Corticosteroid-Free Remission vs Overall Remission in Clinical Trials of Moderate–Severe Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We summarized the protocol-specified corticosteroid tapering regimens in clinical trials of moderate-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) and calculated differences in rates of clinical remission vs corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CSF-CR). METHODS: Through a systematic literature review through February 28, 2019, we identified 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biologics or small molecules in patients with moderate-severe UC or CD who reported CSF-CR as an outcome. We estimated the relative risk and 95% confidence interval of achieving CSF-CR vs overall clinical remission in patients treated with active intervention or placebo through random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Across trials of UC (11 trials) and CD (5 trials), a median of 53% and 49% of participants were on corticosteroids at the time of trial entry, respectively. Participants were allowed to enter trials at a median corticosteroid dose (range) of 35 (20-40) mg/d. Doses were kept stable for a median (range) of 8 (5-10) weeks during induction therapy, after which a mandatory and structured taper was implemented, albeit with the investigators' discretion depending on clinical status. Pooled rates of CSF-CR in patients with UC and CD treated with placebo were 9.7% and 19.1%, respectively. In UC and CD trials, the rate of CSF-CR was 24% and 18% lower than the rate of overall clinical remission, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Protocol-specified corticosteroid tapering regimens vary across trials. These findings will help to inform the design and interpretation of future clinical trials and highlight the need for standardization.
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 | 0.089 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".