No benefit of continuing vs stopping 5‐aminosalicylates in patients with ulcerative colitis escalated to anti‐metabolite therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whilst continuation of 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA) after escalation to biologic therapy is considered ineffective in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), their role in patients escalated to anti-metabolites is unclear. AIM: To compared patterns and outcomes of continuing vs stopping 5-ASA in patients with UC who escalated to anti-metabolite monotherapy, using a de-identified administrative claims database. METHODS: We identified patients with UC who were new users of anti-metabolite monotherapy who were receiving 5-ASA, and were followed for at least 12 months after starting anti-metabolite therapy. We evaluated patterns of 5-ASA use (stopped 5-ASA, short-term 5-ASA use for <6 months after starting anti-metabolites, persistent 5-ASA use for >6 months after starting anti-metabolites). We compared outcomes (risk of UC-related hospitalisation and/or surgery, need for corticosteroids, treatment escalation to biologic therapy) by pattern of 5-ASA use, using Cox proportional hazard analysis adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidity burden, and hospitalisation or emergency department visit, abdominal surgery and corticosteroid use in the previous 12 months (as measures of disease severity), with a 12-month immortal time period. RESULTS: Of 4068 patients with UC who were new-users of anti-metabolite monotherapy, 578 (14.2%), 782 (19.2%) and 2708 (66.6%) stopped 5-ASA, used 5-ASA transiently or persistently, respectively. Compared to patients who stopped 5-ASA after starting anti-metabolites, persistent 5-ASA use was associated with a higher risk of UC-related hospitalisation (HR, 1.40 [1.07-1.83]) and corticosteroid use (HR, 1.48 [1.28-1.70]), without an increase in risk of UC-related surgery (HR, 1.32 [0.86-2.00]) or treatment escalation (HR, 0.80 [0.53-1.20]). Sensitivity analyses using a 3 months window after initiation of anti-metabolites to classify patients as continuing vs stopping 5-ASA showed similar results. Residual confounding by disease severity could not be excluded. CONCLUSION: 5-ASA are usually continued long-term even after escalating to anti-metabolite therapy in patients with UC without clinical benefit.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".