P623 Network meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative efficacy of advanced therapies as first line for maintenance treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Subcutaneous (SC) CT-P13 provides patients and physicians with a new opportunity for maintenance treatment of Crohn’s disease (CD).1 Given the rapidly expanding therapeutic armamentarium for CD and lack of direct comparative evidence,2 an updated network meta-analysis (NMA) of data from Phase 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of advanced CD therapies licensed in Europe or the US. Methods Eligible studies, identified by systematic literature review (PROSPERO no.: CRD42023413752), evaluated the efficacy of maintenance therapy using intravenous (IV) or SC infliximab, SC adalimumab, IV or SC vedolizumab, SC ustekinumab, SC risankizumab or oral upadacitinib, in patients with moderate-to-severe CD who responded to induction therapy. Head-to-head studies (including with treat-through designs) comparing licensed advanced therapies were also eligible. Studies were placebo- (PBO) or active-controlled and included 52–64 weeks of follow-up. Patients had not received prior tumour necrosis factor inhibitors, other biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors, thus each drug was received as first-line advanced therapy. Clinical remission and endoscopic response rates achieved with maintenance treatment were synthesised and analysed in a frequentist NMA random-effects model. Results There were 9 eligible RCTs (ACCENT I, LIBERTY-CD, CHARM, SEAVUE, GEMINI 2, VISIBLE 2, IM-UNITI, FORTIFY, U-ENDURE). Among 14 compared treatment arms, SC infliximab 120 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) showed the highest risk difference (RD) versus PBO for achieving clinical remission during the maintenance phase (0.38 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23, 0.53]), followed by SC adalimumab 40 mg QW (0.32 [0.17, 0.48]) and oral upadacitinib 30 mg once daily (0.30 [0.08, 0.53]) (Figure A). Endoscopic response data were available from LIBERTY-CD, FORTIFY and U-ENDURE: among 5 treatment arms, SC infliximab 120 mg Q2W showed the highest RD (95% CI) versus PBO for achieving endoscopic response (0.39 [0.29, 0.49]), followed by SC risankizumab 180 mg Q8W (0.37 [0.17, 0.56]) and SC risankizumab 360 mg Q8W (0.27 [0.06, 0.48]) (Figure B). Conclusion In this updated NMA, SC infliximab 120 mg Q2W demonstrated a favourable efficacy profile in terms of achieving clinical remission and endoscopic response, when administered as a first-line advanced therapy for maintenance treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe CD. 1Remsima summary of product characteristics (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/remsima-epar-product-information_en.pdf). Accessed 1 November 2023. 2Barberio B et al. Gut 2023;72:264–74.
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 | 0.022 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".