Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Budigalimab, an anti-PD-1 inhibitor, for people living with HIV-1: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1b study.

Name: Kaimen Rigor review — Budigalimab, an anti-PD-1 inhibitor, for people living with HIV-1: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1b study.
Item: Budigalimab, an anti-PD-1 inhibitor, for people living with HIV-1: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1b study.
Rating: 100
Author: Alpha1

Ramgopal MN, Lalezari JP, Pires Dos Santos AG, Krishnan P, Vaidya TR, Zhou F, Betman H, Dorr P, Mostafa NM, Alcaide ML, Felizarta F, Routy JP

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Kaimen Rigor review — 3.5★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Budigalimab, an anti-PD-1 inhibitor, for people living with HIV-1: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1b study.”

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 15, 2026

Read alongside

Budigalimab, an anti-PD-1 inhibitor, for people living with HIV-1: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1b study.

Ramgopal MN, Lalezari JP, Pires Dos Santos AG, Krishnan P, Vaidya TR, Zhou F, Betman H, Dorr P, Mostafa NM, Alcaide ML, Felizarta F, Routy JP

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1038/s41591-025-03993-0

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/a9da7278-b492-4bfa-8487-6e94d8ffc4b1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/a9da7278-b492-4bfa-8487-6e94d8ffc4b1/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 3.5★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Budigalimab, an anti-PD-1 inhibitor, for people living with HIV-1: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1b study.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

8dcf19901c024cb26f220b0984de77597e62d7ff32aee26e60c24b4d9df37f34

Verify via API

Issued Aug 15, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Alpha¹ by Kaimen

Fetching the latest research

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Budigalimab, an anti-PD-1 inhibitor, for people living with HIV-1: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1b study.

Ramgopal MN, Lalezari JP, Pires Dos Santos AG, Krishnan P, Vaidya TR, Zhou F, Betman H, Dorr P, Mostafa NM, Alcaide ML, Felizarta F, Routy JP

Paper source

Budigalimab, an anti-PD-1 inhibitor, for people living with HIV-1: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1b study.

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 15, 2026

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

3.5 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Biggest issues

01Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary efficacy claim is based on viral load kinetics (HIV-1 RNA levels) during analytical treatment interruption, which is a surrogate marker for clinical benefit. The paper does not establish a validated link between this surrogate and hard clinical outcomes, nor does it demonstrate target engagement at the tested dose beyond receptor saturation, which is a pharmacodynamic marker but not a validated surrogate for clinical outcome.
“In an exploratory efficacy analysis of a 12-week ATI initiated with the first of four 10 mg Q2W doses, 6 of 11 participants experienced a delayed rebound with a relatively low viral peak and/or off-ART viral control (<200 copies ml−1) for ≥6 weeks during ATI,…”
Find in source
02Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The reported effect is a small fraction of the reference population: 2 of 9 (22.2%) participants achieving extended viral control, which is numerically higher than historical controls (2.5-7.4%) but still a small proportion. The paper acknowledges the exploratory nature and lack of statistical power, and does not anchor the effect to a clinically meaningful threshold.
“The result of 2 of 9 (22.2%) participants with extended viral control observed here is numerically higher than results seen in other studies involving nonprimary infection post-treatment controllers, which have reported off-ART control (<50, <400 or <1,000…”
Find in source

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 302OverreachOverstated conclusions 03AuthenticityNone found 04DisclosureNone found 05AvailabilityNone found 06Copyedit4 minor suggestions

This Kaimen Rigor review uses Kaimen Rigor reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and transparently reported phase 1b randomized controlled trial of budigalimab in people living with HIV-1. The manuscript demonstrates strong scientific premise, rigorous design, and comprehensive reporting across all eight rigor dimensions, with only minor copyedit-level inconsistencies and a few optional reporting enhancements.

This is an interventional study (randomized controlled trial). Both reviewers agreed on the study type. The evaluation covered all eight dimensions; several sub-criteria were marked not applicable due to the human clinical trial context (e.g., cell line authentication, housing conditions, IACUC). The statistics verification covered only 1 test (limited coverage), and the citation check found no integrity issues. The copyedit pass flagged minor consistency issues in the abstract and results.

