Trends in Corticosteroid Use During the Era of Biologic Therapy: A Population-Based Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Corticosteroids are effective for inducing clinical remission in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but not for maintaining remission. Reducing corticosteroid use and dependence is an important treatment goal since their use is associated with adverse events. The extent to which the improvements in IBD therapy have led to less corticosteroid use in the modern era remains unclear. METHODS: We used the University of Manitoba Inflammatory Bowel Disease Epidemiologic Database to assess the cumulative annual dosing of corticosteroids on a per-patient basis for all persons with IBD in the province of Manitoba between 1997 and 2017. Joinpoint analysis was used to assess for trends in corticosteroid use and to look at variation in the trends over time. RESULTS: The mean annual exposure to corticosteroids decreased from 419 mg/yr (1997) to 169 mg/yr (2017) for Crohn's disease (CD) (annual decline: 3.8% per year, 95% confidence interval 3.1-4.6) and from 380 to 240 mg/yr in ulcerative colitis (UC) (annual decline: 2.5% per year, 95% confidence interval 2.1-2.8). In CD, there was an acceleration in the rate of decline after 2007 (pre-2007, 1.9% decline per year; after 2007, 5.7% per year); there was no corresponding acceleration in the rate of decline in UC. DISCUSSION: Corticosteroid use has decreased in both CD and UC over the past 2 decades, becoming more pronounced after 2007 in CD. Potential explanations include introduction and increasing penetrance of biologic therapy in CD and greater awareness of corticosteroid-related adverse events in IBD. Further work is required understand the drivers of persistent corticosteroid use in IBD and how this can be further reduced.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".