A145 ORAL 5-ASA FOR INDUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF REMISSION IN ULCERATIVE COLITIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the safety and efficacy of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from inception to May 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a minimum four-week treatment duration for induction studies and six-month treatment duration for maintenance studies were included. RCTs comparing oral 5-ASA to placebo, sulfasalazine (SASP) or other 5-ASA formulations were considered. RCTs comparing once daily 5-ASA treatment to conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose ranging studies were also eligible. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Risk ratios (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The primary outcomes included the proportion of patients who failed to enter and maintain clinical remission. Secondary outcomes included clinical improvement, endoscopic improvement, endoscopic remission, adherence to medication and adverse events. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess bias and GRADE to assess the overall quality of the evidence. Fifty-four RCTs (N=9612) of 5-ASA in active UC, and 43 RCTs (N=9791) of 5-ASA in quiescent UC were included. Seventy-one percent (1107/1550) of 5-ASA patients failed to enter remission at 4–12 weeks compared to 83% (695/837) of placebo patients (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89, P<0.001; high-quality evidence). Thirty-seven percent (335/907) of 5-ASA patients failed to maintain remission at 24–48 weeks compared to 55% (355/648) of placebo patients (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.76, P<0.001; high-quality evidence), with a trend towards increased efficacy at higher doses. Adverse events were similar between the 5-ASA and placebo groups. Fifty-four (150/279) percent of SASP patients failed to enter remission at 4–12 weeks compared to 58% (144/247) of placebo patients (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04, P=0.15; moderate-quality evidence). Forty-eight percent (416/871) of 5-ASA patients failed to maintain remission at 48–72 weeks compared to 43% (336/784) of SASP patients (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27, P=0.01; high-quality evidence). SASP was associated with an increased rate of adverse events in induction studies, but not in maintenance studies. There was no statistically significant difference in efficacy, safety, or adherence, for once daily dosing compared to conventional 5-ASA dosing. There was no significant difference in efficacy or safety between the various 5-ASA formulations. 5-ASA was superior to placebo for both the induction and maintenance of ulcerative colitis. 5-ASA resulted in similar efficacy and fewer adverse events compared to SASP. There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy or safety between various 5-ASA formulations, nor between once daily and conventional dosing. Ferring Studentship Grant Award
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 | 0.016 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".