OP06 Risankizumab Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: Efficacy and Safety in the Randomised Phase 3 COMMAND Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Risankizumab (RZB), a monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-23 p19, was evaluated for maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) and clinical response to RZB intravenous (IV) induction treatment in a phase 3 double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled withdrawal (WD) maintenance study, COMMAND (NCT03398135). Methods Patients with moderately to severely active UC who achieved a clinical response per Adapted Mayo score after 12 or 24 weeks (wks) of RZB IV treatment in the phase 2b and phase 3 INSPIRE induction studies (NCT03398148)1 were randomized 1:1:1 in COMMAND to RZB 180 mg (RZB180), 360 mg (RZB360), or PBO (RZB withdrawal) subcutaneous (SC) treatment every 8 wks for 52 wks. The efficacy analysis included responders to 12 wk of RZB IV, while the safety analysis included responders to 12 or 24 wk of RZB IV. The primary endpoint was clinical remission per Adapted Mayo score at wk 52. Key secondary endpoints included endoscopic improvement, HEMI, endoscopic remission, steroid-free clinical remission, maintenance of clinical remission, no bowel urgency, and no abdominal pain at wk 52. Results At baseline of induction, demographics and disease characteristics were similar between treatment groups; 75% of 548 patients had history of inadequate response or intolerance to ≥ 1 advanced therapy (AT). Patients receiving RZB180 (40.2%) and RZB360 (37.6%) achieved significantly higher rates of clinical remission vs WD (25.1%) (adjusted treatment difference vs WD: 16.3% and 14.2%, respectively; P ≤ .01) (Fig. 1A). Greater proportions of patients achieved endoscopic improvement, HEMI, endoscopic remission, steroid-free clinical remission, maintenance of clinical remission, no bowel urgency, and no abdominal pain with RZB180 and RZB360 vs WD (Fig. 1B). The overall rates of adverse events (AEs), and serious infections were similar among treatment groups (Table 1). Serious (presented as events/100 patient-years [E/100 PY]) (RZB180: 5.9; RZB360: 6.3; WD: 11.4) and severe AEs (RZB180: 1.6; RZB360: 4.0; WD: 8.0) were lower in the RZB arms vs WD. No active tuberculosis, adjudicated anaphylaxis, serious hypersensitivity, or adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events were reported in any treatment group. Conclusion In patients with moderately to severely active UC responding to 12-week RZB induction therapy, RZB maintenance dosing with 180 mg and 360 mg SC was superior to placebo in achieving clinical remission as well as other key clinical, endoscopic, and histological-endoscopic endpoints. RZB was well-tolerated, with no new safety concerns 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".