MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease

2009· reference-entry· en· W4243617424 on OpenAlexaff
Eliza Prefontaine, Lloyd R. Sutherland, John K MacDonald, Monica Cepoiu‐Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2009
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsSouth Health CampusRobarts Clinical TrialsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAzathioprineMercaptopurineMedicineAdverse effectNumber needed to harmInternal medicinePlaceboNumber needed to treatCrohn's diseaseMaintenance therapyThiopurine methyltransferaseOdds ratioRandomized controlled trialRelative riskDiseaseConfidence intervalChemotherapyAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic role of 6-mercaptopurine and azathioprine remains controversial due to their perceived relatively slow-acting effect and adverse effects. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of these agents for the maintenance of remission of quiescent Crohn's disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintenance of remission in quiescent Crohn's disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: Pertinent studies were selected using the MEDLINE data base (1966-May 1998), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the Inflammatory Bowel Disease register, as well as abstracts from major gastrointestinal research meetings and references from published articles and review. This search strategy was updated (1998-May 2008) using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane IBD/FBD group Specialized Trials Register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of oral azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine involving adult patients (> 18 years) with quiescent Crohn's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by three independent observers (EP, MC, LRS) based on the intention to treat principle. Peto odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for maintenance of remission, steroid sparing, and withdrawals due to adverse effects were calculated. Numbers needed to treat or harm (NNT, NNH respectively) for the maintenance of remission, steroid sparing, and withdrawals due to adverse effects were also determined. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials of azathioprine therapy and one of 6-mercaptopurine were included in the review. Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine had a positive effect on maintaining remission. The Peto odds ratio (OR) for maintenance of remission with azathioprine was 2.32 (95% CI 1.55 to 3.49) with a NNT of 6. The Peto OR for maintenance of remission with 6-mercaptopurine was 3.32 (95% CI 1.40 to 7.87) with a of 4. Higher doses of azathioprine improved response. A steroid sparing effect with azathioprine was noted, with a Peto OR of 5.22 (95% CI 1.06 to 25.68) and NNT of 3 for quiescent disease. Withdrawals due to adverse events were more common in patients treated with azathioprine (Peto OR 3.74; 95% CI 1.48 to 9.45, NNH = 20) than with placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine are more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Higher response rates were obtained with azathioprine than 6-mercaptopurine. However, the one study evaluating 6-mercaptopurine used a relatively low dose of the drug. Future studies should look at the effect of higher doses of 6-mercaptopurine. There is weak evidence for a steroid sparing effect with azathioprine treatment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations154
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207