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 1 test: 1 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 1 via agent-written checks.

Overstated conclusions

3 findings · worst high

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningfulAssessed
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

7 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit; effect size not shown to be clinically meaningful.

Data authenticity concerns

None found

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

None found

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites extensive prior research on PD-1 in HIV and SIV models, and the rationale for using budigalimab is logically linked to the study objectives. Limitations of prior research are acknowledged, such as the need for lower doses to improve tolerability.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study clearly establishes the scientific rationale for PD-1 blockade in HIV and builds on prior work.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 1-3]

“PD-1 blockade in non-human primates infected with simian immunodeficiency virus has resulted in multiple effects, including enhancement of HIV-specific CD8+ T cell proliferative potential...”

“The doses chosen for study in HIV treatment were derived from modeling using data from first-in-human studies of budigalimab and pharmacokinetic studies of another anti-PD-1 antibody with target-mediated drug disposition and were substantially lower and of shorter exposure duration than those used in oncology.”

Introduction ¶4Find in source

“The current study reported a more favorable safety profile that might be expected with substantially lower doses (≤10 mg) over a finite period and a subsequently restricted period of PD-1 receptor saturation, in a different population, namely PLWH.”

Discussion ¶3Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The study clearly establishes the scientific rationale for PD-1 blockade in HIV and cites prior work.

Evidence

“PD-1 blockade in non-human primates infected with simian immunodeficiency virus has resulted in multiple effects, including enhancement of HIV-specific CD8 + T cell proliferative potential in the blood and gut and increased polyfunctional capacity”

Introduction ¶1Find in source

“PD-1 inhibitors, therefore, offer a potential approach to enable durable viral control without ART through a reversal of T cell exhaustion and restoration of T cell function.”

Introduction ¶4Find in source

“The study population size was small, as is typical for a phase 1 study.”

Discussion ¶8Find in source

Randomization method (computer-generated) and unit (participant) are stated. Blinding is described (double-blind, with unblinded pharmacist and sponsor). Inclusion/exclusion criteria are extensive and pre-specified. Power analysis is not applicable as this is a phase 1 study with no hypothesis testing. Outlier handling is addressed through pre-specified analysis populations and ART-restart criteria. Controls (placebo) are used. Independent replication is not applicable for a single phase 1 trial.

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisN/A

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The study design is rigorous with appropriate randomization, blinding, and pre-specified criteria.

Evidence

“Participants were assigned a computer-generated randomization number to encode treatment group assignments according to the randomization schedule generated by study statisticians and used by a designated, unblinded site pharmacist.”

MethodsFind in source

“The site investigator and other study site personnel and the participants remained blinded throughout the study.”

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Eligibility criteria]

“Eligible participants were female or male sex (of any gender; sex and/or gender were self-reported), 18 to 65 years old with a positive anti-HIV-1 antibody test and negative anti-HIV-2 antibody test results on ART for ≥12 months...”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The trial design is rigorous with randomization, blinding, and clear inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Evidence

“Participants were assigned a computer-generated randomization number to encode treatment group assignments according to the randomization schedule generated by study statisticians”

MethodsFind in source

“The site investigator and other study site personnel and the participants remained blinded throughout the study.”

MethodsFind in source

“No power calculations for sample size considerations have been performed for this study that employed descriptive and exploratory analyses and had no planned hypothesis testing.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sex is reported (predominantly male) and the imbalance is discussed with justification. Age, BMI, and health status (CD4 counts, viral load) are reported. Demographics include race and ethnicity. Species/strain and housing are not applicable for a human trial.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedADEQUATE

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Biological variables are well reported for a human trial.

Evidence

“Participant demographics and baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment groups with representation of eligibility criteria, except for sex, which was predominantly male.”

DiscussionFind in source

“Age, median (min, max), y | 44 (24, 57) | 38.5 (26, 60) | 49.5 (22, 65) | 46 (38,63) | 48 (29, 64)”

Table 2Find in source

paraphrase[Table 2]

“Race, n / N | White | 5/5 | 8/10 | 7/10 | 5/5 | 8/11”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Demographics and key biological variables are reported, though sex is predominantly male with justification.

