Comparison of treatment effect between phase 2 and phase 3 trials in patients with inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The accumulation of multiple randomized controlled trials in the field of inflammatory bowel diseases provides an opportunity to compare treatment effects between phase 2 and 3 trials. We aimed to determine whether treatment effects observed in phase 3 investigating biologics and small molecule drugs differed from those in their preceding phase 2 trial. METHODS: We first performed a review of phase 2 and phase 3 trials enrolling ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD) patients. We compared the percent overall success for key endpoints between phases (several phase 3 could be matched to a single phase 2 trial). Then, we compared the percent overall success in the matched phase 2 and 3 trials (ratio 1:1), and performed sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: We identified 14 phase 2 (8 CD; 6 UC) and 24 phase 3 (13 CD; 11 UC) trials. In CD, the different analyses suggest that the percentage of overall success of clinical remission and clinical response was significantly higher in phase 2 than in phase 3 trials. In UC, the analyses suggest collectively that the percent of treatment effect seemed similar for clinical remission, clinical response and histologic outcomes between phases but with a lower percentage of overall success in phase 2 than in phase 3 trials for endoscopic endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: In UC, we observed a similar percentage of treatment effect for clinical and histologic outcomes between phase 2 and 3 trials but not for endoscopic outcomes. Whereas in CD, we showed a failure to reproduce similar results between phases. These results may help sponsors in the design of future drug development programs.
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 | 0.163 | 0.234 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".