Continued 5ASA use after initiation of anti‐TNF or immunomodulator confers no benefit in IBD: a population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the advent of biological therapy in IBD, it is uncertain to what extent 5aminosalicylates (5ASA) are used. AIMS: To explore whether or not 5ASA is continued once biological or immunomodulator therapy is initiated, and the outcomes in those who continued the 5ASAs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the population-based University of Manitoba IBD Epidemiologic Database which includes prescription drug dispensation from 1996 through 2018. We assessed outcomes among 5ASA users who continued versus discontinued 5ASA after initiation of anti-TNF therapy or immunomodulators. RESULTS: In all, 8379 (77%) of persons with IBD received at least one 5ASA dispensation (85% of ulcerative colitis, UC and 68% of Crohn's disease, CD). There was a reduction in later years, particularly for CD. The most common pattern of 5ASA use was intermittent at 65.1% (stopping and restarting use) versus one-time (4.1%), previous continuous (13.8%) and persistent (17%). Among the total IBD population use was 59% oral, 3% rectal and 14% combination. Of all 5ASA starts, only 25% were continued longer than 20 months. After immunomodulator or anti-TNF initiation, there was no difference in either UC or CD for negative outcomes (hospitalisation, surgery, corticosteroid starts, colorectal cancers or drug-related adverse events) between those who continued 5ASA versus those who discontinued. CONCLUSIONS: 5ASA remains commonly prescribed in UC and CD. Rates of persistent use in UC are low. Once an anti-TNF or immunomodulator is initiated, continuation of 5ASA seems to add no 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".