Evidence

“Participant demographics and baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment groups with representation of eligibility criteria, except for sex, which was predominantly male.”

ResultsFind in source

“Age, median (min, max), y | 44 (24, 57) | 38.5 (26, 60) | 49.5 (22, 65) | 46 (38,63) | 48 (29, 64)”

Table 2Find in source

“the need for contraception and the burden from the number of visits required for intensive monitoring during the ATI period may have contributed to lower female enrollment.”

Discussion ¶8Find in source

The study used a central IRB (Advarra) or local ethics committees, and written informed consent was obtained. Compliance with ICH guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki is stated. The ethics statement is specific and adequate.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approvals and consent are adequately documented.

Evidence

“Sites used a central institutional review board (Advarra) or local ethics committees to have the study protocol, informed consent, and participant information approved.”

EthicsFind in source

“Written informed consent, including a full discussion of risks of budigalimab, risks of ATI and conditions for ART reinitiation, was obtained for each participant before screening or study-specific procedures.”

EthicsFind in source

“The study was conducted in accordance with International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) guidelines, and applicable regulations, guidelines, and principles had their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.”

EthicsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approval and informed consent are clearly documented.

Evidence

“Sites used a central institutional review board (Advarra) or local ethics committees to have the study protocol, informed consent, and participant information approved.”

EthicsFind in source

Budigalimab is identified as an investigational humanized anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, with dosing regimen specified. Antibodies used in flow cytometry are identified with vendor and catalog numbers. Software (Phoenix WinNonlin, SAS, OMIQ) is identified with versions. Cell lines and mycoplasma testing are not applicable.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedADEQUATE

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Key resources, including the investigational product and reagents, are well identified.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“Budigalimab (ABBV-181) is an investigational humanized, recombinant immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) L234A L235A monoclonal antibody (mAb) that effectively binds to cell surface-expressed PD-1 and blocks it from binding to PD-L1 and PD-L2.”

paraphrase[Methods, PD-1 receptor saturation]

“A custom assay assessed PD-1 receptor saturation on memory T cell subtypes using a panel consisting of CD28-FITC (clone CD28.2, BD Biosciences, Catalog no. 555728)...”

“Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using noncompartmental analysis with the software Phoenix WinNonlin Version 8.0 (Certara L.P., Pharsight).”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The investigational product and key reagents are well identified.

Evidence

“Budigalimab (ABBV-181) is an investigational humanized, recombinant immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) L234A L235A monoclonal antibody (mAb) that effectively binds to cell surface-expressed PD-1”

Introduction ¶4Find in source

“CD28-FITC (clone CD28.2, BD Biosciences, Catalog no. 555728), CD279-PE (clone EH.12.1, BD Biosciences, Catalog no. 560795)”

MethodsFind in source

“Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using noncompartmental analysis with the software Phoenix WinNonlin Version 8.0 (Certara L.P., Pharsight).”

MethodsFind in source

The study explicitly states no power calculations and no hypothesis testing, using descriptive and exploratory analyses. Tests used (ANCOVA, repeated measures, Wilcoxon) are named. Exact p-values are reported for exploratory analyses. Effect sizes are not reported, but this is consistent with the exploratory nature. Software is identified. Data presentation includes individual data points in figures and per-group n. Mathematical plausibility checks are not applicable due to small sample and continuous data.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciN/A

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedINADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate for a phase 1 exploratory study, with no hypothesis testing.

Evidence

“No power calculations for sample size considerations have been performed for this study that employed descriptive and exploratory analyses and had no planned hypothesis testing.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Statistical methods]

“An ANCOVA was conducted to assess the log-transformed, dose-normalized Cmax and area under the curve values and dose proportionality between the 2 mg and 10 mg IV dose of budigalimab (class variable).”

paraphrase[Results, Exploratory analysis: T cell phenotypic assessment]

“trends were observed in budigalimab-mediated expansion of peripheral CXCR5+ CD8+ T cells (P = 0.06), TFH-like cells (P = 0.06), and CCR6+ CD4+ T cells (Th17; P = 0.06)”

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate for a phase 1 exploratory study, with no formal hypothesis testing.

