Randomised clinical trial: a placebo‐controlled study of intravenous golimumab induction therapy for ulcerative colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα)-antagonism effectively treats ulcerative colitis (UC). The golimumab clinical programme evaluated subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) induction, and SC maintenance regimens, in TNFα-antagonist-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe active UC despite conventional treatment. AIM: To evaluate dose-response relationship, select IV golimumab induction doses for continued development, and evaluate the safety and efficacy of selected doses. METHODS: Adults with Mayo scores of 6-12 and endoscopic subscores ≥2 were enrolled into this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, integrated Phase 2/3 dose-finding/dose-confirming study. In Phase 2, 176 patients were randomised (1:1:1:1) to a single IV infusion of placebo, 1-, 2- or 4-mg/kg golimumab. While Phase 2 data were analysed to select doses for continued development, 71 additional patients were randomised. Phase 3 enrolment stopped after 44 additional patients were randomised (1:1:1) to placebo, 2- or 4-mg/kg golimumab. Due to insufficient power for the Phase 3 primary endpoint analysis (clinical response at week 6), efficacy analyses are considered exploratory and include all randomised patients. RESULTS: No dose-response was observed in Phase 2; however, higher serum golimumab exposure was associated with greater proportions of patients achieving more favourable clinical outcomes, clinical response and greater improvement in Mayo scores compared with placebo-treated patients and those with lower serum concentrations. Among all randomised patients, numerically greater proportions were in clinical response at week 6 in the 2- and 4-mg/kg golimumab groups compared with placebo [44.0% (33/75) and 41.6% (32/77) vs. 30.1% (22/73)]. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy with single-dose golimumab IV induction was lower than expected and less than observed in the SC induction study. No new safety findings were observed. ClinicalTrials.gov Number, NCT00488774.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".