Higher Adalimumab Trough Levels Are Associated with Histologic Remission and Mucosal Healing in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Many patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in endoscopic remission have persistent histologic activity, which is associated with worse outcomes. There are limited data on the association between adalimumab drug concentrations and histologic outcomes using validated histologic indices. We aimed to assess the relationship between adalimumab concentrations and the Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI). (2) Patients from a tertiary IBD center from 2013 to 2020 with serum adalimumab (ADA) trough concentrations measured during maintenance therapy (≥14 weeks) and a colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsies performed within 90 days of drug level were included. Blinded histologic scoring using the RHI was performed. Primary analysis assessed the relationship between adalimumab drug concentrations and histologic remission using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. (3) In 36 patients (26 Crohn’s Disease, 9 ulcerative colitis, 1 indeterminate), median adalimumab concentrations were higher (17.3 ug/mL, 12.2–24.0) in patients with histologic remission compared to those without (10.3 ug/mL, 6.8–13.9, p = 0.008). The optimal ADA concentration identified using the Youden threshold was ≥16.3 ug/mL (sensitivity 70%, specificity 90%). Patients with ADA ≥ 16.3 ug/mL had higher histologic remission rates (78%) compared to lower ADA concentrations (14%, p= 0.002), as well as higher mucosal healing rates (86%) compared to lower levels (12%, p = 0.001). Symptoms correlated weakly and non-significantly with both histologic (RHI) scores (r = 0.25, p = 0.2) and adalimumab concentrations (r = 0.05, p = 0.8). (4) The current study demonstrated that higher serum adalimumab concentrations (≥16.3 ug/mL) are needed for histologic remission and mucosal healing assessed using the RHI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".