MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S1073 Clinical Outcomes and Biomarker Normalization Response at Week 16 in Patients With Inadequate Response or Intolerance to Prior Biologics in the POWER Trial

2023· article· en· W4387751113 on OpenAlexaff
Scott D. Lee, Stefan Schreiber, 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, Brian G. Feagan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointPlaceboInternal medicineCalprotectinGastroenterologyRandomizationRandomized controlled trialClinical trialBiomarkerSurgeryDiseaseInflammatory bowel diseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The POWER study evaluated efficacy and safety of a single intravenous (IV) re-induction ustekinumab (UST) dose vs placebo on a background of continued UST subcutaneous (SC) treatment in Crohn’s disease (CD) patients (pts) with secondary loss of response (LoR) to standard q8w UST maintenance therapy. This subgroup analysis reports primary and major secondary endpoints up to week (W)16 in pts with/without a history of inadequate response or intolerance to prior biologics. Methods: Adults 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 of ≥220 and ≤450, plus either elevated C-reactive protein (CRP; >3mg/L), fecal calprotectin (fCal; >250mg/kg), or endoscopy performed ≤3 months before W0 with evidence of active CD. At W0 randomized pts received ∼6mg/kg IV UST/SC placebo (IV arm) or IV placebo/SC UST 90mg (SC arm) followed by 90mg SC UST at W8/16. Clinical/biomarker assessments occurred at W0/8/16. Primary endpoint: W16 clinical response (CRes; decrease of ≥100 points from W0 or CDAI < 150). Secondary endpoints: CRes; clinical remission (CRem); normalization of CRP and/or fCal at W8/16. Results: The full analysis set comprised 215 pts at W0 (SC, n=107; IV, n=108). At W16, 86.0% (SC) and 92.6% (IV) of pts completed treatment. Most pts (SC, 92.5%; IV, 88.9%) had a history of inadequate response/intolerance to prior biologics. At W16, while CRes did not statistically differentiate between arms, secondary outcomes indicated a difference in the IV vs SC arm. In this analysis, differences were seen in bionaïve pts and those with inadequate response/intolerance to < 3 biologics. A numerically greater proportion of pts achieved CRes in the IV vs SC arms in all groups except pts with ≥3 prior biologics, with a nominal difference in pts with 1 prior biologic (P=0.043; Table 1). A similar trend was observed for pts achieving W16 CRem, albeit the nominal threshold was not reached. A numerically greater proportion of pts in the IV vs SC arm achieved normalization of CRP and/or fCal at W16, except those with ≥3 prior biologics, and with a nominal difference in pts with 1 prior biologic (P< 0.001). Conclusion: POWER is the first trial to assess the efficacy and safety of UST IV re-induction in pts with secondary LoR. This analysis suggests that both naïve pts and those with prior inadequate response or intolerance to biologics may benefit from UST re-induction therapy. Table 1. - Primary and major secondary endpoints at W8 and W16 for patients with or without a history of inadequate response or intolerance to prior biologic(s) (Full analysis set) Overall population No history of prior biologic* inadequate response or intolerance History of inadequate response or intolerance to 1 prior biologic* History of inadequate response or intolerance to 2 prior biologics* History of inadequate response or intolerance to ≥3 prior biologics* UST SC n=107 UST IVn=108 UST SCn=8 UST IVn=12 UST SCn=37 UST IVn=33 UST SCn=35 UST IVn=35 UST SCn=27 UST IVn=28 Clinical response†‡ at W16 (primary endpoint) 40 (37.4) 53 (49.1)Δ 11.5 (-1.5; 24.5) P=0.089 1 (12.5) 5 (41.7)Δ 29.2 P=0.325 15 (40.5) 21 (63.6)Δ 24.4 (2.0; 46.8) P=0.043 13 (37.1) 18 (51.4)Δ 16.2 (-6.2; 38.7) P=0.177 11 (40.7) 9 (32.1)Δ -8.4 (-33.2; 16.3) P=0.535 Clinical remission‡§ at W16 29 (27.1) 36 (33.3)Δ 5.9 (-6.0; 17.8) P=0.338 0 4 (33.3)Δ 33.3 P=0.117 12 (32.4) 15 (45.5)Δ 11.8 (-9.9; 33.4) P=0.313 8 (22.9) 12 (34.3)Δ 10.6 (-10.7; 31.9) P=0.334 9 (33.3) 5 (17.9)Δ -11.0 (-33.3; 11.2) P=0.359 Patients with normalized CRP and/or fCall‡ ||¶** at W16 14/94 (14.9) 31/93 (33.3)Δ 18.5 (6.8; 30.2) P=0.004 1/8 (12.5) 2/8 (25.0)Δ 12.5 P=1.00 2/31 (6.5) 12/28 (42.9)Δ 37.6 (17.9; 57.4) P< 0.001 6/30 (20.0) 12/32 (37.5)Δ 17.8 (-3.1; 38.7) P=0.131 5/25 (20.0) 5/25 (20.0)Δ 3.8 (-18.8; 26.4) P=0.743 Clinical response†‡ at W8 48 (44.9) 56 (51.9)Δ 7.1 (-6.0; 20.2) P=0.300 3 (37.5) 4 (33.3)Δ -4.2 P=1.00 21 (56.8) 20 (60.6)Δ 4.7 (-18.4; 27.7) P=0.696 12 (34.3) 19 (54.3)Δ 22.0 (-0.2; 44.3) P=0.067 12 (44.4) 13 (46.4)Δ -2.7 (-29.1; 23.6) P=0.844 Clinical remission‡§ at W8 31 (29.0) 38 (35.2)Δ 6.4 (-5.8; 18.6) P=0.314 3 (37.5) 4 (33.3)Δ -4.2 P=1.00 15 (40.5) 14 (42.4)Δ -0.2 (-22.3; 21.8) P=0.985 6 (17.1) 14 (40.0)Δ 21.5 (1.3; 41.6) P=0.049 7 (25.9) 6 (21.4)Δ -2.0 (-24.3; 20.2) P=0.864 Data are presented as n (%) Δ (95% CI) P-value P<0.05 was the threshold for significance; P-values should be considered nominal as primary endpoint was not met.*Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or vedolizumab.†Clinical response is defined as a decrease of ≥100 points from W0 or CDAI score of <150 points.‡Patients who had insufficient data at the designated analysis timepoint or 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 caused by worsening CD prior to the designated analysis timepoint were not considered to have achieved the endpoint.§Clinical remission is defined as CDAI <150 points.||Abnormal CRP is defined as CRP value >3 mg/L and abnormal fCal concentrations is defined as >250 µg/g.¶Normalized CRP is defined as CRP value ≤3 mg/L and normalized fCal concentrations is defined as ≤250 µg/g. When either the CRP or fCal value is abnormal at baseline and the value of the same parameter normalizes at W16, patients are considered to be normalized at the designated analysis timepoint.**Patients who had insufficient data at the designated analysis timepoint had their last value carried forward.Δ, difference; CDAI, Crohn’s Disease Activity Index; CI, confidence interval; CRP, C-reactive protein; fCal, fecal calprotectin; IV, intravenous; SC, subcutaneous; 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)0.005
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.283 · 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→