Wang, Kevin Shan, John Woolcott, Christina C. Smith, Karolina Wosik, Stefan Schreiber

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Diseases and Immunity
Canadian institutionsPfizer (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConcomitantClinical endpointPlaceboCorticosteroidInternal medicineUlcerative colitisPrednisoneGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Etrasimod is an investigational, oral, once-daily, selective sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P)1,4,5 receptor modulator in development for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods: We report efficacy and safety of etrasimod in patients (pts) with/without concomitant corticosteroid (CS) use at baseline (BL) of the ELEVATE UC phase 3 trials. In ELEVATE UC 52 (NCT03945188) and ELEVATE UC 12 (NCT03996369), pts with moderately to severely active UC were randomized 2:1 to once-daily etrasimod 2 mg or placebo (PBO). ELEVATE UC 52 used a treat-through design with a 12-week (wk) induction period followed by a 40-wk maintenance period. ELEVATE UC 12 had a 12-wk induction period. At entry, pts were permitted to receive oral concomitant CS (prednisone [≤ 20 mg/day], budesonide [≤ 9 mg/day], or equivalent]) if on a stable dose for ≥ 4 wks prior to screening endoscopy; from Wk 12 CS tapering was recommended. Primary and secondary efficacy endpoints (defined in Table 1) and safety were assessed by BL concomitant CS status. Results: In ELEVATE UC 52, 32.2% (93/289) and 29.2% (42/144) of etrasimod- and PBO-treated pts, respectively, were receiving CS at BL. In ELEVATE UC 12, 27.3% (65/238) and 29.3% (34/116) of etrasimod- and PBO-treated pts were receiving CS at BL. Among pts receiving CS at BL in ELEVATE UC 52, a higher proportion of etrasimod- vs PBO-treated pts achieved the endpoint of clinical remission (CR) at Wk 12 (P < 0.05) and Wk 52 (P < 0.001); this was also observed in pts not receiving CS at BL (P < 0.001 at Wks 12 and 52; Table 1). In ELEVATE UC 12, a higher observed proportion of etrasimod- vs PBO-treated pts receiving CS at BL achieved CR at Wk 12 (P > 0.05); a significant difference was observed in pts not receiving CS at BL (P < 0.01). In both studies, similar results were observed across all secondary endpoints, with greater differences between etrasimod and PBO seen in pts not receiving CS at BL (Table 1). Across both ELEVATE trials, there were fewer serious adverse events and serious infections in the etrasimod arm in pts with CS at BL, than in those without CS at BL. In the PBO arms, the opposite was true. Conclusion: Regardless of concomitant CS use at BL, etrasimod generally demonstrated efficacy at Wks 12 and 52, with greater treatment effect seen in pts without CS use at BL. No additional safety signal was apparent when etrasimod was initiated in combination with CS compared to without CS. Table 1. - Efficacy at Wk 12 and Wk 52 in Patients With and Without CS Use at Baseline in the ELEVATE UC 52 and UC 12 Phase 3 Trials ELEVATE UC 52Week 12 ELEVATE UC 52Week 52 ELEVATE UC 12Week 12 CS at BL no-CS at BL CS at BL no-CS at BL CS at BL no-CS at BL PBON=42 EtraN=93 PBON=102 EtraN=196 PBON=42 EtraN=93 PBON=102 EtraN=196 PBON=34 EtraN=65 PBON=82 EtraN=173 Clinical remission, [a] n (%) [b] 7 (16.7) 30 (32.3) 5 (4.9) 51 (26.0) 4 (9.5) 29 (31.2) 7 (6.9) 65 (33.2) 7 (20.6) 19 (29.2) 10 (12.2) 43 (24.9) Diff. % (95% CI), [c] 16.03 (1.08, 30.98) 22.70 (15.27, 30.13) 21.72 (8.82, 34.62) 26.72 (18.53, 