MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S1060 Guselkumab Improves Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: Results From the QUASAR Phase 3 Induction Study

2023· article· en· W4387751398 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Bressler, Brian G. Feagan, Julián Panés, Gary R. Lichtenstein, Kuan‐Hsiang Gary Huang, Matthew Germinaro, Dwiti Pandya, Chenglong Han, Miao Ye, Hongyan Zhang, Syed Salman Lateef, Rima Petronienė, Yaser Rayyan, Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, David T. Rubin, Tadakazu Hisamatsu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsBarrie Urology GroupWestern UniversitySt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUlcerative colitisInternal medicineQuality of life (healthcare)PopulationInflammatory bowel diseasePlaceboClinical endpointGastroenterologyPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The QUASAR Phase 3 Induction Study assessed the efficacy and safety of guselkumab (GUS), an IL-23 p19 subunit antagonist, as IV induction therapy in adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) with an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional and/or advanced therapies (ie, TNFα antagonists, integrin receptor antagonists, or Janus kinase inhibitors). Primary outcomes were reported previously; here we report the impact of GUS vs placebo (PBO) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at Week (Wk) 12 as measured by the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ). Methods: Patients randomly received in a blinded fashion (3:2) treatment with IV GUS 200mg or PBO at Wks 0/4/8. The primary analysis population included treated patients with a baseline modified Mayo score of 5–9 and an endoscopy subscore ≥2. The IBDQ (Total score range, 32–224) was evaluated at Wks 0/12; higher scores indicate better HRQoL, with a score ≥170 indicating disease remission (IBDQ Remission). Clinically meaningful improvements were defined using cutoffs of ≥16- or > 20-point change from baseline in IBDQ Total score. These analyses were prespecified; only IBDQ Remission at Wk 12 was controlled for analysis of multiple comparisons. Results: Seven hundred one patients were included in the primary analysis (mean age, 40.5y; male, 56.9%; mean UC duration, 7.5y; mean modified Mayo score, 6.9; Mayo endoscopy subscore of 3, 67.9%). Baseline characteristics were balanced across the GUS and PBO groups; ∼49% of each group had a prior inadequate response or intolerance to advanced therapies (ADT-IR). Mean baseline IBDQ Total scores were 125.8 and 126.3 for GUS and PBO, respectively. Compared with PBO at Wk 12, GUS was associated with greater mean reductions in IBDQ Total and each Dimension score (Bowel, Emotional, Systemic, Social; Table 1). A significantly greater ( P< 0.001) proportion of patients receiving GUS were in IBDQ Remission at Wk 12 vs PBO (51.3% vs 29.6%; adjusted treatment difference, 21.9%). The effect of GUS on IBDQ Remission was also observed in patients with or without prior ADT-IR (Table 1). A greater proportion of GUS patients achieved clinically meaningful improvements (both IBDQ improvement definitions; Figure 1). Conclusion: In patients with moderately to severely active UC, induction therapy with IV GUS 200mg resulted in higher rates of clinically meaningful IBDQ improvements and IBDQ Remission at Wk 12 vs PBO. Greater improvements were noted in each of the IBDQ domains. Table 1. - IBDQ Scores and Rates of IBDQ Remission at Wk 12 PBO IV GUS 200mg IV Treatment Difference (95% CI) IBDQ Total score change from baseline: mean (95% CI) 18.6 (14.2, 22.9) [n=261] 39.0 (35.5, 42.4) [n=405] 20.5a (15.4, 25.5) nominal P< 0.001 IBDQ Bowel score change from baseline: mean (95% CI) 7.5 (6.0, 8.9) 14.9 (13.7, 16.2) 7.3a (5.6, 9.0) nominal P< 0.001 IBDQ Emotional score change from baseline: mean (95% CI) 5.4 (3.7, 7.1) 11.6 (10.4, 12.9) 6.5a (4.6, 8.4) nominal P< 0.001 IBDQ Systemic score change from baseline: mean (95% CI) 2.6 (1.9, 3.2) 5.7 (5.1, 6.3) 3.1a (2.3, 3.9) nominal P< 0.001 IBDQ Social score change from baseline: mean (95% CI) 3.1 (2.2, 4.0) 6.7 (6.0, 7.4) 3.6a (2.6, 4.6) nominal P< 0.001 Patients in IBDQ Remission (total score ≥170) at Wk 12: % [n/N] (95% CI) 29.6% [83/280] (24.3%, 35.0%) 51.3% [216/421] (46.5%, 56.1%) 21.9%b (14.9%, 29.0%) P< 0.001 Patients with prior ADT-IR in IBDQ Remission at Wk 12: % [n/N] (95% CI) 24.3% [33/136] (17.1%, 31.5%) 39.4% [82/208] (32.8%, 46.1%) 15.2%c (5.4%, 24.9%) nominal P=0.004 Patients without prior ADT-IR in IBDQ Remission at Wk 12: % [n/N] (95% CI) 34.7% [50/144] (26.9%, 42.5%) 62.9% [134/213] (56.4%, 69.4%) 28.2%c (18.1%, 38.3%) nominal P< 0.001 NOTE: Patients who had a prohibited change in UC medication, an ostomy or colectomy, or discontinued study agent due to lack of efficacy or an AE of worsening of UC or other reasons except for COVID-19 reasons (excluding COVID-19 infection) or regional crisis in Russia and Ukraine, had their baseline value carried forward and were considered not in IBDQ Remission. Patients missing an IBDQ Total score at Wk 12 were considered not in IBDQ Remission.aTreatment difference estimated by the difference in the least squares means (ANCOVA); P-value based on ANCOVA.bAdjusted treatment difference based on the Wald statistic with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight; P-value based on CMH chi-square test, stratified by ADT-inadequate response/intolerance (ADT-IR) status (Yes/No) and concomitant use of corticosteroids at baseline (Yes/No).cAdjusted treatment difference based on the Wald statistic with CMH weight; P-value based on CMH chi-square test, stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids at baseline (Yes/No). Figure 1.: Percentage of patients with ≥16- or >20-point IBDQ Total score improvements at Wk 12.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.272 · 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→