Clinical, Endoscopic, and Safety Placebo Rates in Induction and Maintenance Trials of Crohn’s Disease: Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Precision in estimating placebo rates is important for clinical trial design. AIM: To quantify placebo rates across relevant endpoints in Crohn's disease [CD] trials and identify the factors influencing these rates in a contemporary meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from inception to March 2021. Eligible studies were placebo-controlled trials of pharmacological interventions for CD. Placebo response and remission rates for induction and maintenance trials were extracted and pooled by random-effects to quantify placebo rates across studies. Mixed-effects meta-regression was used to evaluate the effects of study-level characteristics on placebo rates. RESULTS: In 125 studies [91 induction, 46 maintenance], placebo clinical remission and response rates for induction studies were 18% (95% confidence interval [CI] 16, 21%], and 32% [95% CI 29, 35%], respectively, and for maintenance studies were 28% [95% CI 23, 34%] and 30% [95% CI 24, 37%], respectively. Endoscopic remission and response rates in induction studies were 8% [95% CI 4, 18%] and 16% [95% CI 11, 23%], respectively. Trials enrolling patients with prior biologic exposure, longer disease duration, and higher CD activity index scores were associated with lower placebo clinical remission rates. Increased duration of follow-up, more follow-up visits, and a greater proportion of patients with colonic disease distribution were associated with higher clinical placebo rates. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo remission and response rates in CD trials vary according to the phase of the trial, endpoint assessed, and induction or maintenance design. These contemporary estimates will help to inform future CD trial design.
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 | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| 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".