MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803840512 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy018

Budesonide for the Induction and Maintenance of Remission in Crohn’s Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for the Cochrane Collaboration

2018· article· en· W2803840512 on OpenAlexafffund
M Ellen Kuenzig, Ali Rezaie, Gilaad G. Kaplan, Anthony Otley, A. Hillary Steinhart, Anne M. Griffiths, Eric I. Benchimol, Cynthia H. Seow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaHospital for Sick ChildrenMount Sinai HospitalIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie UniversityUniversity of CalgaryChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCanadian Association of Gastroenterology
KeywordsBudesonideMedicinePlaceboAdverse effectRelative riskInternal medicineCorticosteroidRandomized controlled trialCrohn's diseaseGastroenterologyMeta-analysisMaintenance therapyInflammatory bowel diseaseConfidence intervalDiseaseChemotherapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Budesonide is an oral glucocorticoid designed for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that may reduce systemic adverse events (AEs). This review examined the efficacy and safety of budesonide for the induction and maintenance of clinical remission in Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, other electronic databases, reference lists and conference proceedings were searched to November 2017 to identify randomized controlled trials of budesonide. Outcomes were the induction and maintenance of remission at eight weeks and one year, respectively, as well as corticosteroid-related AEs and abnormal adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) tests. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random effects models. RESULTS: Thirteen induction and 10 maintenance trials were included. Budesonide 9 mg/day was more effective than placebo (RR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.37-2.73; GRADE: moderate) but less effective than conventional steroids (RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.97; GRADE: moderate) to induce remission. Corticosteroid-related AEs occurred less often with induction doses of budesonide than steroids (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.76; GRADE: moderate); budesonide did not increase AEs relative to placebo (RR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.76-1.23; GRADE: moderate). Budesonide 6 mg/day was not different from placebo for maintaining remission (RR 1.13; 95% CI, 0.94-1.35; GRADE: moderate). Both induction (GRADE: low for 3 mg/day, moderate for 9 mg/day) and maintenance budesonide treatment (GRADE: very low for 3 mg/day, low for 6 mg/day) increased the risk of an abnormal ACTH test compared with placebo, but less than conventional steroids (GRADE: very low for both induction and maintenance). CONCLUSION: For induction of clinical remission, budesonide was more effective than placebo, but less effective than conventional steroids. Budesonide was not effective for the maintenance of remission. Budesonide was safer than conventional steroids, but the long-term effects on the adrenal axis and bone health remain unknown.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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

Citations40
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207