MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2009· reference-entry· en· W4255059627 on OpenAlexaff
Eliza Prefontaine, John K MacDonald, Lloyd R. Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2009
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsSouth Health CampusRobarts Clinical TrialsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAzathioprineMedicineMercaptopurinePlaceboInternal medicineOdds ratioCrohn's diseaseRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisClinical trialMEDLINEDiseaseAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The results from controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for the treatment of active Crohn's disease were conflicting and controversial. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness of these drugs for the induction of remission in active Crohn's disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine in inducing remission of active Crohn's disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were selected using the MEDLINE database (1966 to July 2009), abstracts from major gastrointestinal meetings and references from published articles and review. The Cochrane Trials Register and the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Review Group Trials Register were also searched. This search strategy was updated using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases as well as the Cochrane 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 active Crohn's disease were selected for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by three independent observers based on the intention to treat principle. Each study was given a quality score based on predetermined criteria. Extracted data were converted to 2X2 tables (response versus no response and antimetabolite versus placebo) and then synthesized into a summary test statistic using the pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals as described by Cochran and Mantel and Haenszel. MAIN RESULTS: Eight randomized placebo controlled trials of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine therapy in adult patients were identified: five dealt with active disease and three had multiple therapeutic arms. The odds ratio (OR) of a response to azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine therapy compared with placebo in active Crohn's disease was 2.43 (95% CI 1.62 to 3.64). This corresponded to a number needed to treat (NNT) of about 5 to observe an effect of therapy in one patient. When the two trials using 6-mercaptopurine in active disease were excluded from the analysis, the OR was 2.06 (95% CI 1.25 to 3.39). Treatment > 17 weeks increased the OR to 2.61 (95% CI 1.69 to 4.03). A steroid sparing effect was seen with an OR of 3.69 (95% CI 2.12 - 6.42), corresponding to a NNTof about 3 to observe steroid sparing in one patient. Adverse events requiring withdrawal from a trial, principally allergy, leukopenia, pancreatitis, and nausea were increased with active therapy with an odds ratio of 3.44 (95% CI 1.52 to 7.77). The NNT to observe one adverse event in one patient treated with azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine was 14. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine are effective therapy for inducing remission in active Crohn's disease. The OR of response increases after > 17 weeks of therapy, suggesting that there is a minimum length of time for a trial of azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine therapy. Adverse events were more common among patients on active therapy.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.255 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations51
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207