MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S847 Efficacy of Guselkumab in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Crohn’s Disease Not in Clinical Response at Week 12: Results From the GALAXI 1 Study

2023· article· en· W4387751266 on OpenAlexaff
Remo Panaccione, Anita Afzali, Geert D’Haens, Leonardo Salese, Natalie A. Terry, Aparna Sahoo, Mary Ellen Frustaci, Zijiang Yang, Eran Zittan, Silvio Danese, Tadakazu Hisamatsu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboInternal medicinePopulationClinical endpointClinical trialGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The Phase 2 GALAXI 1 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of guselkumab (GUS), a human selective IL-23p19 subunit antagonist, in patients (pts) with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease (CD). Pts were randomized to GUS, ustekinumab (UST), or placebo (PBO) through Week (Wk) 48 without rerandomization after IV induction. Previously, we reported that pts who were in clinical response after IV induction had higher rates of clinical and endoscopic outcomes at Wk48 than the overall study population.1 In this post hoc analysis, we report outcomes for pts who did not achieve Wk12 clinical response based on CD activity index (CDAI) after IV induction. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1:1:1:1 to induction with GUS 200, 600, or 1200mg IV, UST ∼6mg/kg IV, or PBO IV. At Wk12 (Wk8 for UST), pts were transitioned to maintenance dosing: GUS 200mg IV→100mg subcutaneous (SC) q8w, GUS 600mg IV→200mg SC q4w, GUS 1200mg IV→200mg SC q4w, UST ∼6mg/kg IV→90mg SC q8w, PBO nonresponders→UST ∼6mg/kg IV→90mg SC q8w, and PBO responders→PBO SC q4w. Clinical response (all time points) was defined as ≥100-point reduction from baseline in CDAI or CDAI < 150. Other endpoints included clinical remission (CDAI < 150), pt-reported outcome (PRO)-2 remission (unweighted CDAI components of average daily abdominal pain score ≤1 and average daily stool frequency ≤3, and no worsening from baseline), and endoscopic response (≥50% improvement from baseline in simple endoscopic score [SES]-CD or SES-CD ≤2). The study was not powered to evaluate between-group efficacy differences at Wk48; UST was used for reference. Results: At Wk12, 63/185 (34.1%) GUS pts and 21/63 (33.3%) UST did not achieve CDAI clinical response. Among GUS Wk12 nonresponders, 46.0% were in clinical response by Wk24 (Table 1). Percentages of Wk12 nonresponders who went on to achieve outcomes at Wk48 in the GUS and UST groups, respectively, were as follows: clinical response, 58.7% and 47.6%; clinical remission, 41.3% and 33.3%; PRO-2 remission, 42.9% and 23.8%; and endoscopic response, 31.7% and 23.8% (Table 1). Conclusion: Among pts who were not in clinical response at Wk12, continued treatment with GUS SC may result in clinical response and, ultimately, clinical or PRO-2 remission and/or endoscopic response. 1. Panés J, et al. UEG Journal 2022; 10 (Suppl 8). Table 1. - Efficacy Outcomes Among Patients Not in Clinical Response(a) at Week 12 Outcome, %b c Combined Guselkumab (N=63) Ustekinumab (N=21) Clinical responsea Week 16 36.5 42.9 Week 20 47.6 52.4 Week 24 46.0 52.4 Week 28 47.6 42.9 Week 32 54.0 47.6 Week 36 50.8 57.1 Week 40 54.0 52.4 Week 44 52.4 47.6 Week 48 58.7 47.6 Clinical remission at Week 48d 41.3 33.3 PRO-2 remission at Week 48e 42.9 23.8 Endoscopic response at Week 48f 31.7 23.8 AP=abdominal pain; CD=Crohn’s disease; CDAI=Crohn’s disease activity index; PRO-2=Patient-reported CDAI components of AP and SF; SES-CD=Simple Endoscopic Score for CD; SF=stool frequency.aClinical response was defined as ≥100-point reduction from baseline in CDAI or CDAI < 150.bPatients who had a prohibited change in concomitant CD medication, a CD-related surgery, or discontinued study agent due to lack of efficacy, or an adverse event of worsening CD prior to the designated analysis timepoint, were considered not to have achieved the endpoint.cPatients who had insufficient data to calculate the outcome measure at the designated analysis timepoint were considered not to have achieved the endpoint.dClinical remission was defined as a CDAI < 150.ePRO-2 remission was defined as unweighted CDAI component of average daily AP ≤1 and the unweighted CDAI component of average daily SF ≤3, and no worsening of AP or SF from baseline.fEndoscopic response was defined as ≥50% improvement from baseline in SES-CD or SES-CD ≤2.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.262 · 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→