Instead of asking what percentage relapsed, at each time point, can you compute the delta between antibiotics and placebo, at each of 16, 52 and 104 weeks?

I’ll be straight with you: the retrieval is thin. The snippet you’ve handed me is a title about Stelara (ustekinumab) in Crohn’s disease, a biologic, not an antibiotic. There is no placebo arm, no relapse percentages at 16, 52, or 104 weeks, and no delta to compute. The question as posed does not match the source material.

If you meant a different trial, say a randomized controlled trial of an antibiotic for some infection with relapse rates reported at those exact time points, then the math is trivial: delta at week X equals the antibiotic relapse proportion minus the placebo relapse proportion, expressed as an absolute percentage point difference. But I cannot invent numbers. I will not fabricate a table from a title that has nothing to do with antibiotics.

What I can tell you is what the delta would mean if you had the data. A negative delta means the antibiotic arm had fewer relapses. A positive delta means it had more. The size of the delta tells you the absolute benefit or harm, not the relative risk reduction, which is what drug marketing usually quotes because it makes small effects look big. For example, if placebo relapsed at 30% and antibiotic at 20%, the delta is 10 percentage points. That is the number that matters to a patient deciding whether to take the drug. The relative reduction would be 33%, which sounds impressive but hides the fact that 10 out of 100 people still relapse on the drug.

But here is the catch. Even with the delta, you need the confidence intervals. A delta of 10 points from a trial of 50 people is noise. A delta of 10 points from a trial of 5,000 is real. And you need to know who funded the trial. If the manufacturer paid for it, the delta is likely biased toward zero or toward the drug, because negative results get buried and positive ones get spun. The absence of the actual numbers in your question is itself a red flag. Either the trial was never run with those endpoints, or the results were not published in a way that allows independent calculation.

My confidence here is high that the question cannot be answered from the given source. The evidence is not clear because the evidence does not exist in the form you described. If you can point me to the actual trial with the actual proportions, I will compute the deltas for you, name the funding, and tell you whether the numbers hold up. Until then, the honest answer is: no data, no delta, no conclusion. Do not let anyone fill that gap with a guess dressed as a statistic.