Inflammatory Bowel Disease Risk in Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis Treated With Biologic Agents Determined Using the BSRBR-AS and a MetaAnalysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine, among patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), whether the risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) varies between patients treated with biologic therapies and those treated with other therapies and, specifically, whether the risk is higher in patients treated with etanercept (ETN). METHODS: The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register in Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS) was used to determine the incidence of IBD during follow-up and to calculate the incidence rate difference (IRD) per 1000 person-years (PY), between biologic treatment and other treatment groups. We then conducted a systematic review, involving observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), to perform a metaanalysis to quantify the difference in incidence of IBD between treatment groups. RESULTS: According to the BSRBR-AS, among people with axSpA, exposure to biologic therapy was associated with an increased incidence of IBD compared to those who were not exposed to biologic therapy (IRD 11.9, 95% CI 4.3-19.6). This finding was replicated across observational studies but was not seen in placebo-controlled RCTs (IRD 2.2, 95% CI -4.1 to 8.5). Data from the BSRBR-AS do not suggest that excess incidence of IBD is associated with exposure to ETN compared to other anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies (IRD -6.5, 95% CI -21.3 to 8.5). RCTs and their extensions suggest a small-yet not statistically significant-absolute increased incidence associated with ETN of between 2.1 and 5.8 per 1000 PY compared to other anti-TNF therapies. CONCLUSION: There was an excess risk of IBD among persons treated with biologics in observational studies. Only evidence from RCTs suggested that ETN was associated with an increased risk compared to other anti-TNF therapies, albeit with considerable uncertainty.
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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.057 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".