Systematic review: thalidomide and thalidomide analogues for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been reported that thalidomide may be effective in treating inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). AIM: To review the evidence examining the efficacy and safety of thalidomide for inducing and maintaining remission in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PubMed (1950-August 2014), EMBASE (1984-August 2014), Scopus, and Web of knowledge were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies and case series. The primary outcomes were induction of remission or response for active IBD or relapse rate for patients in remission and subsequently on thalidomide/analogues for at least 3 months. RESULTS: Twelve studies (2 RCTs and 10 case series) met the inclusion criteria for inducing remission and included 248 patients (10 with UC, 238 with CD). Only one RCT of paediatric CD achieved high quality scores (remission rate thalidomide: 46%, placebo: 12%; p=0.01). The crude pooled remission rate for thalidomide was 49% and 25% in luminal and perianal CD respectively. For UC, 50% achieved remission and 10% had partial response. One case series reported 21 patients (17 CD, four UC) who maintained remission for 6 months. Many adverse events were reported including sedation (32%) and peripheral neuropathy (20%). CONCLUSIONS: One high quality RCT showed that thalidomide is effective for inducing remission in paediatric CD. The current evidence is insufficient to support using thalidomide to induce remission in UC or adult CD, or to maintain remission in IBD. Significant adverse events may occur, necessitating discontinuation of thalidomide.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".