Early Biologic Treatment Decreases Risk of Surgery in Crohn’s Disease but not in Ulcerative Colitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can lead to long-term complications that significantly impact patients' quality of life and healthcare resource utilization. Prior studies have demonstrated improved short-term outcomes to early exposure of biologics in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) but not in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). However, there are conflicting data on impact of early intervention on longer-term adverse events. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the impact of early biologic treatment on rates of IBD-related surgery. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in April 2022. Studies were included if biologic initiation was compared between patients starting early (<3 years of diagnosis or top-down treatment) vs later (>3 years of diagnosis or step-up treatment). Studies with <1 year of follow-up were excluded. The outcomes were colectomy and CD-related surgery for patients with UC and CD, respectively. Random-effects analyses were conducted to compare rates of IBD surgery between early and late biologic treatment. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies included patients with UC and 15 studies included patients with CD. In patients with CD, early biologic therapy was associated with lower odds of surgery (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.84) compared with late treatment. Conversely, in patients with UC, the odds of colectomy were increased (odds ratio, 2.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-6.30). CONCLUSIONS: Early biologic treatment is associated with lower rates of surgery in patients with CD. In contrast, early biologic therapy appears to be associated with higher rates of colectomy in patients with UC, which may be confounded by disease severity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".