P393 Patient and physician perspectives on the management of inflammatory bowel disease: Role of steroids in the context of biologic therapy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Corticosteroids are a mainstay of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment but are not as effective as maintenance therapy and prolonged exposure is associated with significant morbidities. We assessed real-world management of IBD using an international online survey of patients (patients) and physicians and present results related to steroid use for IBD. Methods The online survey was conducted in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, and the USA. The mixed-recruitment methodology was used: patients were recruited by physicians, pt advocacy groups, and panels; physicians were recruited by recruitment agencies and panels. Eligible patients were adults with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) (targeted 1:1 ratio CD:UC) who had received IBD treatment but had not had surgery for UC. Eligible physicians were gastroenterologists who had treated ≥12 CD patients and ≥12 UC patients (≤70% with a disease of mild severity) in the prior month and were responsible for treatment decisions. Results Surveys were completed by 2398 IBD patients (1368 CD, 1030 UC) and 654 physicians. Mean ages were 43 y and 45 y for patients with CD and UC, respectively; 60% and 55% were female. Most patients (93% CD, 78% UC) had moderate/severe IBD per clinical criteria; 71% and 47%, respectively, had ever required hospitalisation. Physicians had a mean monthly caseload of 42.9 CD patients and 43.3 UC patients, and 62.4%–67.2% of their IBD patients had moderate/severe disease. Biologic therapy was currently used by 50% of CD patients and 32% of UC patients, consistent with results for physicians (54% CD, 43% UC). Most patients (69% CD, 58% UC) reported a loss of response (LOR) to prior treatments, and most physicians reported that their patients experienced a LOR to biologic therapy fairly/very frequently (66% CD, 56% UC). Approximately 75% of IBD patients had ever used steroids for their IBD; steroid use of ≥4 or ≥6 months in the past year was reported by 35% and 18% of CD patients, respectively, and by 40% and 19% of UC patients. Physicians reported that 40% and 14% of their IBD patients used steroids for ≥4 or ≥6 months in the past year. Among patients currently receiving steroid therapy, many (48% CD, 42% UC) were concerned about any steroid use, and two-thirds reported wanting to stop steroid treatment as soon as the disease was under control. Only 27% of physicians reported a concern about any steroid use; approximately half reported a concern about ≥4 months of steroid use per year. Conclusion This international survey demonstrated that steroid use is prevalent and LOR to biologics is common among moderate/severe IBD patients. There were differences in pt and physician perception of steroid use; many physicians believed ≥4 months of steroid use per year was not a concern. A significant unmet need remains for treatments that provide sustained control of IBD.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».