Delayed Ustekinumab and Adalimumab Responders Have Similar Outcomes as Early Responders in Biologic-Naïve Crohn's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Differences in 1-year outcomes among early and delayed responders have been demonstrated with some therapies in ulcerative colitis. However, it is unclear whether similar differences exist in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) treated with biologic therapies. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of patient-level data from the SEAVUE clinical trial program. Ustekinumab-treated and adalimumab-treated patients with clinical response at week 8, defined as a reduction in Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of at least 100 points from baseline or CDAI score <150, were deemed early responders and their outcomes were compared with delayed responders (week 8 nonresponders who subsequently responded at week 16) and nonresponders (no response at week 8 or 16). The primary outcome assessed was clinical remission at week 56, defined as CDAI <150. RESULTS: A total of 373 participants (187 treated with ustekinumab and 186 treated with adalimumab) were included in this analysis. The overall rate of delayed clinical response was low in the SEAVUE clinical trial program (13.1%). No differences were observed for week 56 clinical remission among early vs delayed responders to ustekinumab or adalimumab nor were there significant differences for secondary outcomes assessed. Delayed responders to ustekinumab and adalimumab had a significant decline in C-reactive protein by week 8 when compared with nonresponders. DISCUSSION: Among patients with moderate-to-severe CD, early and delayed responders to adalimumab and ustekinumab have similar 1-year clinical outcomes. Biomarker decline can be observed through the initial 8 weeks of therapy in patients who will eventually be delayed responders, which may help differentiate from nonresponders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".