MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Teduglutide Treatment and Associated Parenteral Support (PS) Reductions in Adult Short Bowel Syndrome (SBS) Patients With Ultra-Short Remnant Bowel and/or No Colon in Continuity

2014· article· en· W2978115756 on OpenAlexaff
Kursheed N. Jeejeebhoy, S. Schneider, Simon M. Gabe, Ulrich‐Frank Pape, Ken Fujioka, Nader N. Youssef, Douglas L. Seidner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineShort bowel syndromeInternal medicineGastroenterologyClinical endpointPlaceboInflammatory bowel diseaseClinical trialRandomized controlled trialEtiologyParenteral nutritionRandomizationSurgeryDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Prior to the availability of teduglutide, functional bowel length was recognized as an important prognostic factor in patients with SBS.1 In general, patients with shorter residual small bowel following intestinal resection are more likely to remain chronically dependent on PS to meet their fluid and nutritional needs.1 Phase III clinical trials have demonstrated that teduglutide, a recombinant analog of human glucagon-like peptide 2, enhances absorption and reduces the volume of PS needed to maintain clinical status in a wide range of patients with varying etiologies and durations of SBS. In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III STEPS (CL0600-020) registration study, 27/43 (63%) teduglutide-treated vs 13/43 (30%) placebo-treated patients achieved responder criteria (primary endpoint of ≥20% reduction in weekly PS volume from baseline at weeks 20 and 24)2. There was a mean reduction in PS volume of 4.4 L/week at week 24 from the baseline mean volume of 12.9 L/week.2 Methods: This subanalysis was undertaken to determine the impact of teduglutide in patients with ultra-short (≤40 cm) remnant bowel and/or no colon-in-continuity. Data from all patients who received teduglutide 0.05 mg/kg/day for 24 weeks in STEPS (n=40) were assessed by descriptive statistics; no between-group comparisons were done, owing to the small sample size. Results: The responder criteria were met by similar percentages of patients regardless of bowel length, including 7/11 (64%) patients with remnant bowel length ≤40 cm and 3/5 (60%) patients with remnant bowel length ≤25 cm (Table). At week 24, patients in each of these 2 groups with ultra-short bowel experienced mean decreases in weekly PS volume of 3.9 L and 3.6 L, respectively. Analysis of data from all patients who were randomized to teduglutide treatment in STEPS, regardless of bowel length (n=43), found that 13/17 (77%) patients without colon-in-continuity and 14/26 (54%) patients with colon-incontinuity met the responder criteria. Conclusion: These findings reinforce the benefits of treatment with teduglutide 0.05 mg/kg/day to enhance absorptive capacity in SBS regardless of remnant anatomy. Disclosure - Dr. JeeJeebhoy -- Other (study investigator) for NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Schneider -- Advisory committee/board member and Other (study investigator) for NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Gabe -- Advisory committee/board member for NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Pape -- Advisory committee/board member and Other (study investigator) for NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Fujioka -- Consultant and Other (study investigator) for NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Youssef -- Employee of NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Seidner -- Grant/research support, Consultant, Advisory committee/board member, and Other (study investigator) for NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This research was funded by NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bedminster, NJ.Table 1

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology→French-language works237,207→