MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S842 Pharmacokinetics, Exposure-Response Relationships, and Immunogenicity in Crohn’s Disease Patients With Ustekinumab Secondary Loss of Response Following Ustekinumab IV Re-Induction: Week 16 Results From the POWER Study

2023· article· en· W4387750852 on OpenAlexaff
Brian G. Feagan, Scott D. Lee, C. Janneke van der Woude, Ignacio Marín‐Jiménez, Douglas C. Wolf, Elisabeth Schnoy, Bruce Salzberg, Christopher Busse, Maciej Nazar, Wayne Langholff, Christopher Gasink, Thomas Baker, Bridget Godwin, Omoniyi J. Adedokun, Stefan Schreiber

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUstekinumabGastroenterologyInternal medicinePharmacokineticsDosingImmunogenicityImmunologyAntibodyDiseaseAdalimumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The POWER study evaluated efficacy and safety of a single intravenous (IV) re-induction ustekinumab (UST) dose vs continued UST subcutaneous (SC) treatment in Crohn’s disease (CD) patients (pts) with secondary loss of response (LoR) to standard UST maintenance therapy. Here, we present Week (W) 16 pharmacokinetics, exposure–response relationships, and immunogenicity analysis. Methods: Adult pts with moderately–severely active CD who initially responded to UST IV induction therapy per label and later experienced LoR were included. LoR was defined as CD Activity Index (CDAI) score ≥220–≤450, plus elevated C-reactive protein ( >3mg/L)/fecal calprotectin ( >250mg/kg), or endoscopy performed ≤3 months before baseline (W0) with active CD. At W0, randomized pts received ∼6mg/kg IV UST, or SC UST 90mg, followed by SC UST 90mg dosing at W8/16. Clinical assessments occurred at W0/8/16. Serum samples evaluated UST concentration (conc) and anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) at W0/8/16 using validated assays. Clinical response (CRes) and endoscopic remission (ERem) were evaluated based on CDAI and centrally read endoscopy, respectively, at W0/8/16. Efficacy outcomes were analyzed by W0 trough conc groups (undetectable, 0.17–< 0.8, 0.8–< 1.3, and ≥1.3µg/mL) and conc quartile groups (QGs) at W16 using a proprietary immunoassay. Results: Serum UST conc data were obtained from 215 pts (SC, n=107; IV, n=108) with ≥1 blood sample collected. Similar at W0, median serum UST concs at W0 (1-hour post-dose)/8/16 were higher in the IV vs SC arm (Table 1). Based on W16 trough concs, 63.9% (69/108) of pts were in the ≥1.3µg/mL group in the IV arm, vs 41.1% (44/107) in the SC arm. The proportion of pts with W16 CRes in the ≥1.3µg/mL group was similar between arms; more pts were in W16 ERem in the IV vs SC arm. By W16 quartile analysis, CRes was numerically higher in the IV vs SC arm in QG1 and 4. More IV arm pts achieved ERem in QG4 vs QG1; a small number of pts in SC arm achieved ERem independent of QGs. Incidence of UST ADAs through W16 was low (SC, n=2; IV, n=0; 0.93% overall). Conclusion: Although, IV re-induction resulted in higher serum concs and proportions of pts with high (≥1.3µg/mL) trough conc at W16; there did not appear to be an exposure-response relationship for CRes. However, quartile analysis showed a relationship between increased exposure in the IV arm and differences in ERem. This observation is consistent with the notion that pts with secondary LoR may benefit from single-dose re-induction. Table 1. - Summary of serum UST concentrations and the proportion of patients in clinical response and endoscopic remission at W16 by UST trough concentrations and trough concentration quartile groups at W16 (full analysis set) Serum concentrations µg/mL (median, IQR) SC arm (N=107) IV arm (N=108) W0 pre-dose 1.26 (0.58; 2.53) 1.30 (0.62; 2.79) W0 post-dose* 1.47 (0.70; 2.62) 105.62 (82.94; 128.13) W8 1.38 (0.85; 2.61) 8.45 (4.25; 10.49) W16 1.41 (0.81; 2.17) 2.99 (1.20; 4.78) W16 outcomes by UST trough concentrations at W16 (µg/mL), n/N (%) Undetectable 0.17–< 0.8 0.8–< 1.3 ≥1.3 Undetectable 0.17–< 0.8 0.8–< 1.3 ≥1.3 Clinical response†‡ at W16 0/1 5/18 (27.8) 8/16 (50.0) 24/44 (54.5) 0/2 8/15 (53.3) 3/7 (42.9) 39/69 (56.5) Endoscopic remission‡§|| at W16 0/1 0/9 1/7 (14.3) /24 (8.3) 0/1 1/6 (16.7) 0/4 10/42 (23.8) W16 outcomes by UST trough concentration quartile groups¶ at W16, n/N (%) QG1 (≤q1) QG2 ( >q1 and ≤q2) QG3 ( >q2 and ≤q3) QG4 ( >q3) QG1 (≤q1) QG2 ( >q1 and ≤q2) QG3 ( >q2 and ≤q3) QG4 ( >q3) Clinical response†‡ by QG 5/20 (25.0) 11/20 (55.0) 12/20 (60.0) 9/19 (47.4) 11/24 (45.8) 11/23 (47.8) 13/23 (56.5) 15/23 (65.2) Endoscopic remission‡§|| by QG 0/10 1/11 (9.1) 0/9 2/11 (18.2) 1/11 (9.1) 2/10 (20.0) 3/14 (21.4) 5/18 (27.8 *The post-dose sample was collected within 24 hours of UST administration.†Clinical response is defined by CDAI <150 or decrease of ≥100 points from W0.‡Patients who had insufficient data to calculate CDAI or SES-CD, a prohibited CD-related surgery, prohibited concomitant medication changes, or discontinued study agent due to lack of efficacy or due to an adverse event indicated to be of worsening CD prior to the designated analysis timepoint are considered not to be in clinical response or endoscopic remission.§Endoscopic remission is defined as an SES-CD score ≤3 or SES-CD=0 for patients who enter the study with an SES-CD=3.||Endoscopy was an optional procedure in the study; only 58 (SC arm) and 59 (IV arm) patients were included in the endoscopic analysis.¶Quartiles are based on patients in each treatment group: SC arm, q1=0.81 µg/mL, q2=1.41 µg/mL, q3=2.17 µg/mL; IV arm, q1=1.20 µg/mL, q2=2.99 µg/mL, q3=4.78 µg/mL. CD, Crohn’s Disease; CDAI, Crohn’s Disease Activity Index; IQR, interquartile range; IV, intravenous; q, quartile; QG, quartile group; SC, subcutaneous; SES-CD; Simple Endoscopic Score in Crohn’s Disease; UST, ustekinumab; W, week.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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