A204 DUPILUMAB IMPROVES HISTOLOGIC, ENDOSCOPIC, AND SYMPTOMATIC ASPECTS OF EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS IN PATIENTS AGES 1–ampersand:003C12 YEARS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Dupilumab is approved in Canada for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in patients (pts) aged ≥12 years who weigh ≥40 kg; no treatments are approved for pts aged ampersand:003C12 years. Aims The Phase 3 EoE KIDS trial evaluated dupilumab efficacy and safety vs placebo (PBO) in pts aged 1–ampersand:003C12 years with EoE. Methods Part A was a 16-week (W) PBO-controlled study; pts were randomized 2:2:1:1 to weight-tiered dupilumab on a higher-exposure (HE) or lower-exposure (LE) regimen, or PBO (2 groups) to W16. In Part B, pts continued dupilumab, or switched from PBO to dupilumab (HE/LE), to W52. Results At W16 (Part A), the HE dupilumab group had an improved proportion of pts achieving peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count (PEC) ≤6 eosinophils/high-power field (hpf) vs PBO (67.6% vs 2.9%, Pampersand:003C0.0001; primary endpoint). At W52 (Part B), 62.9% of HE dupilumab/dupilumab pts, and 52.9% of PBO/HE dupilumab pts, achieved PEC ≤6. At W16, the following improved with HE dupilumab vs PBO: EoE-Histologic Scoring System grade and stage scores (–0.88 vs +0.02 and –0.84 vs +0.05, respectively, both Pampersand:003C0.0001); EoE-Endoscopic Reference Score (–3.5 vs +0.3, Pampersand:003C0.0001); overall caregiver assessed EoE status (global impression of change mean [SD], 2.1 [1.2] vs 3.3 [1.4]; lower scores represent more improvement). Improvements were maintained with continuous dupilumab and improved in PBO/dupilumab pts at W52. LE dupilumab maintained similar improvements achieved through W52; however, effects were generally either comparable or numerically lower with LE dupilumab vs HE dupilumab. At W16, COVID-19, rash, headache, and injection-site erythema occurred more frequently in patients receiving dupilumab, with higher incidence than PBO; AEs were similar through W52. Conclusions HE dupilumab met the primary endpoint of PEC ≤6 eos/hpf vs PBO, demonstrated significant changes in histologic and endoscopic aspects of EoE, and improved symptoms with benefits maintained/increased to W52. Funding Agencies Research sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".