P741 Characterisation of endoscopic improvements with risankizumab treatment in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Endoscopy is used to objectively evaluate disease severity in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD), and endoscopic remission is a target for disease control. Ulcer size is associated with longer-term endoscopic remission, so evaluating ulcers may inform longer-term outcomes. Risankizumab (RZB) is an interleukin 23p19 inhibitor approved for adults with moderately to severely active CD. In phase 3 trials, greater proportions of patients with CD achieved endoscopic outcomes including ulcer-free endoscopy with RZB induction and maintenance therapy vs placebo (PBO).1,2 We further investigated the effect of RZB on endoscopic outcomes by evaluating improvements in Simple Endoscopic Score for CD (SES-CD) components during these phase 3 trials. Methods This post hoc analysis used data from the phase 3 induction studies (ADVANCE [NCT03105128] and MOTIVATE [NCT03104413]) and phase 3 maintenance study (FORTIFY [NCT03105102]). Patients received intravenous (IV) doses of RZB (600 mg or 1200 mg) or PBO for 12 weeks, and clinical responders to IV RZB received RZB maintenance therapy (180 mg or 360 mg subcutaneously [SC]) or PBO (withdrawal) for 52 weeks. This analysis evaluated change in SES-CD subscores (size of ulcers, affected surface, and ulcerated surface) at induction week 12 and maintenance week 52 across ileocolonic segments (rectum, left colon, transverse colon, right colon, and ileum); analyses of improvement were based on a nonresponder imputation for patients with baseline subscores > 0 in the specific ileocolonic segment. Data from the induction studies were pooled for analysis; results for RZB 1200 mg IV induction are not reported. Shift data were from patients with available values. Results During the induction and maintenance studies, a numerically greater proportion of patients treated with RZB compared with PBO experienced improvements in any ileocolonic segment in SES-CD size of ulcers, ulcerated surface, and affected surface subscores (Figure). In general across each segment, a numerically greater proportion of patients treated with RZB induction and maintenance therapy compared with PBO experienced improvement from baseline SES-CD size of ulcer subscores of 2 or 3 (diameter 0.5–2 cm or diameter > 2 cm, respectively) to subscores of 0 or 1 (none or diameter 0.1–0.5 cm, respectively) at weeks 12 and 52 (Table). Similar patterns were observed for SES-CD ulcerated surface and affected surface subscores. Safety data for the phase 3 studies have been reported previously. Conclusion Patients treated with RZB experienced greater improvements in SES-CD components compared with PBO during the induction and maintenance studies. References 1. D’Haens G, et al. Lancet. 2022;399:2015–30. 2. Ferrante M, et al. Lancet. 2022;399:2031–46.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".