MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411553321 · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2025-bsg.21

O21 Long-term efficacy and safety of filgotinib 200 mg in ulcerative colitis: 5-year interim data from SELECTIONLTE

2025· article· en· W4411553321 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Arnott, Brian G. Feagan, Katsuyoshi Matsuoka, Gerhard Rogler, David Laharie, Séverine Vermeire, Silvio Danese, Edward V. Loftus, Ian Beales, S Schreiber, Hyo Jong Kim, Margaux Faes, Alexandra Mangili, Christine Rudolph, Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Presentations · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersUniversity of East AngliaKyung Hee UniversityUniversität ZürichUniversitätsspital ZürichInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleUniversité de Bordeaux
KeywordsUlcerative colitisInterimMedicineTerm (time)Internal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Filgotinib (FIL), a once-daily, oral, Janus kinase 1 preferential inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). FIL was effective in inducing and maintaining clinical remission and generally well tolerated in the placebo-controlled phase 2b/3 SELECTION trial (NCT02914522).1 Methods The efficacy and safety of continued treatment with FIL 200 mg (FIL200) are being assessed in the open-label, long-term extension (LTE) study (SELECTIONLTE: NCT02914535). The study design of SELECTION has been published previously.1 This interim analysis reports the efficacy and safety of open-label FIL200 for up to 5 years of treatment: LTE week 192 in completers (who completed SELECTION induction and maintenance studies) and LTE week 240 in induction non-responders (those with no response at SELECTION week 10). The data cut-off of 23 March 2023 was used for this interim analysis. Proportions of patients with partial Mayo Clinic Score (pMCS) remission (pMCS ≤1) and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) remission (score ≥170) were reported both as observed data and with non-responder imputation (NRI). Adverse events (AEs) and AEs of special interest (AESIs) were evaluated as exposure-adjusted incidence rates per 100 patient-years of exposure (PYE). Results This analysis included 148 completers and 372 non-responders. AEs and AESIs in patients receiving open-label FIL200 (2464.7 PYE) showed no new safety signals; safety events were similar to those from previous analyses. Proportions of patients in pMCS remission increased with FIL200 in SELECTION to 72.4% (as observed) at week 58/LTE baseline, and increased further for completers in SELECTIONLTE (85.0% at LTE week 192). Proportions in pMCS remission increased gradually in SELECTIONLTE to 66.7% (FIL200–FIL200, as observed) at LTE week 240 in non-responders. Similar patterns were seen for IBDQ remission; 78.5% (FIL200, as observed) of completers had IBDQ remission at week 58/LTE baseline, increasing to 84.8% by LTE week 192. In non-responders, increases in proportions of patients in IBDQ remission were gradual, up to 77.8% (FIL200–FIL200, as observed) at LTE week 240. NRI analyses showed similar but more conservative results than observed analyses for both groups for both endpoints. Conclusions FIL200 was effective in maintaining symptomatic remission and health-related quality of life for up to 5 years. No new safety signals were identified, and rates of AEs with long-term FIL exposure were similar to those previously reported.1 2 Prolonged treatment with filgotinib is efficacious for the long-term management of UC, and together with its proven safety profile, results in an acceptable benefit–risk profile. References Feagan BG, et al. Lancet 2021;397:2372–84. Feagan BG, et al. J Crohns Colitis. 2023;17(Suppl1):i47–50.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOral PresentationsSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207