Maintenance of Efficacy Outcomes at Week 52 among Etrasimod Induction Responders: An Analysis from the Phase 3 ELEVATE UC 52 Trial.

IF 2.1
Bruce Sands, Marla Dubinsky, Brian G Feagan, Remo Panaccione, Vipul Jairath, Andres J Yarur, Michael V Chiorean, Alissa Walsh, Martina Goetsch, Burak Sahin, Christina Cognata, Arcangelo M Abbatemarco, Gulraj S Matharu, Maria Kudela, Subrata Ghosh
{"title":"Maintenance of Efficacy Outcomes at Week 52 among Etrasimod Induction Responders: An Analysis from the Phase 3 ELEVATE UC 52 Trial.","authors":"Bruce Sands, Marla Dubinsky, Brian G Feagan, Remo Panaccione, Vipul Jairath, Andres J Yarur, Michael V Chiorean, Alissa Walsh, Martina Goetsch, Burak Sahin, Christina Cognata, Arcangelo M Abbatemarco, Gulraj S Matharu, Maria Kudela, Subrata Ghosh","doi":"10.1159/ddi/acnag011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Most trials studying advanced therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) adopted a responder re‑randomization design. By contrast, a treat-through design was utilized in the ELEVATE UC 52 trial to assess etrasimod, an oral, once-daily, selective sphingosine 1 phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator. It is therefore important to contextualize the efficacy of etrasimod given this different study design. We evaluated the efficacy of etrasimod versus placebo at week 52 among induction clinical responders.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this post hoc analysis of ELEVATE UC 52, selected efficacy endpoints were evaluated at week 52 among all week 12 clinical responders (induction responders), defined as a ≥ 2‑point and ≥ 30% decrease from baseline in modified Mayo score, with a ≥ 1‑point decrease from baseline in rectal bleeding subscore (or an absolute value ≤ 1).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 182 patients receiving etrasimod and 52 patients receiving placebo were induction responders. Of these patients, a greater proportion who received etrasimod versus placebo met the criteria for clinical remission (48.9% vs 19.2%; p < 0.001) and all other endpoints assessed at week 52 (p < 0.05). Greater proportions of induction responders compared with the total trial population treated with etrasimod met criteria for clinical remission (48.9% vs 32.5%), endoscopic improvement (56.6% vs 39.1%), and all other endpoints.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Greater efficacy was observed among etrasimod induction responders for all assessed endpoints at week 52 when compared with the total ELEVATE UC 52 population, contextualizing the efficacy of etrasimod given the treat-through design of the study.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong>gov identifier: NCT03945188.</p>","PeriodicalId":520605,"journal":{"name":"Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":" ","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/ddi/acnag011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Most trials studying advanced therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) adopted a responder re‑randomization design. By contrast, a treat-through design was utilized in the ELEVATE UC 52 trial to assess etrasimod, an oral, once-daily, selective sphingosine 1 phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator. It is therefore important to contextualize the efficacy of etrasimod given this different study design. We evaluated the efficacy of etrasimod versus placebo at week 52 among induction clinical responders.

Methods: In this post hoc analysis of ELEVATE UC 52, selected efficacy endpoints were evaluated at week 52 among all week 12 clinical responders (induction responders), defined as a ≥ 2‑point and ≥ 30% decrease from baseline in modified Mayo score, with a ≥ 1‑point decrease from baseline in rectal bleeding subscore (or an absolute value ≤ 1).

Results: In total, 182 patients receiving etrasimod and 52 patients receiving placebo were induction responders. Of these patients, a greater proportion who received etrasimod versus placebo met the criteria for clinical remission (48.9% vs 19.2%; p < 0.001) and all other endpoints assessed at week 52 (p < 0.05). Greater proportions of induction responders compared with the total trial population treated with etrasimod met criteria for clinical remission (48.9% vs 32.5%), endoscopic improvement (56.6% vs 39.1%), and all other endpoints.

Conclusion: Greater efficacy was observed among etrasimod induction responders for all assessed endpoints at week 52 when compared with the total ELEVATE UC 52 population, contextualizing the efficacy of etrasimod given the treat-through design of the study.

Clinicaltrials: gov identifier: NCT03945188.

伊特拉西莫德诱导应答者在52周的疗效结果维持:来自3期ELEVATE UC 52试验的分析
大多数研究溃疡性结肠炎(UC)先进疗法的试验采用应答者再随机化设计。相比之下,在ELEVATE UC 52试验中采用了一种通过治疗的设计来评估etrasimod,这是一种口服,每日一次的选择性鞘氨醇1磷酸(S1P)受体调节剂。因此,考虑到这种不同的研究设计,将伊特拉西莫德的疗效置于背景下是很重要的。我们在诱导临床应答者中评估了第52周时etrasimod与安慰剂的疗效。方法:在这项ELEVATE UC 52的事后分析中,在所有12周临床应答者(诱导应答者)中,在第52周评估选定的疗效终点,定义为改良梅奥评分比基线下降≥2分和≥30%,直肠出血亚评分比基线下降≥1分(或绝对值≤1)。结果:总共有182名接受伊特拉西莫的患者和52名接受安慰剂的患者有诱导反应。在这些患者中,接受伊特拉西莫组与安慰剂组相比,更大比例的患者符合临床缓解标准(48.9% vs 19.2%; p < 0.001),所有其他终点在第52周评估(p < 0.05)。与接受etrasimod治疗的总试验人群相比,更大比例的诱导应答者符合临床缓解(48.9%对32.5%)、内窥镜改善(56.6%对39.1%)和所有其他终点的标准。结论:与ELEVATE UC 52总人群相比,在第52周时,所有评估终点的伊特拉西莫诱导应答者均观察到更大的疗效,考虑到该研究的透治疗设计,这与伊特拉西莫的疗效有关。Clinicaltrials: gov识别码:NCT03945188。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书