Impact of Biological Therapies and Tofacitinib on Real-world Work Impairment in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are limited real-world data on the change in total work impairment (TWI) in biological-treated patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This study aimed to evaluate the real-world effects of initiating biological therapy or tofacitinib on change in TWI in IBD patients. METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study enrolled IBD patients who started treatment with biological therapy or tofacitinib. Subjects completed the work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) questionnaire and short inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire at therapy initiation and at week 26. Total work impairment comprises working hours missed due to sick leave and impact of disease during working hours (range 0%-100%). Clinical disease activity was assessed using the Harvey-Bradshaw Index and Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI). RESULTS: We included 137 IBD patients for analyses (median age 38 years, 58% Crohn's disease [CD]). The median baseline TWI was 50% and decreased by a median of 10%-points of points after 26 weeks. Patients with continued biological therapy or tofacitinib use, clinical disease activity at baseline, and clinical response or remission at week 26 showed a greater median TWI reduction (22%-points) than the remaining study patients (7%-points; P = .014). Ulcerative colitis (UC) and IBD-unclassified (IBD-U) patients showed a greater median TWI reduction (26%-points) than CD patients (6%-points); P = .041. Correlations were observed between decrease in TWI and decrease in SCCAI, decrease in fatigue and increase in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Work impairment in IBD patients decreased following biological therapy or tofacitinib initiation. Patients achieving clinical remission or response showed the greatest improvement, especially UC and IBD-U patients.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".