A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Everolimus<i>Versus</i>Azathioprine and Placebo to Maintain Steroid-Induced Remission in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Active Crohn's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A prospective study was undertaken to compare the efficacy of everolimus versus azathioprine or placebo in maintaining steroid-induced remission in active Crohn's disease (CD) and assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of everolimus. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study in adults with moderate-to-severe active CD. The patients received oral steroids for a rapid induction of remission plus everolimus 6 mg/day, azathioprine 2.5 mg/kg/day, or placebo as maintenance treatment. The main outcome measure was the treatment success, defined as a steroid-free remission by the end of month 3 and maintained until study cutoff without the use of prohibited efficacy treatments. RESULTS: Following an interim analysis, the study was terminated before enrollment was completed due to the lack of efficacy. The full intent-to-treat population comprised 138 patients. Only 96 patients who entered the study > or =7 months prior to data cutoff were included in the primary efficacy population. The treatment success was achieved in 13 of 38 everolimus patients, 22 of 36 azathioprine patients, and 8 of 22 placebo patients. Using the Kaplan-Meier estimates at month 7, the incidence of treatment success was 22.0% with everolimus group (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.7-37.3%, P= 0.610 vs placebo), 38.3% with azathioprine group (95% CI 20.6-55.9%, P= 0.500 vs placebo), and 28.8% with placebo group (95% CI 7.7-49.9%). The type and incidence of adverse events in the everolimus cohort were similar to those reported in the approved transplantation indications. CONCLUSIONS: The safety and tolerability of everolimus (6 mg/day) in patients with active CD were comparable to azathioprine. At this dose, everolimus is not more efficacious in achieving a steroid-free remission in active CD than the comparators.
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 | 0.000 | 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".