A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2 Study of Brodalumab in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Crohn’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of brodalumab, a human anti-interleukin-17 receptor monoclonal antibody, in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study in patients with moderate-to-severe CD and evidence of active inflammation. Patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive brodalumab (210, 350, or 700 mg at baseline and week 4) or placebo. The primary end point was proportion of patients achieving Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) remission (≤150) at week 6. Secondary end points included proportion of patients with CDAI response (reduction from baseline of ≥100) at week 6 and change from baseline in CDAI at week 6. RESULTS: The study was terminated early based on an imbalance in worsening CD in active treatment groups. At the time of termination, 130 patients had been randomized. At week 6, remission rates were 3% (210 mg), 15% (350 mg), 9% (700 mg), and 3% (placebo) and CDAI response occurred in 16% (210 mg), 27% (350 mg), 15% (700 mg), and 13% (placebo) of patients. Mean change in CDAI at week 6 was -8.7 (95.3) (210 mg), -35.4 (105.6) (350 mg), -0.6 (105.9) (700 mg), and -28.2 (86.0) (placebo). Besides worsening of CD, overall incidences of adverse events were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with brodalumab resulted in a disproportionate number of cases of worsening CD in patients with active CD and no evidence of meaningful efficacy. These analyses did not suggest additional safety risks of brodalumab beyond worsening of CD symptoms in patients with active CD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".