MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391162135 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.0811

P681 Preliminary data from the Biologic and Partial Enteral Nutrition in Crohn’s Disease Study (BIOPIC)

2024· article· en· W4391162135 on OpenAlexaff
Bernadette White, Aleksandra Jatkowska, Iona Campbell, E Brownson, Brenton Short, J Clowe, John Paul Seenan, Daniel R. Gaya, Shahida Din, Gwo‐Tzer Ho, E Robertson, Craig Mowat, Simon Milling, Jonathan Macdonald, Konstantinos Gerasimidis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrohn's diseaseEnteral administrationMedicineParenteral nutritionDiseaseIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and ColitisSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207