Impact of Prior Biologic Exposure on Ozanimod Efficacy and Safety in the Phase 3 True North Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and prior biologic failure may have reduced or delayed efficacy with subsequent advanced therapies. This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of ozanimod during the True North (TN) study and its open-label extension (OLE) in biologic-exposed patients with UC. METHODS: TN was a randomized, placebo-controlled 52-week trial (10-week induction, 42-week maintenance period). Eligible patients could enter the OLE. Clinical outcomes were assessed at TN week (W) 10 and W52 and OLE W46 and W94. Symptomatic efficacy was evaluated through induction and in the OLE until W94. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: This analysis included 376 biologic-exposed patients. In the placebo-controlled cohort, more ozanimod-treated patients achieved clinical response than placebo at W10 regardless of the number or type of prior biologics; patients who used 1 vs ≥2 prior biologics achieved higher efficacy rates. Efficacy rates were higher at W52 than W10 and were similar across subgroups regardless of the number or type of prior biologics. Significantly greater proportions of ozanimod vs placebo patients achieved symptomatic response by W5 ( P = 0.0173) and symptomatic remission by W10 ( P = 0.0207). Among biologic-exposed TN W10 ozanimod nonresponders who entered the OLE, 61% achieved symptomatic response with an extra 10 weeks of ozanimod treatment. Ozanimod efficacy was durable for ∼3 years of continuous treatment in biologic-exposed W52 clinical responders who entered the OLE. No new safety signals were observed. DISCUSSION: Ozanimod was effective and safe in biologic-exposed patients with UC, but these patients may require more time to respond to treatment. Clinical trial registry website and trial numbers: ClinicalTrials.gov , numbers NCT02435992 and NCT02531126.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".