P934 A delphi consensus on the optimisation of medical and surgical therapy in perianal fistulising Crohn’s disease, targeted at individual TOpCLASS classification groups
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Perianal fistulising Crohn’s Disease (PFCD) is a challenging phenotype of IBD associated with poor outcomes. Classically, fistulae have been classified anatomically and guidelines have been generalised, with a lack of appreciation of disease heterogenicity. The recent ‘TOpCLASS classification system’ (Geldof et al. (2022) - figure below) addresses this and categorises patients based on clinical features and patient goals. There is a need to provide management guidance for PFCD that aligns with this approach, targeting differing PFCD manifestations seen in real-life. We present a consensus exercise delivering that guidance. Methods Position statements on ‘optimal’ PFCD management within the TOpCLASS classes were made via a consensus meeting in Apr 2023. The expert panel were members of the TOpCLASS Consortium, a group of PFCD specialists and researchers. This included 15 surgeons and 16 gastroenterologists, from IBD centres in Europe, North America, and Australia. Prior to the meeting, to inform provisional statements: 1) a systematic review of the literature was conducted (Oct 2021), 2) multidisciplinary team responses on the management of fictional PFCD cases from 8 leading IBD centres were obtained, and 3) an open discussion on PFCD management with the expert panel was conducted. Consensus was predefined as ≥80% ‘strongly agree’ [A+] or ‘agree with minor reservation’ [A]. Results 53 position statements were agreed by the expert panel. For Class 1 (minimal, asymptomatic) disease the panel agreed, given the lack of symptoms, there is no role for seton insertion (A+ 50%, A 50%), and no role for routine MRI monitoring in the absence of new fistula symptoms (A+ 46%, A 54%). Regarding Class 2 (chronic, symptomatic) disease, the panel agreed on detailed guidance for when fistulae are suitable for a repair attempt and where differing surgical modalities are best utilised in fistula repair. Additionally, statements on seton removal in PFCD were made, alongside statements on optimised medical therapy in Class 2 patients. Specifically, the panel suggest Infliximab first-line (A+ 80%, A 20%), ideally commenced within 30 days of initial drainage +/- seton insertion (A+ 100%). Statements were also produced regarding second-line options, topical therapy, and loss of response to biologics in PFCD. Specific statements were also developed for Class 2b, 2c-i, 2c-ii, and 4 disease, as well as on the psychological burden of PFCD. Conclusion The generated statements come from a highly expert Western group of PFCD specialists. We believe they provide pragmatic advice to gastroenterologists and IBD surgeons managing the full breadth of PFCD encountered in day-to-day practice.
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 | 0,233 | 0,234 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,015 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,002 |
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 ».