MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DI-077 Effectiveness and safety of biosimilar infliximab in ulcerative colitis

2016· article· en· W2408973406 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
MD Toscano Guzmán, MI Sierra Torres, S Flores Moreno, AD Avila Carpio, M. Romero Gómez, FJ Bautista Paloma

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfliximabMedicineUlcerative colitisBiosimilarAzathioprineConcomitantInternal medicineAdverse effectInflammatory bowel diseaseMercaptopurineRetrospective cohort studySurgeryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Infliximab is one of the most widely used alternatives in ulcerative colitis (UC). The recent appearance of a biosimilar makes it necessary to assess its use. <h3>Purpose</h3> To assess the effectiveness and safety of biosimilar infliximab in patients with UC. <h3>Material and methods</h3> Retrospective observational study performed in a tertiary hospital. Patients included were those with UC who were being treated with Remicade and then switched to Remsima (biosimilar infliximab) from March to June 2015. Effectiveness and safety were assessed 3 months after the switch. The following variables were collected: age, sex, concomitant therapy, disease classification according to the Montreal Scale (severity and extention) in UC, effectiveness and adverse effects. Effectiveness was measured using the True-Love-Witts Scale and C reactive protein (CRP) levels before and 3 months after the switch. Safety was assessed by collecting all adverse events that occurred during treatment. <h3>Results</h3> 25 patients were included, 52% were women with an average age of 45 years (21–71). At inclusion, 20% of patients were treated concomitantly with corticosteroids and 36% with azathioprine/mercaptopurine. According to the Montreal Scale, 28% of patients had an extension level of E2, 72% had E3 and none had E1. On the other hand, the severity variable was distributed as follows: 8% of patients S0, 32% S1, 48% S2 and 12% S3. At baseline, 23 patients had stabilised disease and 2 had minor outbreaks. Effectiveness was assessed in 12 patients who were reviewed 3 months after the switch. One patient had a minor outbreak at the beginning and no clinical change occurred after the use of the biosimilar. As for the remaining evaluated patients, 8 maintained the same Tru-Love-Witts score and 4 had a decrease. There was no clinically relevant increase in CRP. No adverse events were detected after the switch. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Despite being a preliminary assessment with just a few patients, initial data showed that the switch to an infliximab biosimilar did not represent a decrease in effectivenees and/or safety in patient with UC. Long term assessment of these patients is required to confirm these results. No conflict of interest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsFrench-language works237,207