MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S851 Efficacy and Safety of Guselkumab for Crohn’s Disease Through 3 Years: GALAXI-1 Long-Term Extension

2023· article· en· W4387751050 on OpenAlexaff
Anita Afzali, Silvio Danese, Remo Panaccione, Brian G. Feagan, David T. Rubin, Bruce E. Sands, Walter Reinisch, Julián Panés, Aparna Sahoo, Natalie A. Terry, Leonardo Salese, Chris Corbett, Tadakazu Hisamatsu, Jane M. Andrews, Geert D’Haens

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomizationRandomized controlled trialUstekinumabAdverse effectClinical endpointIntention-to-treat analysisInternal medicineSurgeryPsoriasis Area and Severity IndexClinical trialDiseasePsoriasisAdalimumabDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: GALAXI-1 (NCT03466411) is a phase 2b study that evaluated guselkumab (GUS) in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease (CD). We assessed clinical, endoscopic, and safety outcomes through 3 years in patients receiving GUS maintenance therapy in the GALAXI-1 long-term extension (LTE). Methods: Upon completing the treat-through Week (Wk)-48 study, patients continued in the LTE receiving maintenance regimens that were assigned at randomization: GUS 100 mg subcutaneous (SC) every 8 wks (q8w), GUS 200 mg SC q4w, or ustekinumab (UST) 90 mg SC q8w. Key efficacy endpoints assessed at Wk 144 included CD Activity Index (CDAI) clinical remission, patient-reported outcome (PRO)-2 remission, and endoscopic response. Efficacy analysis sets are defined in Table 1. Safety analyses included all treated patients. Results: Average duration of follow-up from baseline through Wk 152 was 100.9 wks in the combined GUS group (n=220) and 102.7 wks in the UST group (n=114); 151 patients randomized to GUS and 48 patients randomized to UST were treated in the LTE. Study drug discontinuations in the combined GUS group from Wks 48 to 152 were due to adverse events (AE, n[%]: 6[4.0]), lack of efficacy (2[1.3]), CD-related surgery (1[0.7]), lost to follow-up (4[2.6]), protocol deviation (1[0.7]), pregnancy (1[0.7]), refusal (1[0.7]), and patient withdrawal (9[6.0]). Among all randomized patients in the combined GUS group (including those who did not enter the LTE; primary efficacy analysis set), 54.1% were in CDAI clinical remission, 51.4% were in PRO-2 remission, and 34.7% were in endoscopic response at Wk 144 (Table 1). Outcomes among those who entered the LTE and among those with available data at each visit are summarized in Table 1. In the combined GUS group, serious AEs (SAEs, n[%]: 35[15.9]) and serious infections (12[5.5]) were infrequent. Most infections were not serious, mild to moderate in severity, and resolved without drug withdrawal. No cases of active tuberculosis, opportunistic infections, anaphylactic/serum sickness reactions, major adverse cardiovascular events, or deaths occurred during the LTE. Conclusion: Durable clinical and endoscopic efficacy were maintained over time through Wk 144 of the LTE. The safety profile of GUS was consistent with that of the approved indications. Most infections were not serious and did not result in discontinuation, while incidences of SAEs and serious infections were generally low. Table 1. - Clinical efficacy and endoscopic outcomes at Week 144 Outcome Analysis Population Combined Guselkumaba Ustekinumabb Clinical remission (CDAI< 150), % (n/N) Primary efficacy analysis set (NRI)c 54.1 (100/185) 46.0 (29/63) LTE efficacy analysis set (NRI)d 68.2 (103/151) 64.6 (31/48) Observed case analysis sete 95.4 (103/108) 83.8 (31/37) PRO-2 remission (AP mean daily score ≤1 and SF mean daily score ≤3, and no worsening of AP or SF from baseline), % (n/N) Primary efficacy analysis set (NRI)c 51.4 (95/185) 39.7 (25/63) LTE efficacy analysis set (NRI)d 64.2 (97/151) 58.3 (28/48) Observed case analysis sete 89.8 (97/108) 75.7 (28/37) Endoscopic response (≥50% improvement from baseline in SES-CD or SES-CD ≤2), % (n/N) Primary efficacy analysis set (NRI)c 34.7 (61/176) 19.4 (12/62) LTE efficacy analysis set (NRI)d 43.0 (61/142) 25.5 (12/47) Observed case analysis sete 73.5 (61/83) 41.4 (12/29) AP, abdominal pain; CDAI, Crohn's Disease Activity Index; LTE, long-term extension; NRI, nonresponder imputation; PRO-2, patient-reported outcome components of the CDAI [AP and SF]; SES-CD, Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease; SF, stool frequency.aIncludes patients randomized to the following guselkumab induction/maintenance regimens: 200 mg IV q4w→100 mg SC q8w; 600 mg IV q4w→200 mg SC q4w; 1200 mg IV q4w→200 mg SC q4w.bPatients randomized to ustekinumab.cPrimary efficacy analysis set consists of randomized patients who received ≥1 dose of study medication, with NRI for patients with treatment failure or missing data, including those who did not enter the LTE.dLTE efficacy analysis set consists of randomized patients who entered the LTE and received ≥1 dose of study medication in the LTE, with NRI for patients with treatment failure or missing data.eObserved case analysis set consists of randomized patients who entered the LTE, received ≥1 dose of study medication in the LTE, and had available data at the outcome visit. Patients who received dose adjustment were excluded.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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