MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2586564735 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx002.055

DOP018 Effect of adalimumab on extraintestinal manifestations among patients with ulcerative colitis in a clinical practice setting: results from INSPIRADA

2017· article· en· W2586564735 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Travis, Brian G. Feagan, Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, Remo Panaccione, Silvio Danese, A. Lazar, Anne Robinson, Roopal Thakkar, Brandee Pappalardo, J Petersson, Mareike Bereswill, N. Chen, Martha Skup

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryRobarts Clinical Trials
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUlcerative colitisAdalimumabMedicineInternal medicineDermatologyGastroenterologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) are common in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and can have a significant impact on patient morbidity and quality of life [1]. We assessed the effect of adalimumab (ADA) therapy on the resolution of EIMs among patients with moderate to severe UC in clinical practice. Methods: INSPIRADA was a single-arm, multi-country, open-label study evaluating the effect of ADA on clinical outcomes, costs of care, treatment satisfaction and work productivity in patients with UC treated according to usual clinical practice. Adults with active UC, Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) ≥2, and Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire ≤45 at baseline (BL) who failed conventional treatment and who experienced rectal bleeding ≤7 days of BL were enrolled. Patients received 160/80 mg ADA at Week 0/2 followed by 40 mg of ADA every other week at Week 4 through Week 26. Patients who did not respond to ADA by Week 8 were to discontinue ADA. Patients who lost response at or after Week 8 could escalate to 40 mg ADA weekly. The presence of EIMs (arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, erythema nodosum, and uveitis) were collected in the SCCAI at BL and Weeks 2, 8, and 26. McNemar's test was used to compare the presence of any EIM at Weeks 2, 8, and 26 with BL. In a subset of patients with EIMs at BL, EIM resolution was assessed at Week 2, 8, and 26, defined as no reported EIM at the respective visit; durable EIM resolution at Weeks 2 and 8 was defined as no EIM at the respective visit and subsequent visit(s). Missing data were imputed using last observation carried forward. Results: Data from 461 patients were analysed. At BL, 88 patients (19.1%) had an EIM. The most commonly reported EIM was arthritis (84 of 88 patients). Pyoderma gangrenosum, erythema nodosum, and uveitis each were reported in <1% of patients at BL and at Weeks 2, 8, and 26. The overall percentage of patients with any EIM decreased significantly (p<0.001) from BL over time: 13.2%, 11.7%, and 10.8% had any EIMs at Weeks 2, 8, and 26, respectively. Similar decreasing percentages were seen for patients with arthritis: 13.0%, 11.7%, and 10.8% at Weeks 2, 8, and 26, respectively. Among those with any EIM at BL, resolution of EIMs increased over time: 39.8%, 52.3%, and 63.6% at Weeks 2, 8, and 26, respectively; durable resolution was 23.9% and 44.3% at Weeks 2 and 8, respectively. Among those with arthritis at BL, resolution rates were 36.9%, 50.0%, and 61.9% at Weeks 2, 8, and 26, respectively; durable resolution was 20.2%, 41.7%, and 61.9%, respectively. Conclusions: ADA therapy reduced EIMs among patients with moderate to severe UC in usual clinical practice, with EIM resolution in 60% by Week 26. References: [1] Vavricka SR et al, (2015), Inflamm Bowel Dis, 21(8):1982–92

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→