4.8 Article

Gene Expression Signature for Prediction of Golimumab Response in a Phase 2a Open-Label Trial of Patients With Ulcerative Colitis

Journal

GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 155, Issue 4, Pages 1008-+

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.06.077

Keywords

PROgECT; Transcriptomics; Gene Signature; Prediction of Response

Funding

  1. Janssen Pharmaceuticals

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Golimumab, a tumor necrosis factor antagonist, is an effective treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC); however, more than 50% of initial responders lose their response to the drug within the first year of therapy. A gene expression signature identified in colon biopsies collected before treatment was associated with response to infliximab, and was subsequently refined to associate with mucosal healing in response to golimumab. We performed a phase 2a open-label study of 103 golimumab-treated patients with moderate-to-severe UC to test whether the baseline gene expression signature could be used to predict which patients would achieve mucosal healing, clinical response, and clinical remission at weeks 6 and 30 of treatment. The gene expression signature identified patients who went on to achieve mucosal healing at treatment week 6 with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCROC) of 0.688 (P = .002) and at week 30 with an AUCROC of 0.671 (P = .006). The signature identified patients with mucosal healing with 87% sensitivity, but only 34% specificity, limiting its clinical utility. The baseline gene expression signature did not identify patients who went on to achieve clinical remission or clinical response with statistical significance. Further studies are needed to identify biomarkers that can be used to predict which patients with UC will respond to treatment with antitumor necrosis factor agents. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01988961.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available