P1086 Re-administration of infliximab in patients with extremely refractory perianal Crohn’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of infliximab re-administration to a cohort of patients with extremely refractory perianal Crohn's Disease (CD). Methods Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data in CD patients with perianal disease, who despite being treated with infliximab, had to change treatment either because of primary non-response, secondary loss of response, or due to the occurrence of an allergic reaction. They then became resistant to the other therapies tested, resulting in Infliximab being given again. We then evaluated the clinical response to fistula management (Perianal Disease Activity Index PDAI ≤ 4), as well as the occurrence of adverse reactions in these patients. Results We included 14 patients (8 women), with a mean age (SD) of 38.2 (9.5) years. According to the Montreal classification our patients had L1 (n=2), L2 (n=2) and L3 (n=10) disease. After the initial Infliximab failure (even after dose escalation), patients received vedolizumab, ustekinumab and adalimumab without response or with secondary loss of response. Therefore, it was decided to re-administer infliximab with concomitant administration of azathioprine. After 1 year of follow up clinical response (PDAI ≤ 4) was seen in 4 patients (28.5%). Re-administration of infliximab was discontinued in 2 patients due to severe allergic reaction; however, the remaining patients did not experience side effects. Conclusion Re-administration of Infliximab may be able to help a small percentage of treatment resistant patients with perianal 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".