MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S1454 Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous (IV) Tulisokibart in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis (UC): Results From the Open-Label Extension (OLE) Period of the Phase 2 ARTEMIS-UC Study

2024· article· en· W4403723115 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Ma, Sami Hoque, Miles Sparrow, J. Anderson, Mark Yen, Bin Dong, Brian G. Feagan, Bruce E. Sands

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUlcerative colitisOpen labelInternal medicineTerm (time)ColitisGastroenterologyAdverse effectDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Tumor necrosis factor–like cytokine 1A (TL1A) is a regulator of inflammation and fibrosis in inflammatory bowel disease. Tulisokibart, an anti-TL1A monoclonal antibody, demonstrated efficacy without clinically meaningful safety findings vs placebo after a 12-week induction in adults with moderately to severely active UC in the multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 ARTEMIS-UC study. We report long-term efficacy and safety of tulisokibart among cohort 1 induction responders at week 50 from the OLE period of ARTEMIS-UC. Methods: Cohort 1 of ARTEMIS-UC enrolled participants regardless of genetic-based diagnostic test status. After the 12-week induction period, in which randomized participants received IV tulisokibart (1000 mg on day 1; 500 mg at weeks 2, 6, 10) or placebo, participants had the option to continue in the OLE. Participants were classified as induction responders (defined as reduction of ≥2 points and ≥30% in modified Mayo score from baseline with a reduction ≥1 in rectal bleeding [RB] subscore or absolute RB subscore ≤1 at week 12) or induction nonresponders. Cohort 1 induction responders in the tulisokibart group were randomized to receive open-label IV tulisokibart 100 or 250 mg every 4 weeks at 14–170 weeks. Efficacy outcomes are reported for induction responders from the tulisokibart group. Safety is reported for induction responders from tulisokibart and placebo groups. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize observed data. Results: 47 cohort 1 induction responders in the tulisokibart group were randomized to receive tulisokibart 250 mg (n=25) or 100 mg (n=22). Improvements in clinical, endoscopic, and biomarker outcomes observed with tulisokibart were generally maintained through week 50 in both dose groups (Table 1). A greater proportion of patients achieved clinical and endoscopic outcomes with tulisokibart 250 vs 100 mg. In the safety population, (tulisokibart 250 mg, n=35; 100 mg, n=30), through week 50, AEs occurred in 63% and 77% of participants receiving tulisokibart 250 and 100 mg, respectively; most were mild to moderate in severity. Serious AEs occurred in 1 (3%) and 2 (7%) participants in the tulisokibart 250 and 100 mg groups, respectively. Conclusion: At week 50, maintenance of treatment effect was generally observed in cohort 1 induction responders. A trend for higher efficacy with tulisokibart 250 vs 100 mg was observed. Tulisokibart was well tolerated with no identified safety signals. Larger trials are needed to confirm these findings. Table 1. - Clinical, endoscopic, and biomarker outcomes at week 12 in the cohort 1 tulisokibart group and at week 50 among cohort 1 induction responders in the tulisokibart group Week 12TulisokibartInduction(n=68) Week 50Tulisokibart100 mg(n=22) Week 50Tulisokibart250 mg(n=25) Clinical remission,a % 26 32 48 Endoscopic improvement,b % 37 36 48 Clinical response,c % 66 59 68 Symptomatic remission,d % 19 23 32 Histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement,e % n = 6531 n = 1547 n = 2050 High-sensitivity C-reactive protein fold change from baseline, geometric LS mean (95% CI) n = 650.56 (0.48–0.66) n = 170.51 (0.22–1.19) n = 240.56 (0.26–1.19) Fecal calprotectin fold change from baseline, geometric LS mean (95% CI) n = 540.21 (0.16–0.27) n = 130.28 (0.09–0.88) n = 170.27 (0.10–0.77) LS least squares; mMS, 3-component modified Mayo score; SF stool frequency.aClinical remission per mMS was defined as endoscopic subscore of 0 or 1, RB subscore of 0, and SF subscore of 0 or 1 and not greater than baseline.bEndoscopic improvement was defined as endoscopy subscore ≤1 with no friability.cClinical response per mMS was defined as reduction from baseline ≥2 points and ≥30% in mMS, accompanied by a reduction ≥1 in RB subscore or absolute RB subscore ≤1.dSymptomatic remission was defined as SF subscore of 0 and RB subscore of 0.eHistologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement was defined as Geboes score ≤3.1 and endoscopy subscore ≤1.

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)0.001
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.263
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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