A secukinumab dose-escalation study in patients with ankylosing spondylitis not achieving inactive disease after 16 weeks of treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical response at week 52 in patients with AS who received secukinumab 300 vs 150 mg after inadequate response to 150 mg at week 16. METHODS: ASLeap (NCT03350815) was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 4 trial. After 16 weeks of open-label secukinumab 150 mg (Treatment Period 1), patients who did not achieve inactive disease [AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) <1.3] at both week 12 and 16 were considered to have an inadequate response and were randomized 1:1 to receive secukinumab 300 or 150 mg every 4 weeks until week 52 (Treatment Period 2). The primary efficacy variable was achievement of ASDAS <1.3 at week 52 using week 16 as baseline. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through week 52. RESULTS: Of 322 patients treated with secukinumab in Treatment Period 1, 207 (64.3%) had inadequate response. Similar proportions of patients with inadequate response randomized to secukinumab 300 mg (n = 101) and 150 mg (n = 105) in Treatment Period 2 completed the study (83.8% and 84.3%, respectively). At week 52, 8.8% and 6.7% of patients receiving secukinumab 300 and 150 mg, respectively, achieved ASDAS <1.3. The incidence of TEAEs was similar in both groups through week 52. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Patients with AS who did not achieve ASDAS <1.3 after receiving secukinumab 150 mg for 16 weeks experienced similar clinical response and safety through week 52 regardless of dose escalation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03350815.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".