MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764071025 · doi:10.1111/apt.14368

Review article: consensus statements on therapeutic drug monitoring of anti‐tumour necrosis factor therapy in inflammatory bowel diseases

2017· review· en· W2764071025 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bible College
FundersGastroenterological Society of AustraliaAbbVieTakeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.Pfizer
KeywordsMedicineTherapeutic drug monitoringInfliximabAdalimumabInflammatory bowel diseaseIntensive care medicineDosingDrugBiosimilarDiseaseInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients receiving anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents can help optimise outcomes. Consensus statements based on current evidence will help the development of treatment guidelines. AIM: To develop evidence-based consensus statements for TDM-guided anti-TNF therapy in IBD. METHODS: A committee of 25 Australian and international experts was assembled. The initial draft statements were produced following a systematic literature search. A modified Delphi technique was used with 3 iterations. Statements were modified according to anonymous voting and feedback at each iteration. Statements with 80% agreement without or with minor reservation were accepted. RESULTS: 22/24 statements met criteria for consensus. For anti-TNF agents, TDM should be performed upon treatment failure, following successful induction, when contemplating a drug holiday and periodically in clinical remission only when results would change management. To achieve clinical remission in luminal IBD, infliximab and adalimumab trough concentrations in the range of 3-8 and 5-12 μg/mL, respectively, were deemed appropriate. The range may differ for different disease phenotypes or treatment endpoints-such as fistulising disease or to achieve mucosal healing. In treatment failure, TDM may identify mechanisms to guide subsequent decision-making. In stable clinical response, TDM-guided dosing may avoid future relapse. Data indicate drug-tolerant anti-drug antibody assays do not offer an advantage over drug-sensitive assays. Further data are required prior to recommending TDM for non-anti-TNF biological agents. CONCLUSION: Consensus statements support the role of TDM in optimising anti-TNF agents to treat IBD, especially in situations of treatment failure.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.334 · 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