No Benefit of Concomitant 5-Aminosalicylates in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis Escalated to Biologic Therapy: Pooled Analysis of Individual Participant Data From Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA) are frequently continued in patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis (UC), even after escalation to biologic agents, without evaluation of the benefit of this approach. We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) pooled analysis of trials of infliximab and golimumab in UC, to evaluate whether concomitant use of 5-ASA modifies clinical outcomes among anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α-treated patients. METHODS: We included IPD from five trials of infliximab and golimumab in patients with moderate-severe UC (ACT-1 and -2, PURSUIT-SC, PURSUIT-M, NCT00336492). Patients treated with infliximab or golimumab were categorized as receiving concomitant 5-ASA or not at time of trial entry. Primary outcome was clinical remission (Mayo Clinic Score < 3) at last follow-up for each trial; secondary outcomes were clinical response and mucosal healing. Using multivariable logistic regression analysis, we evaluated association between concomitant 5-ASA and clinical remission, after adjusting for sex, smoking, baseline disease activity, disease extent, biochemical variables (C-reactive protein, albumin, hemoglobin), and concomitant prednisone and immunomodulators. RESULTS: We included 2183 infliximab-treated or golimumab-treated patients (1715 [78.6%] on 5-ASA). Concomitant use of 5-ASA was not associated with odds of achieving clinical remission (adjusted OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45-1.01], p = 0.06), clinical response (aOR, 0.89 [0.60-1.33], p = 0.58) or mucosal healing (aOR, 1.12 [0.82-1.51], p = 0.48). These results were consistent in trials of induction and maintenance therapy, and in trials of infliximab and golimumab. CONCLUSIONS: Based on IPD pooled analysis, in patients with moderate-severe UC who are escalated to anti-TNF therapy, continuing 5-ASA does not improve clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.052 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".