MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388207566 · doi:10.1055/s-0043-1771741

Efficacy and safety of etrasimod in patients with moderate to severe isolated proctitis compared with patients with more extensive disease: a subgroup analysis of the phase 3 ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 trials

2023· article· en· W4388207566 on OpenAlexaff
Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, Marla C. Dubinsky, B E Sands, Julián Panés, Stefan Schreiber, Walter Reinisch, Brian G. Feagan, Silvio Danese, Andrés Yarur, Geert D’Haens, Martina Goetsch, Karolina Wosik, Joseph Wu, Irene Modesto, A McDonnell, Lauren Bartolome, Christopher J. Rabbat, Séverine Vermeire

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Gastroenterologie · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAppendicitis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsPfizer (Canada)Western University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProctitisMedicineUlcerative colitisSubgroup analysisInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchGastroenterologySafety profileClinical trialDiseaseAdverse effectMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Etrasimod is an investigational, oral, once-daily, selective sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) 1,4,5 receptor modulator in development for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). Although approximately 30% of patients (pts) with UC present with isolated proctitis, [ 1 ] most phase 3 trials of systemic UC therapies exclude this subgroup. Objectives This post hoc analysis of pts with UC enrolled in the ELEVATE UC trials assessed the efficacy and safety of etrasimod in pts with isolated proctitis vs those with more extensive disease (proctosigmoiditis/left-sided colitis/pancolitis). Methodology In the phase 3 ELEVATE UC 52 (NCT03945188) and ELEVATE UC 12 (NCT03996369) trials, pts (aged 16–80 years) with moderately to severely active UC were randomised 2:1 to etrasimod 2 mg once daily or placebo (PBO). ELEVATE UC 52 comprised a 12-week (wk) induction period followed by a 40-wk maintenance period with a treat-through design. ELEVATE UC 12 comprised a 12-wk induction period. Both trials allowed inclusion of pts with isolated proctitis (<10 cm rectal involvement; centrally read) provided they met all other eligibility criteria. Pre-defined clinical endpoints were assessed in pts with isolated proctitis in a pooled cohort from both studies and in a subgroup of pts with more extensive disease (data from individual studies). Safety was assessed up to Wk 52. Result In ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12, 289 and 238 pts received etrasimod, and 144 and 116 pts received PBO, respectively. [ 2 ] This analysis included 64 pts (etrasimod, N=42; PBO, N=22) at Wk 12 and 36 pts (etrasimod, N=27; PBO, N=9) at Wk 52 with isolated proctitis. Proportions of pts with isolated proctitis achieving clinical remission and clinical response at Wks 12 and 52, and corticosteroid-free remission at Wk 52 were generally greater in pts receiving etrasimod vs PBO ([ Fig. 1 ]). Efficacy findings were similar in pts with isolated proctitis vs those with more extensive disease ([ Fig. 1 ]). Safety in pts with isolated proctitis was similar to the overall trial population. [ 2 ] Abb. 1 Conclusion Etrasimod was effective for induction and maintenance of clinical remission in pts with UC and isolated proctitis. Efficacy and safety of etrasimod in pts with isolated proctitis were similar to those with more extensive disease in the ELEVATE UC trials. [ 2 ] Publication History Article published online: 28 August 2023 © 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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 venueZeitschrift für GastroenterologieSame topicAppendicitis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207