Once-Daily Dosing vs. Conventional Dosing Schedule of Mesalamine and Relapse of Quiescent Ulcerative Colitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Maintenance therapy with 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs) is recommended in patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis (UC), but compliance rates are low. Once-daily dosing may improve adherence, but impact on the relapse of disease activity is unclear as no previous meta-analysis has studied this issue. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched (through April 2011). Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruited adults with quiescent UC, and compared once-daily dosing of 5-ASAs with a more frequent dosing schedule of an identical total daily dose of the same 5-ASA drug. Minimum treatment duration was 6 months. Trials reported a dichotomous assessment of relapse of disease activity at last point of follow-up. Data concerning non-compliance and adverse events were extracted, where reported. Effect of once-daily vs. more frequent dosing schedule was reported as relative risk (RR) of relapse with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: The search identified 3,061 citations, and seven RCTs containing 2,745 patients were eligible. All RCTs used mesalamine. Relapse rates were not significantly different between once-daily and conventional dosing schedules for mesalamine (RR of relapse=0.94; 95% CI: 0.82-1.08). Non-compliance (RR=0.87; 95% CI: 0.46-1.66) and adverse events were no more likely with once-daily dosing (RR=1.08; 95% CI: 0.97-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily dosing with mesalamine is as effective as conventional dosing schedules for the prevention of relapse of quiescent UC, although there is no definitive evidence that compliance with once-daily dosing is better. Adverse events occur at a similar frequency.
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 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".