Ustekinumab Intravenous Reinduction after Secondary Loss of Response in Patients with Crohn’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The POWER study (NCT03782376) evaluated efficacy and safety of a single ustekinumab intravenous (IV) reinduction dose versus placebo under continued ustekinumab subcutaneous (SC) treatment in adult patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease who demonstrated a secondary loss of response to ustekinumab every 8 weeks (q8w) maintenance therapy. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 at Week 0 to ustekinumab IV reinduction (ustekinumab ∼6 mg/kg and SC placebo) or continuous maintenance (IV placebo and SC ustekinumab 90 mg q8w). Clinical and biomarker assessments occurred at Weeks 0, 8, 16, and 24 with optional ileocolonoscopy at Weeks 0 and16. The primary endpoint was clinical response (≥100-point decrease from baseline Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score or CDAI <150) at Week 16. Safety events were analyzed through Week 36 and serum samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analyses and anti-ustekinumab antibody detection. RESULTS: Overall, 215 patients were randomized: 108 to the IV reinduction group and 107 to the SC group. In the IV reinduction group, 49.1% achieved clinical response at Week 16 versus 37.4% in the SC group (adjusted treatment difference 11.5% [95% CI: -1.5%, 24.5%; P = .089]). Proportions of patients with endoscopic remission and improvement, normalization of inflammatory biomarkers, and improvement in IBDQ score were greater in the IV reinduction group vs the SC group. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Although the primary endpoint of clinical response was not met at Week 16, ustekinumab IV reinduction showed numerical improvements in objective endpoints including inflammatory biomarkers and endoscopic outcomes compared with SC maintenance therapy. Safety and immunogenicity results were consistent with the established profile of ustekinumab.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".