P1040 Comparative effectiveness of upadacitinib versus ustekinumab in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, and ustekinumab (UST), a parenteral IL 12/23 antagonist, are effective treatments for moderately to severely active Crohn’s Disease (CD). In the absence of head-to-head data, a placebo (PBO)-anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to indirectly compare efficacy of UPA vs UST. Methods Individual patient (pt)-level data from phase 3 UPA trials and published data from phase 3 UST trials were used. For induction, pts received UPA 45mg daily or PBO for 12 weeks or UST ~6mg/kg IV or PBO IV at week 0 with 8-week follow-up. For maintenance, UPA clinical responders were re-randomized to UPA 15mg, 30mg, or PBO daily for 52 weeks. UST clinical responders were re-randomized to 90mg SC (every 8 or 12 weeks) or PBO SC for 44 weeks. UPA pts had baseline (BL) CD Activity Index (CDAI) 220-450; those with prior UST or vedolizumab exposure were excluded. Treatment effect modifiers, including BL mean CDAI, Simple Endoscopic Score for CD (SES-CD), median C-reactive protein, prior biologic(s) failure, and disease location, from UPA data were weighted to match the UST population. Outcomes assessed were CDAI response (≥100-point decrease or CDAI <150), CDAI remission (CDAI <150), endoscopic response (SES-CD ≥50% decrease), and SES-CD ≤2. Separate MAICs were conducted for induction and maintenance; data reported for induction clinical outcomes are stratified by prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). Results A greater proportion of UPA- vs UST-treated pts achieved endoscopic response (difference 26.3%, P<0.001) and SES-CD ≤2 (difference 9.9%, P<0.05) at the end of induction. In TNF-IR patients, a greater proportion of UPA- vs UST-treated pts achieved CDAI response at the end of induction (difference 18.2%, P<0.05) and at the end of Week 8 (difference 26.0%, P<0.001). CDAI remission rates were also higher at end of Week 8 for UPA- vs UST-treated pts (difference 13.3%, P<0.05). Rates of achieving CDAI response and remission were similar between UPA- and UST-treated pts at the end of induction and Week 8 among bio-naïve pts. Following maintenance treatment, similar rates of SES-CD ≤2, endoscopic response, and CDAI remission were obtained in the total population of UPA and UST-treated pts. Conclusion Pts with moderately to severely active CD treated with UPA achieved higher rates of endoscopic (total population) and clinical (TNFi-IR population) outcomes during induction compared to UST-treated pts. Outcomes at the end of maintenance were similar for UPA and UST, however, results should be interpreted with caution due to low sample size.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".