MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S903 Cumulative Response to Guselkumab Through Week 24 of Induction in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: Results From the Phase 3 QUASAR Induction Study

2023· article· en· W4387751123 on OpenAlexaff
David T. Rubin, Bruce E. Sands, Gary R. Lichtenstein, Thomas Baker, Kuan‐Hsiang Gary Huang, Matthew Germinaro, Miao Ye, Hongyan Zhang, Stéphane Nancey, Jessica R. Allegretti, Brian G. Feagan, Tadakazu Hisamatsu, Julián Panés, Axel Dignaß, Brian Bressler, Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicinePopulationPlaceboSurgeryGastroenterologyPhases of clinical researchClinical trialPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The Phase 3 QUASAR induction study evaluated efficacy and safety of guselkumab (GUS), an IL-23p19 subunit antagonist, in patients (pts) with moderately to severely active UC. At Week (Wk) 12, GUS 200mg IV was more effective than placebo (PBO) in inducing clinical remission and clinical response. Pts not in clinical response at Wk12 received GUS through Wk24. Here, we report GUS cumulative efficacy and safety. Methods: Pts with a modified Mayo score of 5-9 and a centrally reviewed Mayo endoscopy subscore ≥2 at baseline (BL) were randomized 3:2 to receive GUS 200mg IV or PBO at Wks0, 4, and 8. Pts not in clinical response at Wk12 received GUS at Wks12, 16, and 20 (GUS 200mg IV→GUS 200mg SC; PBO→GUS 200mg IV) and were evaluated at Wk24. Matching IV or SC PBO were used to maintain study blinding. Final safety assessments were conducted through Wk 32 (ie, 12 wks after last dose of GUS). Results: The primary analysis population consisted of 701 pts. BL demographics were similar among treatment groups, and approximately 50% had a history of inadequate response/intolerance to advanced therapy (ADT-IR). At Wk12, clinical response was achieved by a higher percentage of GUS- vs PBO-treated pts (61.5% vs 27.9%, respectively; adjusted Δ [95% CI]: 33.8% [26.9%, 40.7%]; P< 0.001; Figure 1). Of GUS-treated pts who were not in clinical response at Wk12 and received additional GUS treatment (GUS IV→GUS SC), 55% (66/120) achieved clinical response at Wk24. Cumulative clinical response at Wk12 or 24 was achieved by 77.2% of pts randomized to GUS at BL. Pts with and without history of ADT-IR benefitted from continued treatment with GUS SC through Wk24 (51.4% and 60.9% achieved clinical response at Wk24, respectively). Of PBO-treated pts who were not in clinical response at Wk12 and received GUS treatment (PBO IV→GUS IV), clinical response rate at Wk24 (69.7%) was similar to that at Wk12 for pts randomized to GUS at BL (61.5%). Safety findings through the final safety visit were consistent with Wk12 results; no new safety signals were identified (Table 1). The most frequent adverse events among GUS-treated pts (n=586) were COVID-19 (7.2%), anemia (5.1%), and worsening UC (4.6%). Conclusion: Among pts randomized to GUS IV who did not achieve clinical response at Wk12, continued treatment with GUS SC allowed 55% to achieve clinical response at Wk24. Overall, more than three-quarters of pts randomized to GUS IV achieved clinical response at Wk12 or 24. No new safety signals for GUS were identified.Figure 1.: Cumulative clinical response through Week 24. Table 1. - Safety summary through final safety visit IV Induction Cross-over Combined PBO IVa GUS 200mg IVa PBO IV → GUS 200mg IVb GUS 200mg IV → GUS 200mg SCb All GUSc Safety analysis set, N 280 421 165 125 586 Average duration of follow-up (weeks) 12.1 12.3 13.9 14.6 15.9 Average exposure (number of administrations) 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.5 Deathsd 2 (0.7%) 1 (0.2%) 0 0 1 (0.2%) Patients with one or more: Adverse events 138 (49.3%) 208 (49.4%) 65 (39.4%) 56 (44.8%) 292 (49.8%) Serious adverse events 20 (7.1%) 12 (2.9%) 3 (1.8%) 3 (2.4%) 18 (3.1%) Adverse events leading to discontinuation of study agent 11 (3.9%) 7 (1.7%) 7 (4.2%) 5 (4.0%) 19 (3.2%) Infectionse 43 (15.4%) 67 (15.9%) 26 (15.8%) 18 (14.4%) 104 (17.7%) Serious infectionse 1 (0.4%) 3 (0.7%) 1 (0.6%) 2 (1.6%) 6 (1.0%) Adverse events within 1 hour of infusionf 1 (0.4%) 6 (1.4%) 1 (0.6%) 3 (2.4%) 10 (1.7%) Note: Includes only pts with modified Mayo score 5-9 at induction baseline.aIncludes data up to Week 12 for subjects who received treatment at Week 12. Includes all data through final safety visit (12 weeks after the last dose of study intervention) for subjects who did not receive treatment at Week 12.bIncludes data from Week 12 onward.cFrom the first guselkumab dose onward.dAll reported deaths were cardiovascular in nature and the patient in GUS arm had substantial cardiovascular risk factors.eInfections were defined as any adverse event which was coded to the MedDRA system organ class 'Infections and infestations.’fNo AEs within 1 hour of infusion were serious or resulted in treatment discontinuation.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.268 · 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→