MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S1003 Early Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Upadacitinib in Crohn’s Disease: A Single-Center Study

2023· article· en· W4387733381 on OpenAlexaff
Esther Liu, Jordan A. Mandel, Robert Battat, Randy Longman, Ellen Scherl, Dana J. Lukin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineAdverse effectRetrospective cohort studyCohortPopulationGastroenterologyCombination therapySingle Center

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The real-world effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib (UPA), an oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) have not been well characterized. We assessed the effectiveness, reported adverse effects, and clinical outcomes of UPA as induction and maintenance therapy as mono- or combination therapy for CD. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study including patients with a CD diagnosis based on clinical/endoscopic criteria. CD patients receiving UPA as monotherapy or combination biologic therapy were included. Baseline variables were abstracted within 3 months prior to UPA initiation, and outcome variables were determined at the most recent GI follow-up on therapy. Baseline clinical activity was determined by using a composite patient-reported outcome (PRO2) score, composed of stool frequency (SF) and abdominal pain (AP) scores (PRO2=2*SF+5*AP). Clinical remission was defined as a PRO2 score < 8. Comparisons of pre-/post-treatment outcomes were determined using 2-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test. Results: 40 CD patients receiving UPA were included; 28 (70%) were on UPA monotherapy, and 30% were on combination therapy. In the total cohort, 21 patients had baseline clinical activity; 33% achieved clinical remission. 19 patients did not have baseline activity (safety population). Prior to UPA, the median PRO-2 was 21 (IQR: 14, 28), decreasing to 11 (5, 17) after treatment (P=0.02). Median SF score was 6 (4, 7.75) before UPA, decreasing to 3.5 (2, 6) (P=0.04), and median AP score decreased from 2 (1, 2.25) to 1 (0.75, 1) (P=0.003). Of 13 patients with baseline activity and steroid use, 23% achieved steroid-free clinical remission (SFCR). While groups receiving mono-/combination therapy lacked sufficient size to detect differences in outcomes, numerical trends by subgroup were similar. 45% of patients on UPA reported an adverse event. 25% of patients reported a CD-related hospitalization, 15% underwent CD-related surgery, 7.5% reported a serious infection, 10% reported acne, and 2.5% reported herpes zoster. Conclusion: UPA therapy was associated with clinical remission, improvements in SF and AP scores, and SFCR in this early real-world tertiary CD cohort. Adverse effects were reported in similar rates to registration trials. There was heterogeneity of dose and induction regimen reflecting off-label use during the treatment period. UPA therapy demonstrated a positive efficacy and expected safety for CD in routine practice (Table 1). Table 1 - Baseline (before UPA) Follow-up (after starting UPA) P-value All patients (n=40) Median PRO-2 (with IQR) 21 (14, 28) 11 (5, 17) 0.02 Median SF (with IQR) 6 (4, 7.75) 3.5 (2, 6) 0.04 Median AP (with IQR) 2 (1, 2.25) 1 (0.75, 1) 0.003 Presence of clinical activity 21 (52.5%) - Clinical remission* - 7 (33%) Steroid-free clinical remission** - 3 (23%) *Of n=21 with baseline clinical activity **Of n=13 with baseline clinical activity and steroid use PRO-2: patient-reported outcome SF: stool frequency AP: abdominal pain UPA: upadacitinib.

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)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→