MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S1451 Efficacy and Safety Profile of Etrasimod Was Not Impacted by Baseline Disease Activity: A Post Hoc Analysis of the ELEVATE UC Program

2024· article· en· W4403722128 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce E. Sands, Marla C. Dubinsky, Paulo Gustavo Kotze, Séverine Vermeire, Remo Panaccione, Millie D. Long, John Woolcott, Joseph Wu, Aoibhinn McDonnell, Martina Goetsch, Eustratios Bananis, Andrés Yarur

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePost-hoc analysisPost hocBaseline (sea)Safety profileDiseaseInternal medicineAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Etrasimod is an oral, once-daily, selective sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P)1,4,5 receptor modulator for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods: In this post hoc analysis of ELEVATE UC 52 (NCT03945188; treat-through design with 12-week [wk] induction then 40-wk maintenance periods) and ELEVATE UC 12 (NCT03996369; 12-wk induction period), etrasimod efficacy and safety were assessed according to baseline (BL) disease activity. Patients (pts) aged 16–80 years with moderately to severely active UC were randomized 2:1 to etrasimod 2 mg once daily or placebo (PBO).1 Pts’ BL UC activity was stratified as moderately or severely active based on a modified Mayo score (MMS) of 5–7 or 8–9, respectively. Efficacy endpoints including mean percentage change from BL in MMS and clinical response/remission per MMS category were measured at Wk12. Pooled efficacy data were analyzed descriptively; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for all means or proportions with normal approximation or simultaneous estimation method, respectively. Safety was assessed up to Wk52 in the pooled safety analysis set. Results: Of the 743 pts in this analysis, 525 (70.7%) and 218 (29.3%) had a BL MMS of 5–7 and 8–9, respectively. BL characteristics were broadly similar across subgroups, except for lower rates of proctitis in pts with MMS 8–9 vs 5–7 (3.3% and 3.0% vs 9.3% and 9.4% in etrasimod and PBO groups, respectively; Table 1). At Wk12, pts taking etrasimod had larger mean percentage reductions (95% CI) in MMS vs PBO, regardless of BL disease activity (48.4% [52.3, 44.4] vs 27.0% [32.2, 21.7] for BL MMS 5–7, and 46.4% [51.2, 41.5] vs 29.8% [37.2, 22.3] for BL MMS 8–9). At Wk12, more pts taking etrasimod achieved clinical response vs PBO, regardless of BL disease activity, with an overall reduction from BL disease activity as measured by MMS categorization in both BL MMS subgroups (Figure 1). Proportions of pts with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were broadly similar across treatment and BL disease activity subgroups (any TEAE: 59.0% vs 50.8% and 65.1% vs 56.1% for etrasimod vs PBO, in BL MMS 5–7 and 8–9 groups, respectively). Conclusion: Etrasimod showed greater reductions in disease severity and higher rates of clinical response, vs PBO, regardless of BL disease activity. Its safety profile was consistent with the overall trial population1 and was not impacted by BL disease activity. Reference: 1. Sandborn WJ et al. Lancet 2023; 401: 1159–1171.Figure 1.: Proportion of pts achieving clinical response in each MMS category at Wk12 stratified according to baseline disease activity (pooled data from ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12). [a]Clinical response was defined as a ≥ 2-point and ≥ 30% decrease from baseline in MMS, and a ≥ 1-point decrease from baseline in RBS, or RBS ≤ 1. [b]MMS was not available for some pts at Wk12 for various reasons, including discontinuation prior to Wk12. Data were pooled from ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12. MMS, modified Mayo score; pt, patient; RBS, rectal bleeding subscore; UC, ulcerative colitis; Wk, Week. Table 1. - Demographics and baseline characteristics of patients in the ELEVATE UC clinical program[a] stratified according to baseline disease activity Baseline MMS 5–7 (moderate) Baseline MMS 8–9 (severe) Placebo QD(N = 181) Etrasimod2 mg QD(N = 344) Placebo QD(N = 66) Etrasimod2 mg QD(N = 152) Age (years), mean (SD)Female, n (%)Race, n (%)WhiteAsianBlack or African AmericanOtherDuration of UC (years), mean (SD)Proctitis,b n (%)Baseline MMS, mean ES of 3 at baseline, n (%)Baseline CS use, n (%)Naïve to biologic/JAKi, n (%) 40.3 (13.9)70 (38.7)154 (85.1)21 (11.6)2 (1.1)4 (2.2)7.0 (6.7)17 (9.4)6.3 86 (47.5)53 (29.3)126 (69.6) 40.6 (13.9)158 (45.9)278 (80.8)45 (13.1)7 (2.0)14 (4.1)7.5 (7.5)32 (9.3)6.3 144 (41.9)89 (25.9)240 (69.8) 37.6 (12.9)27 (40.9)53 (80.3)10 (15.2)3 (4.5)06.4 (6.1)2 (3.0)8.1 62 (93.9)19 (28.8)41 (62.1) 42.2 (13.8)69 (45.4)132 (86.8)16 (10.5)1 (0.7)3 (2.0)7.3 (7.1)5 (3.3)8.1 145 (95.4)58 (38.2)102 (67.1) aPooled for ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12.bCentral read.CS, corticosteroid; ES, endoscopic subscore; JAKi, Janus kinase inhibitor; MMS, modified Mayo score; N, number of patients in the baseline disease activity subgroup by treatment; n, number of patients in the specified category; QD, once daily; SD, standard deviation; UC, ulcerative colitis.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis→French-language works237,207→