Mucosal Healing With Vedolizumab in Patients With Chronic Pouchitis: EARNEST, a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Vedolizumab is indicated for the treatment of chronic pouchitis in the European Union. We assessed whether vedolizumab induced mucosal healing (MH) and if MH was associated with clinical improvements. METHODS: EARNEST, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, evaluated vedolizumab efficacy and safety in adults with chronic pouchitis. Centrally read endoscopic and histologic evaluation was performed at baseline, Week (W)14, and W34. Ulcer count, adapted Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease in the pouch, and Pouchitis Disease Activity Index histologic component were evaluated. Pouchitis Disease Activity Index and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire remission at W14 and W34 were compared by MH status at W14. RESULTS: Following treatment, mean (standard deviation) number of ulcers in vedolizumab-treated patients reduced from 15.1 (16.4) to 5.0 (4.9) at W14 and 2.7 (3.2) at W34 versus placebo-treated patients with corresponding values of 11.8 (11.3), 13.4 (18.4), and 9.7 (13.8) (vedolizumab vs placebo difference [95% confidence interval]: W14: -8.4 [-14.3, -2.6]; W34: -7.0 [-12.0, -2.0]). More patients receiving vedolizumab versus placebo achieved reduction in ulcerated pouch surface area (W14: 52.4% vs 20.0%; difference, 32.4 percentage points [p.p] [9.7, 51.4]; W34: 52.1% vs 12.9%; difference, 40.2p.p [15.6, 60.3]), absence of ulceration (W14: 23.8% vs 7.5%; difference, 16.3p.p [1.1, 31.6]; W34: 34.4% vs 15.6%; difference, 18.8p.p [-2.0, 39.5]), Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease remission (W14: 23.8% vs 7.5%; difference, 16.3p.p [1.1, 31.6]; W34: 34.4% vs 15.6%; difference, 18.8p.p [-2.0, 39.5]), and MH (W14: 16.7% vs 2.5%; difference, 14.2p.p [1.9, 26.4]). Patients with MH at W14 had higher rates of Pouchitis Disease Activity Index and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire remission at W14 and W34 than those without. CONCLUSIONS: Vedolizumab induced endoscopic improvements in patients with chronic pouchitis, which was associated with improved outcomes at W34, particularly in patients achieving MH at W14. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02790138.).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".