Evidence

“No power calculations for sample size considerations have been performed for this study that employed descriptive and exploratory analyses and had no planned hypothesis testing.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“An ANCOVA was conducted to assess the log-transformed, dose-normalized C max and area under the curve values and dose proportionality between the 2 mg and 10 mg IV dose of budigalimab (class variable).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“trends were observed in budigalimab-mediated expansion of peripheral CXCR5 + CD8 + T cells ( P = 0.06), TFH-like cells ( P = 0.06), and CCR6 + CD4 + T cells (Th17; P = 0.06)”

ResultsFind in source

The data availability statement provides a concrete route via Vivli platform with conditions and timeframe. Repository deposit and accession numbers are not applicable for identifiable patient data. Code sharing is not applicable as no bespoke code is mentioned.

Sub-criteria

code sharingN/A

accession numbersN/A

repository depositN/A

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Data availability is adequately described with a concrete access route.

Evidence

“These clinical trial data can be requested by any qualified researchers who engage in rigorous, independent, scientific research and will be provided following review and approval of a research proposal, statistical analysis plan (SAP), and execution of a data sharing agreement (DSA). Data requests can be submitted at any time after approval in the US and Europe and after acceptance of this manuscript for publication. The data will be accessible for 12 months, with possible extensions considered. For more information on the process or to submit a request, visit the following https://vivli.org/ourmember/abbvie/ then select “Home”.”

Data availabilityFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Data availability is clearly stated with a concrete access route via Vivli.

Evidence

Data availabilityFind in source

“For more information on the process or to submit a request, visit the following https://vivli.org/ourmember/abbvie/ then select “Home”.”

Data availabilityFind in source

The trial is registered (NCT04223804). A reporting guideline (CONSORT) is referenced via the flow diagram. All outcomes are reported, including negative results. Limitations are discussed. Conclusions are appropriately cautious. Funding and COI are disclosed.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Reporting is transparent with trial registration, limitations, and proportional conclusions.

Evidence

“ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04223804”

AbstractFind in source

paraphrase[Results, Patient disposition]

“An abridged participant disposition is outlined in Table, with a full CONSORT flow diagram in Fig.”

“The study population size was small, as is typical for a phase 1 study. In addition, almost all study participants were male and all participants identified as cisgender, which does not reflect the diversity of PLWH.”

Discussion ¶8Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The manuscript is transparent with trial registration, reporting guideline, and limitations discussed.

Evidence

“ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04223804”

AbstractFind in source

“Further information on research design is available in the linked to this article.”

AbstractFind in source

“The study population size was small, as is typical for a phase 1 study.”

Discussion ¶8Find in source

Registered (3 IDs: ClinicalTrials.gov). Reporting guideline cited: CONSORT.

Broken references and links

None found

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Checked 50 references by DOI: 49 verified — 1 no DOI (shown, not verified).

1 data/code link checked; 1 live.

Copyediting

4 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 4 minor suggestions below.

4 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, clarity.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The published work is robust and well-reported; an informed reader should weigh the minor internal inconsistency in the efficacy denominator (6 of 11 vs six of nine) and the lack of effect sizes/confidence intervals for exploratory analyses. No erratum is warranted for the core findings, but the authors should consider issuing a correction for the denominator inconsistency and optionally adding effect sizes to enhance interpretability.

