MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403057891 · doi:10.1055/s-0044-1789692

Efficacy and safety of mirikizumab as induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease: Summary results from the Phase 3 VIVID-1 trial

2024· article· en· W4403057891 on OpenAlexaff
Britta Siegmund, Marc Ferrante, Vipul Jairath, Geert D’Haens, Sven Maier, Marijana Protić, Wallace Crandall, Hilde Carlier, Nathan Morris, Sebastian Zeißig

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Gastroenterologie · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrohn's diseaseDiseaseMaintenance therapyMedicinePhase (matter)Internal medicineChemotherapyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Mirikizumab is a selective IL23p19 monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). We present efficacy and safety data for mirikizumab vs placebo (PBO) in patients with moderately-to-severely active Crohn’s disease (CD) up to Week (W) 52 from the Phase 3 treat-through VIVID-1 trial (NCT03926130). Methods: Adult patients (N=1065) were randomized 6:2:3 to receive intravenous (IV) mirikizumab (n=579) 900mg at W0, 4, and 8, then 300mg subcutaneously (SC) every 4Ws (Q4W) from W12 to W52, PBO (n=199), or ustekinumab (n=287; results vs mirikizumab previously presented) ~6 mg/kg IV at W0, then 90 mg SC Q8W from W8 to 48. PBO responders at W12 continued PBO to W52; PBO non-responders switched to mirikizumab induction then maintenance. The co-primary composite endpoints were: 1) Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) clinical response at W12 and endoscopic response (by Simple Endoscopic Score SES-CD) at W52, and 2) PRO clinical response at W12 and clinical remission by Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at W52. Adjusted risk differences were calculated, with comparisons performed by CMH test. Fisher's exact test was used for comparisons performed within subgroups. Non-responder imputation was used. Fig. 1 Results: Baseline characteristics were similar across treatment groups ([ Table 1 ]). Both co-primary composite endpoints ([ Figs 1a, c ]; all p<0.000001) were achieved for mirikizumab vs PBO, with 38% of mirikizumab patients achieving W12 PRO response and W52 endoscopic response, and 45% achieving W12 PRO response and W52 clinical remission by CDAI compared with 9% and 20%, respectively, for those receiving PBO. Similar response rates and treatment effects were observed for mirikizumab in patients with and without prior biologic failure ([ Figs 1b, d ]). All key secondary endpoints with mirikizumab vs PBO were also achieved ([ Fig. 2 ]). Mirikizumab treatment resulted in significantly greater reductions in fecal calprotectin and C-reactive protein at W12 and W52 compared to PBO ([ Fig. 3 ]; all p<0.000001). Mirikizumab was well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events and a safety profile consistent with that observed in patients with UC ([ Table 2 ]). Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Table 1 Patient baseline demographics and clinical characteristics. Characteristic Placebo (N=199) Mirikizumab (N=579) Mean (SD) age, years 36.3 (12.7) 36.0 (13.2) Male, n (%) 118 (59.3) 332 (57.3) Mean (SD) weight, kg 69.6 (19.0) 68.0 (18.3) Mean (SD) BMI, kg/m 2 23.8 (5.8) 23.2 (5.4) Mean (SD) duration of CD, years 7.8 (7.4) 7.4 (8.2) Baseline CDAI 318.9 (86.2) 323.1 (85.8) SF daily average (SD) 5.8 (3.2) 5.7 (3.0) AP daily average (SD) 2.1 (0.6) 2.1 (0.6) SES-CD total mean (SD)score 13.1 (6.0) 13.5 (6.6) Disease location, n (%) Ileum only 19 (9.5) 65 (11.2) Colon only 77 (38.7) 225 (38.9) Ileum and colon 103 (51.8) 289 (49.9) Corticosteroid use, n (%) 58 (29.1) 177 (30.6) Immunomodulator use, n (%) 58 (29.1) 146 (25.2) Prior biologic failure, n (%) 97 (48.7) 281 (48.5) Number of failed biologics, n (%) None 102 (51.3) 298 (51.5) 1 66 (33.2) 175 (30.2) ≥2 31 (15.6) 106 (18.3) Note: Data are mean (SD) unless stated otherwise; Primary Analysis Set population AP=abdominal pain; BMI=body mass index; CD=Crohn’s disease; CDAI=Crohn’s Disease Activity Index; SD=standard deviation; SES-CD=Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease; SF=stool frequency. Table 2 Safety outcomes up to Week 52. Treatment groups Placebo (N=211) PYE=119.5 Miri (N=630) PYE=593.6 TEAE, n (%) [EAIR] 154 (73.0) [291.8] 495 (78.6) [201.9] Most common TEAEs a , n (%) [EAIR] COVID-19 29 (13.7) [26.4] 104 (16.5) [19.3] Anaemia 14 (6.6) [12.2] 42 (6.7) [7.4] Arthralgia 11 (5.2) [9.6] 41 (6.5) [7.2] Headache 9 (4.3) [7.8] 41 (6.5) [7.2] Upper respiratory tract infection 9 (4.3) [7.8] 38 (6.0) [6.7] Nasopharyngitis 9 (4.3) [7.7] 36 (5.7) [6.3] Diarrhoea 10 (4.7) [8.6] 35 (5.6) [6.1] AEs of interest, n (%) [EAIR] Infections: (All) 73 (34.6) [81.3] 261 (41.4) [59.7] Serious Infections: 6 (2.8) [5.1] 14 (2.2) [2.4] Opportunistic b Infections: 0 (0.0) [0] 7 (1.1) [1.2] Injection-site reaction 8 (3.8) [10.4] 66 (10.5) [15.3] Cerebrocardiovascular events 2 (0.9) [1.7] 3 (0.5) [0.5] Major adverse cardiac event 1 (0.5) [0.8] 0 (0.0) [0] Malignancies c 1 (0.5) [0.8] 2 (0.3) [0.3] Suicide/self-injury d 0 (0.0) [0] 2 (0.3) [0.3] Hepatic event 9 (4.3) [7.8] 39 (6.2) [6.8] SAE, n (%) [EAIR] 36 (17.1) [32.5] 65 (10.3) [11.5] Discontinuation due to AE, n (%) [EAIR] 20 (9.5) [17.1] 32 (5.1) [5.4] Safety population: all patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug a : ≥5% of miri treated patients; b : Most opportunistic infections were Herpes Zoster, one Candida; c : Malignancies include non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) and breast cancer; d : Both events were suicidal ideation; 1 participant had prior history of suicide attempt, the other had a history of anxiety; Abbreviations: EAIR=exposure adjusted incidence rates; TEAE=treatment-emergent adverse event; SAE=serious adverse event; AE=adverse events; PYE=patient years of exposure; n=number of patients in the specified category; N=number of patients in the analysis population; PBO=placebo; Miri=mirikizumab. Conclusion: In this Phase 3 study, mirikizumab demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements vs PBO in both co-primary composite endpoints and all key secondary endpoints. A significant reduction in key biomarker levels was also observed. No new safety signals were observed. Publication History Article published online: 26 September 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift für GastroenterologieSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207