34.92) 8.53 (-8.64, 25.71) 13.19 (3.78, 22.60) p [c] 0.036 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.330 0.006 Endoscopic improvement, [d] n (%), [b] 12 (28.6) 38 (40.9) 12 (11.8) 70 (35.7) 9 (21.4) 36 (38.7) 10 (9.8) 77 (39.3) 11 (32.4) 22 (33.8) 11 (13.4) 56 (32.4) Diff. % (95% CI) [c] 12.25 (-4.73, 29.23) 25.52 (16.25, 34.80) 17.15 (1.55, 32.74) 29.96 (21.04, 38.88) 1.40 (-17.69, 20.49) 19.43 (9.41, 29.46) p [c] 0.157 < 0.001 0.031 < 0.001 0.886 < 0.001 Symptomatic remission, [e] n (%) [b] 13 (31.0) 42 (45.2) 19 (18.6) 92 (46.9) 9 (21.4) 37 (39.8) 19 (18.6) 90 (45.9) 14 (41.2) 29 (44.6) 20 (24.4) 85 (49.1) Diff. % (95% CI) [c] 14.47 (-2.68, 31.62) 28.68 (18.22, 39.14) 18.01 (2.28, 33.74) 28.15 (17.92, 38.38) 3.23 (-16.61, 23.08) 25.58 (13.73, 37.42) p [c] 0.098 < 0.001 0.025 < 0.001 0.750 < 0.001 Endoscopic improvement, histological remission, [f] n (%) [b] 5 (11.9) 20 (21.5) 4 (3.9) 46 (23.5) 7 (16.7) 24 (25.8) 8 (7.8) 55 (28.1) 5 (14.7) 10 (15.4) 5 (6.1) 31 (17.9) Diff. % (95% CI) [c] 10.28 (-2.99, 23.55) 20.11 (12.77, 27.45) 8.15 (-6.32, 22.61) 21.10 (12.97, 29.23) 0.68 (-13.53, 14.89) 12.17 (4.48, 19.86) p [c] 0.129 < 0.001 0.270 < 0.001 0.926 0.002 Clinical response, [g] n (%) [b] 19 (45.2) 63 (67.7) 33 (32.4) 119 (60.7) 13 (31.0) 43 (46.2) 22 (21.6) 100 (51.0) 18 (52.9) 38 (58.5) 30 (36.6) 113 (65.3) Diff. % (95% CI) [c] 22.86 (5.21, 40.51) 28.56 (17.03, 40.10) 15.25 (-1.74, 32.23) 30.17 (19.62, 40.71) 5.32 (-15.06, 25.70) 29.85 (17.40, 42.29) p [c] 0.011 < 0.001 0.079 < 0.001 0.609 < 0.001 Data in bold indicate significant p values. All data shown refer to the full analysis set (MMS 4–9) with CS at baseline (CS at BL) or no CS at baseline (no-CS at BL).[a] Clinical remission, the primary efficacy endpoint, was defined as SFS=0 (or =1 with a ≥ 1-point decrease from baseline), RBS=0, and ES ≤ 1 (excluding friability).[b] Percentages are based on N, the number of patients in the subgroup in the analysis set by treatment, patients missing an assessment at the specified analysis visit are considered non-responders.[c] Difference is for etrasimod minus placebo and is based on estimated common risk difference using the Mantel-Haenszel weights; p value is 2-sided to test the hypothesis of the risk difference being 0.[d] Endoscopic improvement (key secondary efficacy endpoint) was defined as an ES ≤ 1 (excluding friability).[e] Symptomatic remission (key secondary efficacy endpoint) was defined as SFS=0 (or =1 with a ≥ 1-point decrease from baseline) and RBS=0.[f] Endoscopic improvement, histological remission (key secondary efficacy endpoint) was defined as ES ≤ 1 (excluding friability) with histologic remission measured by a Geboes Index score < 2.0.[g] Clinical response (other secondary efficacy endpoint) was defined as a ≥ 2-point and ≥ 30% decrease from baseline in MMS, and a ≥ 1-point decrease from baseline in RBS or an absolute RBS ≤ 1.BL, baseline; CI, confidence interval; CS, corticosteroid; ES, endoscopic subscore; Etra, etrasimod; MMS, modified Mayo score; n, number of responding patients; N, the number of patients in the subgroup in the analysis set by treatment; PBO, placebo; RBS, rectal-bleeding subscore; SFS, stool-frequency subscore; UC ulcerative colitis.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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 venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicLiver Diseases and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207