Systematic review: the role of tacrolimus in the management of Crohn’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Several published studies have evaluated the efficacy of tacrolimus in the management of Crohn's disease with variable conclusions. AIM To review systematically the evidence examining the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus in treating Crohn's disease. METHODS The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PUBMED) and EMBASE (1984 to January 2011) were searched. Also, references from selected articles were examined. Case series (five or more patients), cohort and randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion, incorporating oral, intravenous or topical tacrolimus therapy. The primary outcome was induction of remission of active Crohn's disease. RESULTS Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria which included 163 patients, of which 127 received tacrolimus therapy. In patients with luminal Crohn's disease, the crude pooled remission rate for tacrolimus was 44.3% (range, 7-69%) and the crude pooled response rate was 37.1% (range, 14-57%). For patients with perianal disease using systemic tacrolimus, crude pooled remission rate was 28.6% (range, 0-64%) and crude pooled response rate was 38.8% (range, 0-57%). Combining data from two studies using topical tacrolimus, 35.7% of patients achieved remission and 28.6% partial response. Nonserious adverse effects are common, particularly tremor, paraesthesia and headache. Reversible nephrotoxity occurred in 16% of patients. CONCLUSIONS The current evidence; although of a poor quality, appears to support the use of tacrolimus in Crohn's disease. High quality randomised controlled trials are needed.
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 | 0.013 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".