MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Comparative Long-term Efficacy and Safety of Infliximab and Adalimumab in Patients with Crohnʼs Disease: A Retrospective Study from the McGill University Health Center

2016· article· en· W2977293504 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amine Benmassaoud, Mark Sasson, Dasha Moza, Talal Al-Taweel, Alain Bitton, Waqqas Afif, Talat Bessissow

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInfliximabAdalimumabCrohn's diseaseRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineSurgeryInflammatory bowel diseaseSingle CenterDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The long-term efficacy and safety of the anti tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADA) has been well established in the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD). However, direct head to head studies comparing the two agents over long periods of time are sparse. The aim of our study was to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of IFX and ADA in the treatment of CD at the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC). Methods: This is a single center retrospective study based at the MUHC. We included adult patients with CD that were anti-TNF naive and were treated with either IFX or ADA. Patient's were excluded if they did not complete at least 1 year of anti-TNF therapy. A chart review was performed and demographic, clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data were retrieved. Clinical remission was defined as HBI≤4, response was defined as decrease in HBI≥2, and durable remission was defined remission at all time points. Clinical remission and response and durable remission and response were assessed annually and up to 5 years of treatment. Occurrence of treatment failure defined as hospitalization, need for steroids, or surgery were compared. Safety data was also analyzed. Results: Our study included a total of 141 patients with 61 patients in the ADA group and 80 patients in the IFX group. Certain differences were noted between the IFX and ADA groups, but not regarding disease activity (Table 1). Efficacy analysis showed that patients treated with ADA were more likely to respond to therapy at 12 months compared to IFX (93% vs 79%, p=0.0405). Otherwise, remission rates were not different between groups at 1,2,3,4 and 5 years and response rates at 2, 3, 4 years were also similar between groups. Durable remission was achieved in 50% (30/60) of the ADA group and in 46% (36/78) of the IFX group (p=0.7317). Use of combination therapy was associated with higher rates of response at 12 months (75% vs 50%, p=0.01). Rates of steroid use, hospitalization or surgery were not different amongst the two groups. Adverse events were noted in 23.7% of patient on IFX compared to 13.1% in patients on ADA, with the two most common being infusion reaction and arthralgia (p=0.13). No new case of malignancy was noted in either group.Table 1: Baseline Characteristics of the 141 patients included in the studyConclusion: Our real life head to head data demonstrates similar efficacy and safety between IFX and ADA and confirms the superiority of combination therapy. Further larger studies are required to investigate these findings.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→