Placebo Response Rates in Randomized Controlled Trials for Perianal Crohn’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Perianal fistulizing disease is a common complication of Crohn's disease [CD], for which new therapies are urgently needed. To assist the design of clinical trials for novel therapeutics, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials [RCTs] to quantify placebo rates and identify factors influencing them in perianal CD [pCD]. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to June 2021. Eligible studies were placebo-controlled trials of pharmacological interventions for pCD. Placebo fistula response and remission rates for induction and maintenance trials were extracted and pooled using a random-effects model. Mixed-effects meta-regression was used to evaluate the impact of patient and study-level characteristics on point estimates. RESULTS: In 17 RCTs [13 induction, five maintenance] the pooled placebo fistula response and remission rate for induction trials was 25% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17-36%) and 17% [95% CI 11-25%], respectively. For maintenance trials, the pooled placebo fistula response and remission rate was 23% [95% CI 17-32%] and 19% [95% CI 14-25%], respectively. Trials enrolling patients with less disease activity and a higher proportion with ileal predominant disease were associated with significantly higher placebo response rates. Trials originating in Europe [compared to North America], therapies requiring perianal injection and a longer timepoint to measure remission were associated with higher placebo remission rates. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo response and remission rates in pCD trials are influenced by patient and disease-related factors, as well as the type of intervention being studied. These contemporary rates will inform trial design for novel therapeutics.
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 | 0.077 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.031 | 0.063 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".