P681 Preliminary data from the Biologic and Partial Enteral Nutrition in Crohn’s Disease Study (BIOPIC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Biologics such as adalimumab (ADA) are used to induce clinical remission (CR) in individuals with active Crohn’s disease (CD) but around 50% of patients actually achieve clinical remission. Exclusive enteral nutrition is also an effective induction treatment, but tolerability limits its use, especially in adults. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of partial enteral nutrition (PEN) in combination with ADA compared to ADA monotherapy. Methods In this multi-centre (n=8) RCT (NCT04859088), adults with active CD (Crohn’s Disease Activity Index, CDAI ≥ 150) due to start ADA as their first-line biologic were randomised to either continue their habitual unrestricted diet (UD) or to replace half of it with PEN during their first 6 weeks of induction treatment Primary outcome clinical efficacy (i.e., clinical response, CDAI baseline decrease of ≥ 70 or CR, CDAI score <150) was assessed after 12 weeks of ADA initiation. Secondary outcomes included changes in inflammatory markers (faecal calprotectin, (FCAL), CRP) and quality of life (SIBDQ), at 3 (only FCAL), 6 and 12 weeks. To calculate adherence to PEN, used/unused tins were returned and compared to number provided. Analysis was performed using intention-to-treat analysis. Results 32 participants (13 UD, 19 PEN) have completed the study; 29 (13 UD, 16 PEN) of whom completed the full 12 weeks of the study. Adherence rate to PEN was high (~96%). Clinical efficacy (response & remission) was UD: 92% vs PEN: 84%, p=0.490 at 6 weeks and UD: 85% vs PEN: 58%, p=0.11 at week 12. FCAL data was available for 22 participants (9 UD, 13 PEN). FCAL (g/g) significantly decreased after 12 weeks in patients receiving PEN (mean difference 189, p=0.009) but this effect did not quite reach statistical significance (p=0.052) in the UD group (Fig 1). Proportionally more patients from the PEN group had FCAL <100 mg/kg compared to the UD group (3, 6, 12 weeks, PEN: 62%, 69%, 69% vs UD: 33%, 33%, 56%) during the study course. CRP (mg/L) significantly decreased at week 6 and 12 in patients receiving PEN (week 6 & week 12, p<0.0001) and in patients continuing their UD (week 6, p=0.001, week 12, p=0.007). SIBDQ score increased in both groups (PEN, p=0.023 vs UD, p=0.008). Conclusion Preliminary data from the BIOPIC study suggests equivalence in clinical efficacy between the two groups but better responses to blood and gut inflammatory markers when ADA is combined with PEN. High tolerability of PEN suggests it can be a viable option for adult patients with active luminal CD.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".