1.
HIGHcopyedit
In the Abstract and Results, reconcile the denominator for the efficacy analysis: clarify whether '6 of 11' or 'six of nine participants completing treatment' is the correct figure, and ensure consistency throughout.
The internal contradiction between the abstract and results could confuse readers and undermine the precision of the reported efficacy outcome.
2.
HIGHcopyedit
In the Results section under 'ATI, viral load kinetics and ART restart', clarify whether the two participants who did not receive the full budigalimab schedule are included in the '5 of 11' who rebounded or are additional.
The current wording is ambiguous about subgroup membership, which could mislead interpretation of the viral rebound analysis.
3.
MEDIUMstatistics
In the Methods/Statistical methods section, add a statement on verification of statistical assumptions (e.g., normality) for the ANCOVA and repeated measures analyses, or justify their robustness given the small sample.
Both reviewers noted that assumptions are not explicitly verified; adding this strengthens the statistical rigor and preempts reviewer concerns.
4.
MEDIUMstatistics
In the Results for exploratory analyses, report effect sizes with confidence intervals for the key T-cell phenotypic findings (e.g., CXCR5+ CD8+ T cells, TFH-like cells, Th17 cells).
Providing effect sizes and CIs would enhance interpretability of the exploratory trends, even though not required for a phase 1 study.
5.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Discussion, explicitly acknowledge the lack of a formal power analysis as a limitation and discuss its implications for the exploratory efficacy findings.
This would preempt concerns about the interpretability of null or trend-level results given the small sample size.
6.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a CONSORT checklist as a supplementary file to explicitly document adherence to the reporting guideline.
While a flow diagram is present, a full checklist would provide more transparent reporting and facilitate reviewer assessment.
7.
LOWcopyedit
In the Abstract, add 'IV' to the Stage 2 dose description ('10 mg IV n = 11') for consistency with other dose descriptions.
Minor consistency improvement in dose route reporting.
8.
LOWdata code
Consider adding a data-sharing statement for the flow cytometry data or other non-clinical data, if applicable.
This would enhance transparency for the exploratory biomarker analyses, though the clinical data sharing via Vivli is already adequate.

Full text (74,968 chars)Analyzed: Aug 15, 2026

Start the discussion on JRNLClub

Community discussion on jrnlclub.com

Read alongside

Budigalimab, an anti-PD-1 inhibitor, for people living with HIV-1: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1b study.

Ramgopal MN, Lalezari JP, Pires Dos Santos AG, Krishnan P, Vaidya TR, Zhou F, Betman H, Dorr P, Mostafa NM, Alcaide ML, Felizarta F, Routy JP

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1038/s41591-025-03993-0

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/a9da7278-b492-4bfa-8487-6e94d8ffc4b1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/a9da7278-b492-4bfa-8487-6e94d8ffc4b1/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 3.5★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Budigalimab, an anti-PD-1 inhibitor, for people living with HIV-1: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1b study.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

8dcf19901c024cb26f220b0984de77597e62d7ff32aee26e60c24b4d9df37f34

Verify via API

Issued Aug 15, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

3.5 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Biggest issues

01Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary efficacy claim is based on viral load kinetics (HIV-1 RNA levels) during analytical treatment interruption, which is a surrogate marker for clinical benefit. The paper does not establish a validated link between this surrogate and hard clinical outcomes, nor does it demonstrate target engagement at the tested dose beyond receptor saturation, which is a pharmacodynamic marker but not a validated surrogate for clinical outcome.
“In an exploratory efficacy analysis of a 12-week ATI initiated with the first of four 10 mg Q2W doses, 6 of 11 participants experienced a delayed rebound with a relatively low viral peak and/or off-ART viral control (<200 copies ml−1) for ≥6 weeks during ATI,…”
Find in source
02Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The reported effect is a small fraction of the reference population: 2 of 9 (22.2%) participants achieving extended viral control, which is numerically higher than historical controls (2.5-7.4%) but still a small proportion. The paper acknowledges the exploratory nature and lack of statistical power, and does not anchor the effect to a clinically meaningful threshold.
“The result of 2 of 9 (22.2%) participants with extended viral control observed here is numerically higher than results seen in other studies involving nonprimary infection post-treatment controllers, which have reported off-ART control (<50, <400 or <1,000…”
Find in source

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 302OverreachOverstated conclusions 03AuthenticityNone found 04DisclosureNone found 05AvailabilityNone found 06Copyedit4 minor suggestions

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 1 test: 1 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 1 via agent-written checks.

Overstated conclusions

3 findings · worst high

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningfulAssessed
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

7 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit; effect size not shown to be clinically meaningful.

Data authenticity concerns

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Eight Dimensions8 pass

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study clearly establishes the scientific rationale for PD-1 blockade in HIV and builds on prior work.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 1-3]

“PD-1 blockade in non-human primates infected with simian immunodeficiency virus has resulted in multiple effects, including enhancement of HIV-specific CD8+ T cell proliferative potential...”

