MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979765940 · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2019.09.049

No Superiority of Tacrolimus Suppositories vs Beclomethasone Suppositories in a Randomized Trial of Patients With Refractory Ulcerative Proctitis

2019· article· en· W2979765940 on OpenAlexaff
Mitchell R. K. L. Lie, Joany E. Kreijne, Gerard Dijkstra, Mark Löwenberg, Gert Van Assche, Rachel West, Desirée van Noord, Andrea E. van der Meulen‐de Jong, Bas Oldenburg, Rianne J. Zaal, Bettina E. Hansen, Annemarie C. de Vries, C. Janneke van der Woude

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
FundersZonMw
KeywordsMedicineRefractory (planetary science)SuppositoryTacrolimusProctitisRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologyUlcerative colitisUrologyInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Ulcerative proctitis (UP) refractory to 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) suppositories is a challenge to treat, often requiring step up to immunomodulator or biological therapy. Topical tacrolimus is effective and safe in patients with refractory UP. However, it is not clear how tacrolimus suppositories fit into in the treatment algorithm of UP. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled, double-blind study at 8 hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium from 2014 through 2017. Eighty-five patients with refractory UP (65% women) were randomly assigned to groups given once daily tacrolimus suppositories (2 mg; n = 43) or beclomethasone (3 mg; n = 42) for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was clinical response (decrease in Mayo score of 3 or more). Secondary outcomes included clinical remission, endoscopic response and remission, adverse events and quality of life. Outcomes were compared using Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Proportions of patients with clinical responses were 63% in the tacrolimus group and 59% in the beclomethasone group (P = .812); proportions of patients in clinical remission were 46% and 38%, respectively (P = .638). Proportions of patients with an endoscopic response were 68% and 60% in the tacrolimus group and in the beclomethasone group (P = .636); proportions in endoscopic remission rates were 30% and 13%, respectively (P = .092) Median increases in the inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire score were 18.0 in the tacrolimus group and 20.5 in the beclomethasone group (P = .395). Adverse event rates did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a 4-week randomized controlled trial, tacrolimus and beclomethasone suppositories induce comparable clinical and endoscopic responses in patients with UP refractory to 5-ASA. There were no significant differences in adverse events rates. Tacrolimus and beclomethasone suppositories are therefore each safe and effective treatment options for 5-ASA refractory disease. EUDRACT 2013-001259-11; Netherlands Trial Register NL4205/NTR4416.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.260
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical Gastroenterology and HepatologySame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207