Exposure–efficacy relationship of vedolizumab subcutaneous and intravenous formulations in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims This posthoc analysis of the GEMINI and VISIBLE studies in ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's Disease (CD) assessed exposure−efficacy of vedolizumab intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC).Methods A previously described population pharmacokinetic model was used to predict average serum and trough concentrations at steady state (Cav,ss, Ctrough,ss) and simulate the transition from vedolizumab IV to SC. Efficacy was defined as clinical remission at week 52: complete Mayo score ≤ 2 points and no individual subscore > 1 point (UC), and CD activity index score ≤ 150 points (CD).Results Data were from 1968 patients (GEMINI 1 [n = 334], VISIBLE 1 [n = 216], GEMINI 2 [n = 1009], VISIBLE 2 [n = 409]) who received maintenance treatment with vedolizumab IV-Q8W, IV-Q4W, SC-Q2W, or placebo. Model-predicted Cav,ss for IV-Q8W and SC-Q2W was similar in UC and CD. Cav,ss was higher for IV-Q4W than IV-Q8W and SC-Q2W. Ctrough,ss values from IV and SC aligned well with pooled observed Ctrough by treatment group in UC and CD. Cav,ss was equivalent for SC and IV. For UC and CD, efficacy rates were greater in patients in the highest quartiles of vedolizumab exposure for both formulations.Conclusion Exposure−efficacy relationships for IV and SC vedolizumab administration were comparable, confirming that both are equally effective during maintenance treatment.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".