BIOLOGICAL THERAPY PENETRATION FOR INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE IN LATIN AMERICA: CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE CHALLENGES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The introduction of anti-TNF agents represented a landmark in the management of both Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), with improved efficacy and safety when compared with conventional treatment. However, significant challenges still exist in Latin America to facilitate the access of biological agents for physicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to summarize current evidence on penetration of biological agents for CD and UC in Latin America. METHODS: Data are derived from a previous complete systematic review that explored different characteristics of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) in Latin America. The studies fully included in this previous systematic review which contained detailed descriptions of the percentage of use of biological agents in different cohorts throughout Latin American and Caribbean countries were included, and descriptive findings were compiled, describing CD and UC penetration of these drugs in different patient cohorts from different countries. RESULTS: From the 61 studies included in the original systematic review, only 19 included data of the percentage of patients treated with biological agents. Anti-TNF use in CD varied from 1.51% in Mexico up to 46.9% in Colombia, with most of the studies describing anti-TNF use in approximately 20%-40% of CD patients. On the other side, the frequency of the use of biologics was clearly lower in UC, varying from 0% in 2009 to up 16.2% in 2018, according to two different Mexican studies. Only two studies described the penetration of anti-TNF agents in IBD overall: 13.4% in a Colombian and 37.93% in a Brazilian study. No studies described percentage of use of new biologic agents (vedolizumab and ustekinumab). CONCLUSION: Penetration of anti-TNF agents in Latin America is comparable to the rest of the world in CD, but lower in UC. With the increase in the incidence and prevalence of IBD, specific strategies to increase access to anti-TNF agents in UC and new biological agents overall are warranted.
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 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".