P954 Cumulative response to guselkumab through week 24 of induction in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: Results from the phase 3 QUASAR induction study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Phase 3 QUASAR induction study evaluated efficacy and safety of guselkumab (GUS), an IL-23p19 subunit antagonist, in pts with moderately to severely active UC. At Week (Wk) 12, GUS 200mg IV was more effective than placebo (PBO) in inducing clinical remission and clinical response.1 Pts not in clinical response at Wk 12 received GUS through Wk 24. Here, we report GUS cumulative efficacy and safety. Methods Pts with a modified Mayo score of 5-9 and a centrally reviewed Mayo endoscopy subscore ≥2 at baseline (BL) were randomized 3:2 to receive GUS 200mg IV or PBO at Wks 0, 4, and 8. Pts not in clinical response at Wk 12 received GUS at Wks 12, 16, and 20 (GUS 200mg IV→GUS 200mg SC; PBO→GUS 200mg IV) and were evaluated at Wk 24. Matching IV or SC PBO were used to maintain study blinding. Final safety assessments were conducted through Wk 32 (ie, 12 wks after last dose of GUS). Results The primary analysis population consisted of 701 pts. BL demographics were similar among treatment groups, and approximately 50% had a history of inadequate response/intolerance to advanced therapy (ADT-IR). At Wk 12, clinical response was achieved by a higher percentage of GUS- vs PBO-treated pts (61.5% vs 27.9%, respectively; adjusted Δ [95% CI]: 33.8% [26.9%, 40.7%]; p<0.001; Figure). Of GUS-treated pts who were not in clinical response at Wk 12 and received additional GUS treatment (GUS IV→GUS SC), 55% (66/120) achieved clinical response at Wk 24. Cumulative clinical response at Wk 12 or 24 was achieved by 77.2% of pts randomized to GUS at BL. Pts with and without history of ADT-IR benefitted from continued treatment with GUS SC through Wk 24 (51.4% and 60.9% achieved clinical response at Wk 24, respectively). Of PBO-treated pts who were not in clinical response at Wk 12 and received GUS treatment (PBO IV→GUS IV), clinical response rate at Wk 24 (69.7%) was similar to that at Wk 12 for pts randomized to GUS at BL (61.5%). Safety findings through the final safety visit were consistent with Wk 12 results;1 no new safety signals were identified (Table). The most frequent adverse events among GUS-treated pts (n=586) were COVID-19 (7.2%), anemia (5.1%), and worsening UC (4.6%). Conclusion Among pts randomized to GUS IV who did not achieve clinical response at Wk 12, continued treatment with GUS SC allowed 55% to achieve clinical response at Wk 24. Overall, more than three-quarters of pts randomized to GUS IV achieved clinical response at Wk 12 or 24. No new safety signals for GUS were identified. 1) Allegretti JR, Peyrin-Biroulet L, Feagan BG, et al. The efficacy and safety of guselkumab induction therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: Results from the Phase 3 QUASAR induction study. UEG Journal. 2023;11(58):45-6.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".