Withdrawal of Combination Immunotherapy in Paediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease—An International Survey of Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess current practices around the use of combination immunosuppression in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease (PIBD) with a focus on the subsequent withdrawal process. METHODS: A web-based, 43-question survey. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 70 paediatric gastroenterologists (PGs) from 27 nations across Europe, North America, Oceania and Asia from 62 centres covering approximately 15,000 PIBD patients (median of 200 patients [interquartile range (IQR) 130-300] per centre). Routine use of co-immunosuppression was significantly higher with infliximab (IFX) versus adalimumab (ADL) ([61/70, 87.1%] compared with [23/70, 32.9%]; P < 0.01). Thiopurines (azathioprine [AZA] or 6-mercaptopurine) were the preferred option overall for co-immunosuppression. They were favoured with either IFX or ADL (76% and 77%, respectively) and in both ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn disease (CD) (84% and 69%) compared with methotrexate (MTX).Immunomodulators were the preferred choice as the initial drug to be withdrawn from the combination therapy rather than anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNFα) therapy (59/67, 88% [P < 0.01]). The most common withdrawal time was after 6-12 months, with this decision usually based on clinical assessment rather than a scheduled withdrawal time (51/67, 76% vs 16/67, 24%). Indicators of mucosal healing and therapeutic drug monitoring results tended to be the most important "clinical factors" in the withdrawal decision (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Most PG's favour initial withdrawal of immunomodulator (usually thiopurines) rather than biologic therapy in the step-down process, usually after 6-12 months based on sustained clinical remission. This survey precedes an in-depth, multicentre study of clinical outcomes of withdrawal of co-immunosuppression in PIBD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".