Introduction ¶4Find in source

Discussion ¶3Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The study clearly establishes the scientific rationale for PD-1 blockade in HIV and cites prior work.

Evidence

Introduction ¶1Find in source

“PD-1 inhibitors, therefore, offer a potential approach to enable durable viral control without ART through a reversal of T cell exhaustion and restoration of T cell function.”

Introduction ¶4Find in source

“The study population size was small, as is typical for a phase 1 study.”

Discussion ¶8Find in source

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisN/A

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The study design is rigorous with appropriate randomization, blinding, and pre-specified criteria.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

“The site investigator and other study site personnel and the participants remained blinded throughout the study.”

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Eligibility criteria]

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The trial design is rigorous with randomization, blinding, and clear inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Evidence

“Participants were assigned a computer-generated randomization number to encode treatment group assignments according to the randomization schedule generated by study statisticians”

MethodsFind in source

“The site investigator and other study site personnel and the participants remained blinded throughout the study.”

MethodsFind in source

“No power calculations for sample size considerations have been performed for this study that employed descriptive and exploratory analyses and had no planned hypothesis testing.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedADEQUATE

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Biological variables are well reported for a human trial.

Evidence

“Participant demographics and baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment groups with representation of eligibility criteria, except for sex, which was predominantly male.”

DiscussionFind in source

“Age, median (min, max), y | 44 (24, 57) | 38.5 (26, 60) | 49.5 (22, 65) | 46 (38,63) | 48 (29, 64)”

Table 2Find in source

paraphrase[Table 2]

“Race, n / N | White | 5/5 | 8/10 | 7/10 | 5/5 | 8/11”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Demographics and key biological variables are reported, though sex is predominantly male with justification.

Evidence

“Participant demographics and baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment groups with representation of eligibility criteria, except for sex, which was predominantly male.”

ResultsFind in source

“Age, median (min, max), y | 44 (24, 57) | 38.5 (26, 60) | 49.5 (22, 65) | 46 (38,63) | 48 (29, 64)”

Table 2Find in source

“the need for contraception and the burden from the number of visits required for intensive monitoring during the ATI period may have contributed to lower female enrollment.”

Discussion ¶8Find in source

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approvals and consent are adequately documented.

Evidence

“Sites used a central institutional review board (Advarra) or local ethics committees to have the study protocol, informed consent, and participant information approved.”

EthicsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approval and informed consent are clearly documented.

Evidence

“Sites used a central institutional review board (Advarra) or local ethics committees to have the study protocol, informed consent, and participant information approved.”

EthicsFind in source

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedADEQUATE

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Key resources, including the investigational product and reagents, are well identified.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 4]

paraphrase[Methods, PD-1 receptor saturation]

“A custom assay assessed PD-1 receptor saturation on memory T cell subtypes using a panel consisting of CD28-FITC (clone CD28.2, BD Biosciences, Catalog no. 555728)...”

“Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using noncompartmental analysis with the software Phoenix WinNonlin Version 8.0 (Certara L.P., Pharsight).”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The investigational product and key reagents are well identified.

Evidence

“Budigalimab (ABBV-181) is an investigational humanized, recombinant immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) L234A L235A monoclonal antibody (mAb) that effectively binds to cell surface-expressed PD-1”

Introduction ¶4Find in source

“CD28-FITC (clone CD28.2, BD Biosciences, Catalog no. 555728), CD279-PE (clone EH.12.1, BD Biosciences, Catalog no. 560795)”

MethodsFind in source

“Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using noncompartmental analysis with the software Phoenix WinNonlin Version 8.0 (Certara L.P., Pharsight).”

MethodsFind in source

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciN/A

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedINADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate for a phase 1 exploratory study, with no hypothesis testing.

Evidence

“No power calculations for sample size considerations have been performed for this study that employed descriptive and exploratory analyses and had no planned hypothesis testing.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Statistical methods]

paraphrase[Results, Exploratory analysis: T cell phenotypic assessment]

“trends were observed in budigalimab-mediated expansion of peripheral CXCR5+ CD8+ T cells (P = 0.06), TFH-like cells (P = 0.06), and CCR6+ CD4+ T cells (Th17; P = 0.06)”

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate for a phase 1 exploratory study, with no formal hypothesis testing.

