A Phase 2b, Randomised, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-arm, Multicenter Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Tesnatilimab in Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Crohn’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Tesnatilimab, a monoclonal antibody targeting NKG2D, was evaluated in Crohn's disease [CD] patients who had failed or were intolerant to biologic or conventional therapy. METHODS: TRIDENT was a phase 2b, two-part, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm, multicenter study. In Part 1 [proof of concept], 145 patients who were biologic intolerant or refractory [Bio-IR] or had not failed biologic therapy [Bio-NF] were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to placebo subcutaneously [SC] or tesnatilimab 400 mg SC. In Part 2 [dose ranging], 243 Bio-IR and Bio-NF patients were randomised in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio to placebo, tesnatilimab [50 mg, 150 mg, 400 mg], or intravenous infusion of ustekinumab ~6 mg/kg at Week 0 and 90 mg SC at Weeks 8 and 16. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline in Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI] at Week 8 [Part 1] and Week 12 [Part 2]. Clinical and endoscopic remission/response were evaluated. Efficacy analyses were also assessed by NKG2D and MICB single nucleotide polymorphism [SNP] status [SNP-positive means positive in at least one of two SNPs]. Safety events were summarised. RESULTS: In Part 1, mean change from baseline in CDAI score was significantly greater with tesnatilimab vs placebo at Week 8 [-103.6 vs -60.0; p < 0.01]. In Part 2, no dose-response signal was detected. Mean changes from baseline in CDAI at Week 12 were -93.2, -72.2, and -84.3 for low, middle, and high doses of tesnatilimab, respectively, vs -59.2 for placebo and -148.8 for ustekinumab. Similar reductions from baseline in CDAI score were observed in patients receiving tesnatilimab, regardless of SNP status. Clinical remission rates were greater with tesnatilimab than placebo in Parts 1 and 2, whereas endoscopic response rates were greater with tesnatilimab only in Part 1. No unexpected safety events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Tesnatilimab was well tolerated. The efficacy of tesnatilimab in patients with CD was significant for the primary endpoint in Part 1; however, no dose-response signal was detected for the primary endpoint in Part 2. Based on these inconsistent findings, tesnatilimab was not considered an effective treatment for patients with CD and no further development is planned. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02877134.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".