Experience with the use of low-dose methotrexate for inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thiopurine drugs (azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine) are well established in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. However, some patients are intolerant or resistant to thiopurine drugs and their management remains a challenge. Several studies have suggested methotrexate is effective for the induction and maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted because the overall data on clinical efficacy of methotrexate in inflammatory bowel disease remain limited and there are no data regarding fistulating Crohn's disease or concomitant use of methotrexate with thiopurine drugs in inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of medical notes. Clinical response was defined as sustained withdrawal of oral steroids or fistula improvement. New episodes of steroid therapy, infliximab or surgery during the first 6 months were considered as failure to achieve clinical response. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were studied (66 Crohn's disease and six ulcerative colitis). The mean dose of methotrexate used was 18.2 mg/week. Clinical response was achieved in 22 of 54 patients (40.7%) who completed 6 months of methotrexate treatment. For patients with Crohn's disease, fistula improvement was achieved in eight of 18 (44.4%) patients compared with 11 of 30 (36.7%) receiving methotrexate for steroid withdrawal. Clinical response was achieved in six of 15 patients (40%) treated with methotrexate and azathioprine at the same time compared with 16 of 39 patients (41%) treated with methotrexate alone. CONCLUSIONS: Methotrexate is reasonably effective in clinical practice as a steroid sparing agent in inflammatory bowel disease. The efficacy in fistulating Crohn's disease justifies its use as an immunomodulator in these patients. Combined azathioprine and methotrexate treatment appears to offer no advantage over methotrexate alone.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".