Thioguanine is Effective as Maintenance Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Prospective Multicentre Registry Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Thioguanine is a well-tolerated and effective therapy for inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] patients. Prospective effectiveness data are needed to substantiate the role of thioguanine as a maintenance therapy for IBD. METHODS: IBD patients who previously failed azathioprine or mercaptopurine and initiated thioguanine were prospectively followed for 12 months starting when corticosteroid-free clinical remission was achieved (Harvey-Bradshaw Index [HBI] ≤ 4 or Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index [SCCAI] ≤ 2). The primary endpoint was corticosteroid-free clinical remission throughout 12 months. Loss of clinical remission was defined as SCCAI > 2 or HBI > 4, need of surgery, escalation of therapy, initiation of corticosteroids or study discontinuation. Additional endpoints were adverse events, drug survival, physician global assessment [PGA] and quality of life [QoL]. RESULTS: Sustained corticosteroid-free clinical remission at 3, 6 or 12 months was observed in 75 [69%], 66 [61%] and 49 [45%] of 108 patients, respectively. Thioguanine was continued in 86 patients [80%] for at least 12 months. Loss of response [55%] included escalation to biologicals in 15%, corticosteroids in 10% and surgery in 3%. According to PGA scores, 82% of patients were still in remission after 12 months and QoL scores remained stable. Adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 11%, infections in 10%, myelo- and hepatotoxicity each in 6%, and portal hypertension in 1% of patients. CONCLUSION: Sustained corticosteroid-free clinical remission over 12 months was achieved in 45% of IBD patients on monotherapy with thioguanine. A drug continuation rate of 80%, together with favourable PGA and QoL scores, underlines the tolerability and effectiveness of thioguanine for IBD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".