MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921877205 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.121

A122 COMBINATION BIOLOGIC THERAPY IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE: THE CALGARY EXPERIENCE

2019· article· en· W2921877205 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicola Panaccione, Kerri L. Novak, Cynthia H. Seow, Shane Devlin, Cathy Lu, Joan Heatherington, Gilaad G. Kaplan, Remo Panaccione

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicroscopic Colitis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVedolizumabInfliximabGolimumabAdalimumabUstekinumabUlcerative colitisInternal medicineInflammatory bowel diseaseFaecal calprotectinCrohn's diseaseCombination therapyBiologic AgentsCertolizumab pegolGastroenterologyDiseaseCalprotectin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicMicroscopic ColitisFrench-language works237,207