S1160 Corticosteroid-Sparing Effect of Upadacitinib in Patients With Moderately-to-Severely Active Crohn’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Long-term use of corticosteroids (CS) in Crohn’s disease (CD) is limited by toxicities. The CS-sparing effect of upadacitinib (UPA) was evaluated among all patients with active CD in phase 3 clinical trials. Methods: In U-EXCEL (NCT03345849) and U-EXCEED (NCT03345836), patients with moderate-to-severe CD were randomized to 12-week induction with UPA 45 mg once daily (QD) or placebo (PBO). Patients who achieved clinical response to UPA 45 mg were re-randomized in U-ENDURE (NCT03345823) to UPA 30 mg QD, UPA 15 mg QD, or PBO for a 52-week maintenance period. Patients taking CS at baseline began a CS taper at induction week 4 and continued the taper during maintenance; those who initiated CS during the study started the CS taper on symptom improvement. Endpoints included the proportion of patients without CS use (CS-free) at week 12 or for ≥ 90 days before week 52 who achieved clinical remission by stool frequency/abdominal pain score (SF/APS) or by CD Activity Index (CDAI), enhanced clinical response, decrease of ≥ 100 points in CDAI from baseline (CR-100), endoscopic remission, and endoscopic response at week 12 and week 52. CS daily dose (in prednisone-equivalent doses) was recorded. Results: Of 1021 patients evaluated, the mean (SD) cumulative CS exposure over 12 weeks was 16.0 (19.0) mg daily of prednisone equivalent for UPA 45 mg and 24.0 (34.0) mg for PBO, and during maintenance, 13.7 (16.3) mg for UPA 15 mg, 13.5 (27.3) mg for UPA 30 mg, and 13.7 (9.9) mg for PBO. A significantly higher proportion of patients who received UPA vs PBO were CS-free and achieved clinical remission (by SF/APS and CDAI), enhanced clinical response, CR-100, endoscopic remission, and endoscopic response at week 12 (Figure 1A). At week 52, response rates across all assessed endpoints were generally maintained in patients who received UPA 15 or 30 mg, with significantly higher response rates in patients who received either UPA dose vs PBO (Figure 1B). Safety was as expected for UPA or CS.1 Conclusion: During induction, higher proportions of patients treated with UPA were CS-free and experienced greater clinical and endoscopic improvements vs those receiving PBO. CS-free response rates were generally sustained through week 52, suggesting that UPA may have an enduring steroid-sparing effect. 1. Loftus EV Jr, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1966–1980.Figure 1.: Proportion of Patients Who Were CS-Free and Achieved Clinical and Endoscopic Endpoints at Induction Week 12 (A) and Maintenance Week 52 (B) Among All Patients APS, abdominal pain score; CDAI, Crohn’s Disease Activity Index; CR-100, clinical response 100; CS, corticosteroids; NRI-C, non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19; PBO, placebo; SES-CD, Simplified Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease; SF, stool frequency; UPA, upadacitinib. Only patients with clinical response (≥ 30% decrease in average daily very soft or liquid SF and/or ≥ 30% decrease in average daily APS and both not worse than baseline) in the induction studies were eligible to enter the maintenance study. For all assessments, NRI-C was used for incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19. Data are percent of patients (95% CI). Values above bars are percent of patients and n/N. CS-free in the induction studies: Patients not taking CS at week 12. CS-free in the maintenance study: Patients not taking CS within 90 days before week 52. SF/APS clinical remission: Average daily very soft or liquid SF ≤ 2.8 and average daily APS ≤ 1.0 and both not greater than baseline. CDAI clinical remission: CDAI < 150. Enhanced clinical response: ≥ 60% decrease in average daily very soft or liquid SF and/or ≥ 35% decrease in average daily APS and both not greater than baseline, or clinical remission. CR-100: Decrease of ≥ 100 points in CDAI from baseline. Endoscopic remission: SES-CD ≤ 4 and ≥ 2-point reduction from baseline and no subscore > 1 in any individual variable. Endoscopic response: Decrease in SES-CD > 50% from baseline of the induction period (or at least a 2-point reduction from baseline for patients with an SES-CD of 4 at baseline). ***P < .001 vs PBO.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".