The Unfinished Symphony: Golimumab Therapy for Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor Refractory Crohn’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Golimumab is approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severely active ulcerative colitis. However, there have been no formal trials to assess its utility in Crohn's disease [CD]. Our aim was to determine the efficacy and safety of golimumab in patients with anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF] refractory CD. METHODS: Patients with CD treated with golimumab between 2010 and 2017 were included in a retrospective observational study. The vast majority of patients failed two anti-TNF agents. Clinical response was defined as a significant reduction in symptoms and biochemical markers of CD, and no requirement for surgery or introduction of immune-suppressants. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were included, with a median follow-up of 22 months [interquartile range 12-34] following initiation of golimumab. Induction and maintenance regimens were generally higher than standard dosing with first month cumulative doses of 400 mg and above in 75% of the patients. Monthly maintenance doses ≥200 mg were administered in 52% of patients. Clinical response at 3 months was achieved in 35/45 [77.7%] patients. The cumulative probabilities that patients with an initial response maintained their clinical response for 12 and 36 months after introduction of golimumab were 81% and 64%, respectively. Endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing at 12 months was achieved in 73% and 47% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the efficacy of golimumab in anti-TNF refractory CD patients. Further studies should be performed in CD to formally assess the efficacy of golimumab in a randomized controlled trial and to establish the optimal dosing regimen.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".