MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391162014 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.0918

P788 The effect of etrasimod on faecal calprotectin and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein: Results from the ELEVATE UC clinical programme

2024· article· en· W4391162014 on OpenAlexaff
Vipul Jairath, David T. Rubin, Bram Verstockt, Ayhan Hilmi Çekın, María T. Abreu, Charlie W. Lees, Marc Fellmann, John Woolcott, C Crosby, Joseph Wu, Ashish Bhattacharjee, Daniel S. Herman, G Gu, Britta Siegmund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalprotectinC-reactive proteinSensitivity (control systems)Faecal calprotectinInternal medicineMedicineGastroenterologyInflammationEngineeringElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Etrasimod is an oral, once-daily, selective sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P)1,4,5 receptor modulator for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). Here, we present a post hoc analysis of efficacy data from two phase 3 trials, ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12,1 assessing associations with faecal calprotectin (fCAL) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) and responses to etrasimod in patients (pts) with UC. Methods In ELEVATE UC 52 (NCT03945188) and ELEVATE UC 12 (NCT03996369), pts aged 16–80 years with moderately to severely active UC were randomised 2:1 to etrasimod 2 mg once daily or placebo. Efficacy endpoints of clinical remission, clinical response and endoscopic improvement-histological remission (EIHR) were measured at Wk 12 (both trials analysed separately) and Wk 52 (ELEVATE UC 52). Differences in median fCAL and hsCRP between responders and nonresponders (based on criteria for each endpoint) were assessed. Wilcoxon p values were calculated for responder analyses. Sensitivity and specificity based on fCAL and hsCRP concentrations were presented as receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with area under the curve (AUC). Results In ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12, 289 and 238 pts received etrasimod and 144 and 116 received placebo, respectively. Baseline fCAL and hsCRP concentrations were similar across cohorts and levels decreased with etrasimod treatment (median change from baseline at Wk 52 [ELEVATE 52]; -710.56 mg/kg and -0.49 mg/L for fCAL and hsCRP, respectively). Following etrasimod, Wk 12 (both studies) and Wk 52 (ELEVATE UC 52), median fCAL and hsCRP were significantly lower in responders vs nonresponders for all efficacy endpoints (fCAL [ELEVATE UC 52] shown in Table; all endpoints p<0.01). At Wk 4, pts receiving etrasimod who were subsequent responders for efficacy endpoints at Wk 12 had lower median fCAL concentrations vs nonresponders in both trials (all p<0.001; Figure). A similar trend was observed for Wk 4 median fCAL concentrations and responders for efficacy endpoints at Wk 52 (ELEVATE UC 52). Across endpoints in both trials, ROC analyses indicated that both fCAL and hsCRP were consistent in predicting short- and longer-term outcomes, with more pronounced associations at Wk 52. Conclusion In phase 3 trials in pts with UC, fCAL and hsCRP levels decreased with etrasimod treatment. ROC analyses indicated association between fCAL and hsCRP and treatment response at all endpoints, and demonstrated significantly lower fCAL and hsCRP values in responders. These data demonstrate the utility of fCAL and hsCRP to predict and monitor disease control in pts with UC treated with etrasimod. Reference 1. Sandborn WJ et al. Lancet 2023; 401: 1159–1171.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→