S907 Guselkumab Improves Abdominal Pain and Bowel Urgency Symptoms in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: Results From the Phase 3 QUASAR Induction Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Abdominal pain and bowel urgency are prevalent, burdensome symptoms experienced by patients (pts) with ulcerative colitis (UC) that impact daily life, including social activities. In this study, we use data from the QUASAR Phase 3 Induction Study to assess efficacy of guselkumab (GUS) on abdominal pain, bowel urgency, and the impact of bowel urgency on pts’ lives. Methods: Pts were randomized 3:2 to receive IV GUS 200mg or placebo (PBO) at Weeks (Wks) 0, 4, and 8. Abdominal pain and bowel urgency were evaluated at baseline and Wk12 using items from the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire, where pts rated trouble with abdominal pain, symptoms of bowel urgency, and the impact of bowel urgency over the past 2 wks using 7-point scales (1=all of the time to 7=none of the time). A ≥2 point increase from baseline was considered clinically meaningful improvement. All analyses were prespecified but not multiplicity controlled; all P values are nominal. Results: At baseline, percentages of pts with abdominal pain (GUS 77.7% and PBO 77.9%), symptoms of bowel urgency (GUS 86.0% and PBO 83.2%), and impact of bowel urgency (GUS 70.8% and PBO 70.4%) at least a little of the time (score ≤5) were similar between groups. GUS-treated pts showed greater improvements at Wk12 in these outcomes compared with PBO (Table 1). For abdominal pain, 52.0% of GUS-treated pts had clinically meaningful improvements from baseline at Wk12 vs 33.0% in the PBO group (P< 0.001), and 21.1% vs 12.3%, respectively, of those with abdominal pain at baseline had resolution at Wk12 (P=0.004; Figure 1A). For symptoms of bowel urgency, 58.6% vs 33.0%, respectively, had clinically meaningful improvements (P< 0.001; Figure 1B), and 24.0% vs 9.8%, respectively, of those with symptoms of bowel urgency at baseline had resolution at Wk12 (P< 0.001). Similarly, 57.7% vs 33.0%, respectively, had clinically meaningful improvements in the impact of bowel urgency (P< 0.001; Figure 1B), and 32.4% vs 13.1%, respectively, of those impacted at baseline had resolution at Wk12 (P< 0.001). Symptoms and impact of bowel urgency were combined into a bowel urgency score; of pts with symptoms or impact scores ≤6 at baseline, 19.7% vs 8.2%, respectively, had resolution of both at Wk12 (P< 0.001; Figure 1B). Conclusion: Pts receiving GUS showed clinically meaningful improvements in health-related quality of life measures related to abdominal pain and bowel urgency, including both the symptoms of bowel urgency and impact on pts’ lives.Figure 1.: Percentages of patients with clinically meaningful improvement (≥2 point change) from baseline to Wk12 among those with symptoms at baseline at least a little bit of the time (score ≤5) and resolution of symptoms at Wk12 among those with symptoms at baseline hardly any of the time (score ≤6) for symptoms of (A) abdominal pain and (B) bowel urgency. All P-values presented are nominal. Table 1. - Changes from baseline to Wk12 in abdominal pain, symptoms of bowel urgency, and impact of bowel urgency Outcome Change from baseline Placebo IV (N=261) Guselkumab 200 mg IV (N=405) P-value Abdominal pain Improved 123 (47.1%) 267 (65.9%) < 0.001 No change 102 (39.1%) 103 (25.4%) Worsened 36 (13.8%) 35 (8.6%) Symptoms of bowel urgency Improved 125 (47.9%) 288 (71.1%) < 0.001 No change 93 (35.6%) 89 (22.0%) Worsened 43 (16.5%) 28 (6.9%) Impact of bowel urgency Improved 110 (42.1%) 246 (60.7%) < 0.001 No change 101 (38.7%) 115 (28.4%) Worsened 50 (19.2%) 44 (10.9%) All P-values are nominal. P-values were based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square Row Mean Score test, stratified by ADT-failure status (Yes/No) and concomitant use of corticosteroids at baseline (Yes/No).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".