MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998981085 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz203.522

P393 Patient and physician perspectives on the management of inflammatory bowel disease: Role of steroids in the context of biologic therapy

2020· article· en· W2998981085 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anita Afzali, Alessandro Armuzzi, Yoram Bouhnik, Brian Bressler, Ailsa Hart, David T. Rubin, M. Sans, Britta Siegmund, D Sninsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInflammatory bowel diseaseUlcerative colitisContext (archaeology)Internal medicineDiseaseCrohn's diseaseInflammatory Bowel Diseases

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Corticosteroids are a mainstay of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment but are not as effective as maintenance therapy and prolonged exposure is associated with significant morbidities. We assessed real-world management of IBD using an international online survey of patients (patients) and physicians and present results related to steroid use for IBD. Methods The online survey was conducted in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, and the USA. The mixed-recruitment methodology was used: patients were recruited by physicians, pt advocacy groups, and panels; physicians were recruited by recruitment agencies and panels. Eligible patients were adults with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) (targeted 1:1 ratio CD:UC) who had received IBD treatment but had not had surgery for UC. Eligible physicians were gastroenterologists who had treated ≥12 CD patients and ≥12 UC patients (≤70% with a disease of mild severity) in the prior month and were responsible for treatment decisions. Results Surveys were completed by 2398 IBD patients (1368 CD, 1030 UC) and 654 physicians. Mean ages were 43 y and 45 y for patients with CD and UC, respectively; 60% and 55% were female. Most patients (93% CD, 78% UC) had moderate/severe IBD per clinical criteria; 71% and 47%, respectively, had ever required hospitalisation. Physicians had a mean monthly caseload of 42.9 CD patients and 43.3 UC patients, and 62.4%–67.2% of their IBD patients had moderate/severe disease. Biologic therapy was currently used by 50% of CD patients and 32% of UC patients, consistent with results for physicians (54% CD, 43% UC). Most patients (69% CD, 58% UC) reported a loss of response (LOR) to prior treatments, and most physicians reported that their patients experienced a LOR to biologic therapy fairly/very frequently (66% CD, 56% UC). Approximately 75% of IBD patients had ever used steroids for their IBD; steroid use of ≥4 or ≥6 months in the past year was reported by 35% and 18% of CD patients, respectively, and by 40% and 19% of UC patients. Physicians reported that 40% and 14% of their IBD patients used steroids for ≥4 or ≥6 months in the past year. Among patients currently receiving steroid therapy, many (48% CD, 42% UC) were concerned about any steroid use, and two-thirds reported wanting to stop steroid treatment as soon as the disease was under control. Only 27% of physicians reported a concern about any steroid use; approximately half reported a concern about ≥4 months of steroid use per year. Conclusion This international survey demonstrated that steroid use is prevalent and LOR to biologics is common among moderate/severe IBD patients. There were differences in pt and physician perception of steroid use; many physicians believed ≥4 months of steroid use per year was not a concern. A significant unmet need remains for treatments that provide sustained control of IBD.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and ColitisSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207