MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2921972703 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.144

A145 ORAL 5-ASA FOR INDUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF REMISSION IN ULCERATIVE COLITIS

2019· article· en· W2921972703 on OpenAlexaff
A. W. MURRAY, Tran M Nguyen, Claire E. Parker, J MacDonald, Brian G. Feagan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUlcerative colitisInternal medicineAdverse effectPlaceboRandomized controlled trialSulfasalazineConfidence intervalRelative riskMeta-analysisMaintenance therapyDosingChemotherapyAlternative medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.008
Bibliometrics0.0090.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→