Immunogenicity and skin clearance recapture in clinical studies of brodalumab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antidrug antibodies (ADAs) may change pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic profiles of biologic therapies, potentially decreasing efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential effects of brodalumab immunogenicity on safety, efficacy, and retreatment. METHODS: Data from 1 phase 2 and 3 phase 3 studies of brodalumab in psoriasis were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 2.7% of patients had positive test results for binding ADAs after receiving brodalumab; ADAs were transient in 1.4% of patients, and there were no neutralizing ADAs. Among ADA-positive patients, 60.0% (3/5) achieved a static physician's global assessment score of 0 or 1 at week 12 in the group receiving the brodalumab 210 mg every 2 weeks, compared with 79.1% (1131/1429) of ADA-negative patients. All patients (100%) who experienced return of disease and were retreated with brodalumab 210 mg every 2 weeks (none were ADA positive) achieved at least a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area And Severity Index, ≥90% of whom regained response by week 8 of retreatment. Hypersensitivity reactions were less frequent with brodalumab than with placebo. Injection site reactions occurred in 1.8% of patients treated with brodalumab versus 2% of patients treated with ustekinumab. LIMITATIONS: Retreatment could be assessed in only 1 phase 3 brodalumab study. CONCLUSION: Brodalumab compares favorably with other biologics in terms of immunogenicity and high rates of efficacy recapture upon retreatment.
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 | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".