Adalimumab vs Infliximab in Luminal Pediatric Crohn's Disease: Comparable Outcomes in a Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study compared real-world effectiveness between adalimumab (ADA) and infliximab (IFX) in children with Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: Children enrolled into the prospective Canadian Children Inflammatory Bowel Disease Network National Inception Cohort between 2014 and 2020 who commenced ADA or IFX as first antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agent for luminal CD were included. Multivariate logistic regression modeled the propensity of commencing ADA; propensity score matching was used to match IFX-treated children to ADA-treated children. The primary outcome at 1 year was steroid-free clinical remission (SFCR). Secondary outcomes at 1 year were (i) combined SFCR and C-reactive protein remission, (ii) treatment intensification, and (iii) anti-TNF durability. Odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratio adjusted for concomitant immunomodulator use with 95% confidence interval (CI) are reported. RESULTS: In the propensity score-matched cohort of 147 ADA-treated and 147 IFX-treated children, 92 (63%) ADA-treated and 87 (59%) IFX-treated children achieved SFCR at 1 year (adjusted OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.9-2.4); 75 of 140 (54%) ADA-treated and 85 of 144 (59%) IFX-treated children achieved combined SFCR and C-reactive protein remission (adjusted OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.6-1.6). ADA-treated children less frequently underwent treatment intensification (21 [14%]) compared with IFX-treated children (69 [47%]) ( P < 0.0001). Discontinuation of anti-TNF occurred in 18 (12%) ADA-treated and 15 (10%) IFX-treated children (adjusted hazard ratio 1.2, 95% CI 0.6-2.2). DISCUSSION: Children with CD achieved favorable outcomes at 1 year with either ADA or IFX as first anti-TNF agents. Those receiving IFX did not have significantly superior outcomes compared with clinically similar children receiving ADA.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".