A122 COMBINATION BIOLOGIC THERAPY IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE: THE CALGARY EXPERIENCE
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biologic therapy has revolutionized inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care. More recently, newer biologics have been approved. Despite multiple options, clinical remission rates at one year are approximately 40% for any single biologic agent. In addition, questions surround the efficacy of newer agents in controlling extra-intestinal manifestations (EIMs). This has raised interest in whether combination biologic therapy with agents with different mechanisms of action (MOA) can be used safely to increase overall efficacy or to control EIMs. To describe the clinical experience in IBD patients treated with combination biologic therapy at the University of Calgary IBD unit. A retrospective single center cohort study was performed at the University of Calgary of IBD patients receiving combination biologic therapy. Safety and efficacy of the combination biologic therapy was assessed. Ten patients (9 Crohn’s disease (CD),1 ulcerative colitis (UC)) were treated with combination biologic therapy (5M:5F). Mean follow-up was 64.8 weeks (range 10–118 weeks). All patients had failed > 3 biologics and 4/10 (40%) of patients had failed >4 previous biologics. None of the patients were started on dual biological therapy simultaneously. All patients had a biologic added to existing biologic. Primary indication to add a second biologic was medically refractory disease in 6 and control of EIMs in 4: 2 type II peripheral arthritis, 2 ankylosing spondylitis. Combinations of biologics used included: vedolizumab and adalimumab (n=3);vedolizumab and infliximab (n=3);vedolizumab and golimumab (n=2);vedolizumab and certolizumab (n=1);and ustekinumab and infliximab (n=1). Of the 6 who were on dual biologic therapy for medically refractory disease 3/6 (50%) demonstrated clinical improvement, and 3/6 (50%) demonstrated endoscopic response. Two patients (1 CD; 1 UC) underwent intestinal resection, but neither experienced a postoperative complication. The four whose primary indication was to control EIMS; anti-TNF therapy (2 adalimumab; 1 infliximab: 1golimumab) was added to vedolizumab and all patients 4/4 (100%) had complete resolution of their EIMs. One patient who had golimumab and high dose corticosteroids added to every 4 weekly vedolizumab developed a community acquired pneumonia (CAP) during the golimumab induction period. All other combinations were well tolerated during the follow-up period. In this small,highly selective cohort of patients with IBD, a variety of combinations of biologic therapy were well tolerated. One patient developed CAP. The combination proved to be a successful strategy to control EIMs when anti-TNF therapy was added to vedolizumab. Further studies are needed to assess the comparative efficacy of combination strategies and long term safety compared to single agents. None
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it