Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38720466›Full record

ArticleIntestinal research2024

Efficacy and safety of mirikizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for Japanese patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a subgroup analysis of the global phase 3 LUCENT-1 and LUCENT-2 studies.

Taku Kobayashi, Katsuyoshi Matsuoka, Mamoru Watanabe, Tadakazu Hisamatsu, Fumihito Hirai, Joe Milata, Xingyuan Li, Nathan Morris, Vipin Arora, Tomoko Ishizuka and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Intestinal research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Observational
  6. Key Interleukins in Inflammatory Bowel Disease-A Review of Recent Studies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Taku KobayashiCenter for Advanced IBD Research and Treatment, Kitasato University Kitasato Institute Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Katsuyoshi MatsuokaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Toho University Sakura Medical Center, Sakura, Japan.
Mamoru WatanabeAdvanced Research Institute, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
Tadakazu HisamatsuDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Mitaka, Japan.
Fumihito HiraiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Medicine, Fukuoka University Faculty of Medicine, Fukuoka, Japan.
Joe MilataEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Xingyuan LiEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Nathan MorrisEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Vipin AroraEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Tomoko IshizukaEli Lilly Japan K.K., Kobe, Japan.
Koji MatsuoEli Lilly Japan K.K., Kobe, Japan.
Yoichi SatoiEli Lilly Japan K.K., Kobe, Japan.
Catherine MilchEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Toshifumi HibiCenter for Advanced IBD Research and Treatment, Kitasato University Kitasato Institute Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

Eli Lilly and Company
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsMirikizumab is a p19-directed anti-interleukin-23 antibody with potential efficacy against ulcerative colitis (UC). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of mirikizumab in a Japanese subpopulation with moderately to severely active UC from the LUCENT-1 and LUCENT-2 studies.

methodsLUCENT-1 and LUCENT-2 were phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of mirikizumab therapy in adults with moderately to severely active UC. LUCENT-1 was a 12-week induction trial where patients were randomized 3:1 to receive intravenous mirikizumab 300 mg or placebo every 4 weeks (Q4W). Patients achieving a clinical response with mirikizumab following the induction study were re-randomized 2:1 to double-blind treatment with either mirikizumab 200 mg or placebo subcutaneously Q4W during the 40-week maintenance study. The primary outcomes were clinical remission at week 12 of LUCENT-1 and week 40 of LUCENT-2.

resultsA total of 137 patients enrolled in Japan were randomized to mirikizumab (n = 102) or placebo (n = 35). Compared with placebo, patients who received mirikizumab showed numerically higher clinical remission at week 12 of induction (32.4% [n = 33] vs. 2.9% [n = 1]) and at week 40 of maintenance (48.9% [n = 23] vs. 28.0% [n = 7]). A greater number of patients achieved key secondary endpoints in the mirikizumab group compared with placebo. The frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar across mirikizumab and placebo groups. Efficacy and safety results observed in the Japanese subpopulation were generally consistent with those in the overall population.

conclusionsMirikizumab induction and maintenance treatments were effective in Japanese patients with moderately to severely active UC. No new safety concerns were identified.

Indexed as

Bowel urgencyInterleukin-23 p19JapanMirikizumabUlcerative colitis

Identifiers

PMID38720466
PMCPMC11079516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.