Corticosteroids and Thiopurines, But Not Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists, are Associated With Cytomegalovirus Reactivation in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation and individual immunosuppressive agents in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has not been clearly defined. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess this association. METHODS: Multiple electronic databases were searched systematically through July 2015 for observational studies reporting CMV reactivation (based on serum-based or tissue-based tests) in IBD patients stratified by medication exposure. We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects model. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Sixteen observational studies were identified. As compared with nonexposed patients, exposure to corticosteroids (CS) (12 studies, 1180 patients, 52.3% exposed; OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.40-2.99) and thiopurines (14 studies, 1273 patients, 24.1% exposed; OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.01-2.39) was associated with increased risk of CMV reactivation. In contrast, as compared with patients not exposed to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists, exposure to TNF antagonists was not associated with an increased risk of CMV reactivation (7 studies, 818 patients, 18.5% exposed; OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.93-2.24). The results remained stable for CS and thiopurines when the analysis was limited to hospitalized patients, and by a tissue-based diagnosis. Studies were limited in the ability to assess the impact of concomitant immunosuppressive therapy, duration of medication exposure, and disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of 16 observational studies, exposure to CS or thiopurines, but not TNF antagonists, was associated with an increased risk of CMV reactivation in IBD patients.
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 | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".