MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S1397 Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous (IV) Tulisokibart in Patients With Crohn’s Disease (CD): Results from the Open-Label Extension Period of the Phase 2 APOLLO-CD Study

2024· article· en· W4403721970 on OpenAlexaff
Corey A. Siegel, Rupert W. Leong, Jaclyn K. Anderson, Mark Yen, Bin Dong, Bruce E. Sands, Silvio Danese, Brian G. Feagan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineApolloCrohn's diseaseTerm (time)Period (music)Open labelDiseaseSurgeryInternal medicineAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Tumor necrosis factor–like cytokine 1A (TL1A) is a mediator of inflammation and fibrosis in CD. Tulisokibart, an anti-TL1A monoclonal antibody, demonstrated robust efficacy without adverse safety signals during the 12-week induction period in adults with moderately to severely active CD in the multicenter, open-label, phase 2a APOLLO-CD study. We report long-term efficacy and safety data for tulisokibart at week 50 from the APOLLO-CD open-label extension (OLE). Methods: During the 12-week induction period, participants received IV tulisokibart 100 mg on day 1 and 500 mg at weeks 2, 6, and 10. Responders to tulisokibart induction at 12-weeks (defined as a decrease from baseline in CD activity index [CDAI] of ≥100 points or CDAI < 150 at week 12) were given the opportunity to enter the OLE study; 12-week non-responders discontinued the study. At week 14, responders were randomized to receive IV tulisokibart 100 or 250 mg every 4 weeks until week 170. Efficacy outcomes through week 50 in the intention-to-treat population are reported. Safety was evaluated in all participants who received ≥1 dose of tulisokibart. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize observed data. Results: Overall, 53 of 55 participants completed the 12-week induction period; 37 were considered induction responders and were randomized to receive tulisokibart 250 mg (n=18) or 100 mg (n=19). A greater proportion of participants who were biologic-naive entered the OLE in the tulisokibart 250 vs 100 mg group (44% vs 21%). Improvements in clinical, endoscopic, and biomarker outcomes observed with tulisokibart were generally maintained through week 50 in both dose groups. At week 50, a greater proportion of participants achieved clinical and endoscopic outcomes with tulisokibart 250 mg vs 100 mg (Table 1). Normalization of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein favored the 250 vs the 100 mg dose. At week 50, AEs were reported in 83% and 84% of participants receiving tulisokibart 250 and 100 mg, respectively, and were mostly mild-to-moderate in severity. Serious AEs occurred in 1 (6%) and 2 (11%) participants receiving tulisokibart 250 and 100 mg, respectively. Conclusion: At week 50, maintenance of treatment efficacy was generally observed with tulisokibart in induction responders. A trend for higher maintenance efficacy was observed with tulisokibart 250 vs 100 mg. Tulisokibart was well tolerated with no safety signals identified through 50 weeks of treatment. Larger trials are needed to confirm these findings. Table 1. - Clinical, endoscopic and biomarker outcomes at week 12 and among 12-week induction responders at week 50 Week 12Tulisokibarta (n=55) Week 50 Tulisokibart100 mg (n=19) Week 50 Tulisokibart250 mg (n=18) Endoscopic responseb 13 (24) 3 (16) 5 (28) Clinical remissionc 27 (49) 8 (42) 10 (56) Clinical responsed 37 (67) 11 (58) 12 (67) Composite endoscopic and clinical responsee 9 (16) 3 (16) 4 (22) Composite biomarker and clinical responsef n = 4917 (35) n = 164 (25) n = 176 (35) Normalization of hsCRPg n = 365 (14) n = 90 n = 165 (31) Normalization of fecal calprotectinh n = 446 (14) n = 142 (14) n = 162 (13) All data are n (%).hsCRP, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; SES-CD, simple endoscopic score-Crohn’s disease.aAll patients treated with tulisokibart with baseline CDAI and SES-CD scores were included in the full analysis set population.bEndoscopic response was defined as a decrease in SES-CD total score ≥50% from baseline.cClinical remission was defined as CDAI score < 150.dClinical response was defined as either a decrease of ≥100 points in CDAI from baseline or CDAI score < 150.eComposite endoscopic and clinical response was defined as a decrease in SES-CD score ≥50% from baseline and either a decrease of ≥100 points in CDAI from baseline or CDAI score < 150.fComposite biomarker and clinical response was defined as a decrease in hsCRP or fecal calprotectin ≥50% from baseline and either a decrease of ≥100 points in CDAI from baseline or CDAI score < 150 (evaluated in patients with ≥1 elevated biomarker at baseline).gNormalization of hsCRP was defined as a concentration of < 5 mg/L among patients with elevated levels at baseline.hNormalization of fecal calprotectin was defined as a concentration of < 250 µg/g among patients with elevated levels at baseline.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→