S4 Risankizumab Induction Therapy in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: Efficacy and Safety in the Randomized Phase 3 INSPIRE Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Risankizumab (RZB), a monoclonal antibody neutralizing interleukin (IL)-23p19, was evaluated for efficacy and safety of induction therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) in the phase 3 trial, INSPIRE (NCT03398148). Methods: Eligible patients (18-80 years) with moderately to severely active UC (Adapted Mayo score of 5 – 9 points) and an endoscopic subscore of 2-3 (per central review) were enrolled. Patients were required to have demonstrated intolerance or inadequate response to conventional and/or advanced therapies (biologics, JAK inhibitors, and S1P receptor modulators). Patients (N=975) were randomized 2:1 to receive either RZB 1200 mg intravenously or placebo (PBO) at Weeks 0, 4, and 8, stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes vs no), baseline adapted Mayo Score (≤ 7 vs > 7), and number of advanced therapy failures (0, 1, >1). The primary endpoint was clinical remission (per Adapted Mayo Score defined as stool frequency subscore ≤ 1 and not greater than baseline, rectal bleeding subscore of 0, and endoscopic subscore ≤ 1 without friability) at Week 12. Key, ranked secondary endpoints included clinical response, endoscopic improvement, endoscopic remission, histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement (HEMI), histologic-endoscopic mucosal remission (HEMR) at Week 12, unless otherwise noted. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups. A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving RZB (n=650) vs. PBO (n=325) achieved clinical remission (20.3% vs. 6.2%, adjusted treatment difference 14.0% [95% CI, 10.0%-18.0%], p < .00001). A greater proportion of patients achieved clinical remission for RZB vs. PBO in the advanced therapy-naïve (29.7% [n=317] vs. 8.4% [n=155], adjusted treatment difference 21.3% [95% CI, 14.6%-27.9%]) and advanced therapy-IR (11.4% [n=333] vs. 4.3% [n=170], adjusted treatment difference 7.2% [95% CI, 2.6%-11.8%]) subpopulations. All ranked secondary endpoints were met. Significantly higher clinical response rates (per Adapted Mayo Score at week 12: 64.3% vs. 35.7%, adjusted treatment difference 28.6% [95% CI, 22.3%-34.8%]; per partial Adapted Mayo Score at Week 4: 52.2% vs. 30.5%, adjusted treatment difference 21.8% [95% CI, 15.6%-28.1%]), endoscopic improvement (36.5% vs. 12.1%, adjusted treatment difference 24.3% [95% CI, 19.3%-29.4%]), endoscopic remission (10.6% vs. 3.4%, adjusted treatment difference 7.2% [95% CI, 4.2%-10.2%]), HEMI (24.5% vs. 7.7%, adjusted treatment difference 16.6% [95% CI, 12.3%-21.0%]), and HEMR (6.3% vs. 0.6%, adjusted treatment difference 5.6% [95% CI, 3.5%-7.7%]) were met for RZB vs. PBO, respectively (p < .00001 for all endpoints). Adverse event (AE) rates were 42.1% in RZB vs 49.7% in PBO, serious AEs (2.3% vs 10.2%), severe AEs (2.5% vs 10.2%), AEs leading to discontinuation of study drug (0.6% vs 3.7%), and serious infections (0.6% vs 1.2%), all numerically lower in the RZB arm. No adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events, adjudicated anaphylaxis, or serious hepatic events reported. One death occurred in the RZB group due to covid-19 pneumonia, with no possibility of being related to study drug according to the investigator. Conclusions: RZB was superior to PBO as an induction therapy in patients with moderately to severely active UC for clinical remission and all secondary clinical, endoscopic, and endoscopic-histologic endpoints. RZB was well-tolerated, and no new safety risks were observed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".