Has the therapeutical ceiling been reached in Crohn's disease randomized controlled trials? A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The availability of biological agents for inflammatory bowel disease has increased over the past years. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to explore time trends in clinical response and clinical remission rates in Crohn's disease (CD) patients treated with biologics while discussing the need for new strategies. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ISI Web of Science databases were searched for randomized placebo-controlled trials with biological agents in moderate-to-severe CD patients. Sub-group and meta-regression analyses compared treatment and placebo by calculating the pooled odds ratios of clinical remission and clinical response, across time categories and publication year. We also estimated the proportion of patients achieving clinical remission and clinical response by comparing both groups according to the publication year. RESULTS: Twenty-five trials were included in the systematic review, which enrolled 8879 patients between 1997 and 2022. The clinical remission and clinical response odds, in induction and maintenance, have been constant over time, as no statistically significant differences were found between time categories (interaction p-values: clinical remission [induction, p = 0.19; maintenance, p = 0.24]; clinical response [induction, p = 0.43; maintenance, p = 0.59]). In meta-regression analyses, publication year did not influence these outcomes (clinical remission [induction, OR 1.01{95% CI 0.97-1.05}, p = 0.72; clinical response [induction, OR 1.01{95% CI 0.97-1.04]; p = 0.63; maintenance, OR 1.03{95% CI 0.98-1.07}; p = 0.21]), with the exception of clinical remission in maintenance studies, which presented a decreased effect (odds ratio 0.97{95% CI 0.94-1.00}, p = 0.03]). CONCLUSIONS: Our review highlights that the odds of clinical outcomes in CD patients receiving biological treatment relative to placebo have been stable in the last decades.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".