Efficacy of Pharmacological Agents for Ulcerative Proctitis: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ulcerative proctitis is a common and often highly symptomatic form of inflammatory bowel disease. We performed a systematic review to assess the efficacy of different therapies in the management of patients with ulcerative proctitis. METHODS: We identified randomized controlled trials in adults with ulcerative proctitis treated with oral or topical therapies for induction of response or remission, or prevention of relapse. RESULTS: A total of 32 randomized controlled trials were included [27 induction/2839 participants, five maintenance/334 participants]. Follow-up varied from 3 to 8 weeks for induction, and from 6 to 24 months for maintenance of remission. 5-Aminosalicylic acid [5-ASA] suppository was the most frequently evaluated treatment [14/32, 43.7%], followed by steroid enema [7/32, 21.9%]. Topical 5-ASA demonstrated effectiveness for induction of clinical response or remission and prevention of relapse in several studies. Combined topical steroids and 5-ASA was more effective than topical 5-ASA or topical steroids alone to induce response [100% of patients for combination vs 70% for beclomethasone alone and 76% for 5-ASA alone]. One observational study suggested azathioprine may be effective in patients with ulcerative proctitis. Only two cohort studies evaluated the efficacy of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in ulcerative proctitis. Small molecules, anti-integrins and anti-interleukin therapies have not been evaluated in isolated ulcerative proctitis. CONCLUSION: The role of topical 5-ASA as a treatment for ulcerative proctitis has been confirmed in this systematic literature review, for induction and maintenance of remission. Future trials are needed to investigate the efficacy of more recent and upcoming drug classes in patients with ulcerative proctitis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".