Effects of Vedolizumab Induction Therapy for Patients With Crohn’s Disease in Whom Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonist Treatment Failed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is an increasing need for new treatments for patients with Crohn's disease (CD) in whom previous therapy with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists has failed. We performed a placebo-controlled, phase 3, double-blind trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab, an antibody against the integrin α4β7, as induction therapy. METHODS: Patients with moderately to severely active CD (CD activity index [CDAI] score, 220-400 points) were assigned randomly to groups given vedolizumab (300 mg) or placebo intravenously at weeks 0, 2, and 6. The primary analysis involved 315 patients with previous TNF antagonist failure (ie, an inadequate response to, loss of response to, or intolerance of ≥1 TNF antagonists); we determined the proportion of patients in clinical remission (CDAI, ≤150 points) at week 6. Secondary analyses evaluated outcomes at weeks 6 and 10 in this population and in the overall population (N = 416), which included patients naive to TNF antagonist therapy (n = 101). RESULTS: Among patients who had experienced previous TNF antagonist failure, 15.2% of those given vedolizumab and 12.1% of those given placebo were in remission at week 6 (P = .433). At week 10, a higher proportion of this population given vedolizumab was in remission (26.6%) than those given placebo (12.1%) (nominal P = .001; relative risk, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.6). A higher proportion of patients with previous TNF antagonist failure given vedolizumab also had a CDAI-100 response (≥100-point decrease in CDAI score from baseline) at week 6 than those given placebo (39.2% vs 22.3%; nominal P = .001; relative risk, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.5). Adverse event results were similar among all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Vedolizumab was not more effective than placebo in inducing clinical remission at week 6 among patients with CD in whom previous treatment with TNF antagonists had failed. The therapeutic benefits of vedolizumab in these patients were detectable at week 10. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01224171.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".