Evidence

“No power calculations for sample size considerations have been performed for this study that employed descriptive and exploratory analyses and had no planned hypothesis testing.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“An ANCOVA was conducted to assess the log-transformed, dose-normalized C max and area under the curve values and dose proportionality between the 2 mg and 10 mg IV dose of budigalimab (class variable).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“trends were observed in budigalimab-mediated expansion of peripheral CXCR5 + CD8 + T cells ( P = 0.06), TFH-like cells ( P = 0.06), and CCR6 + CD4 + T cells (Th17; P = 0.06)”

ResultsFind in source

Sub-criteria

code sharingN/A

accession numbersN/A

repository depositN/A

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Data availability is adequately described with a concrete access route.

Evidence

Data availabilityFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Data availability is clearly stated with a concrete access route via Vivli.

Evidence

Data availabilityFind in source

“For more information on the process or to submit a request, visit the following https://vivli.org/ourmember/abbvie/ then select “Home”.”

Data availabilityFind in source

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Reporting is transparent with trial registration, limitations, and proportional conclusions.

Evidence

“ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04223804”

AbstractFind in source

paraphrase[Results, Patient disposition]

“An abridged participant disposition is outlined in Table, with a full CONSORT flow diagram in Fig.”

Discussion ¶8Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The manuscript is transparent with trial registration, reporting guideline, and limitations discussed.

Evidence

“ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04223804”

AbstractFind in source

“Further information on research design is available in the linked to this article.”

AbstractFind in source

“The study population size was small, as is typical for a phase 1 study.”

Discussion ¶8Find in source

Registered (3 IDs: ClinicalTrials.gov). Reporting guideline cited: CONSORT.

Broken references and links

None found

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Checked 50 references by DOI: 49 verified — 1 no DOI (shown, not verified).

1 data/code link checked; 1 live.

Copyediting

4 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 4 minor suggestions below.

4 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, clarity.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

1.
HIGHcopyedit
In the Abstract and Results, reconcile the denominator for the efficacy analysis: clarify whether '6 of 11' or 'six of nine participants completing treatment' is the correct figure, and ensure consistency throughout.
The internal contradiction between the abstract and results could confuse readers and undermine the precision of the reported efficacy outcome.
2.
HIGHcopyedit
In the Results section under 'ATI, viral load kinetics and ART restart', clarify whether the two participants who did not receive the full budigalimab schedule are included in the '5 of 11' who rebounded or are additional.
The current wording is ambiguous about subgroup membership, which could mislead interpretation of the viral rebound analysis.
3.
MEDIUMstatistics
In the Methods/Statistical methods section, add a statement on verification of statistical assumptions (e.g., normality) for the ANCOVA and repeated measures analyses, or justify their robustness given the small sample.
Both reviewers noted that assumptions are not explicitly verified; adding this strengthens the statistical rigor and preempts reviewer concerns.
4.
MEDIUMstatistics
In the Results for exploratory analyses, report effect sizes with confidence intervals for the key T-cell phenotypic findings (e.g., CXCR5+ CD8+ T cells, TFH-like cells, Th17 cells).
Providing effect sizes and CIs would enhance interpretability of the exploratory trends, even though not required for a phase 1 study.
5.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Discussion, explicitly acknowledge the lack of a formal power analysis as a limitation and discuss its implications for the exploratory efficacy findings.
This would preempt concerns about the interpretability of null or trend-level results given the small sample size.
6.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a CONSORT checklist as a supplementary file to explicitly document adherence to the reporting guideline.
While a flow diagram is present, a full checklist would provide more transparent reporting and facilitate reviewer assessment.
7.
LOWcopyedit
In the Abstract, add 'IV' to the Stage 2 dose description ('10 mg IV n = 11') for consistency with other dose descriptions.
Minor consistency improvement in dose route reporting.
8.
LOWdata code
Consider adding a data-sharing statement for the flow cytometry data or other non-clinical data, if applicable.
This would enhance transparency for the exploratory biomarker analyses, though the clinical data sharing via Vivli is already adequate.

Full text (74,968 chars)Analyzed: Aug 15, 2026