Comparative Effectiveness of Mesalamine, Sulfasalazine, Corticosteroids, and Budesonide for the Induction of Remission in Crohnʼs Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Induction treatment of mild-to-moderate Crohn's disease is controversial. To compare the induction of remission between different doses of mesalamine, sulfasalazine, corticosteroids, and budesonide for active Crohn's disease. We identified randomized controlled trials from existing Cochrane reviews and an updated literature search in Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to November 2015. We included randomized controlled trials (n = 22) in adult patients with Crohn's disease that compared budesonide, sulfasalazine, mesalamine, or corticosteroids with placebo or each other, for the induction of remission (8–17 wks). Mesalamine (above and below 2.4 g/d) and budesonide (above and below 6 mg/d) were stratified into low and high doses. Our primary outcome was remission, defined as a Crohn's Disease Activity Index score <150. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was performed on the proportion in remission. Corticosteroids (odds ratio [OR] = 3.64; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 2.16–6.19), high-dose budesonide (OR = 2.99; 95% CrI: 1.83–4.90), and high-dose mesalamine (OR = 1.87; 95% CrI: 1.14–3.15) were superior to placebo. Corticosteroids were similar to high-dose budesonide (OR = 1.21; 95% CrI: 0.79–1.89), but more effective than high-dose mesalamine (OR = 1.95; 95% CrI: 1.14–3.25). Sulfasalazine was not significantly superior to any therapy including placebo. Randomized controlled trials that use a strict definition of induction of remission and disease severity at enrollment to assess effectiveness in treating mild-to-moderate Crohn's disease are limited. Corticosteroids and high-dose budesonide were effective treatments for inducing remission in mild-to-moderate Crohn's disease. High-dose mesalamine maybe an option among patients preferring to avoid steroids.
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 | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".