Adaptive Steroid Tapering Impedes Corticosteroid-free Remissions Compared with Forced Tapering in Clinical Trials of Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It is unclear if steroid tapering protocols can affect clinical trial outcomes in ulcerative colitis [UC], particularly fixed versus adaptive steroid tapering. Fixed steroid tapering involves incremental dose decreases at prespecified intervals, and adaptive steroid tapering uses investigator discretion as determined by the patient's response. METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis from six clinical trials of UC [VARSITY, ACT 1, PURSUIT, GEMINI1, OCTAVE, and ULTRA2], responders to induction therapy with baseline corticosteroid use were considered as the primary population of interest. Adjustments were made to account for treat-through versus re-randomisation designs, and multivariate regression was performed to account for other potential confounding variables. The primary outcome was corticosteroid-free clinical remission [CR] at 1 year, and secondary outcomes were CR and endoscopic improvement. RESULTS: There was a total of 861 patients who had achieved clinical response after induction and were using corticosteroids. Within multivariate analysis, patients using adaptive steroid tapering regimens were less likely to achieve corticosteroid-free CR at 1 year (odds ratio [OR] 0.66 [95% confidence interval, CI, 0.48-0.92], p = 0.015) but had increased odds for achieving CR at 1 year (OR 1.9 [95% CI 1.43-2.52], p < 0.001). The steroid tapering regimen was not associated with achievement of endoscopic improvement at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with UC on corticosteroids in clinical trials, patients using adaptive steroid weaning regimens were less likely to achieve corticosteroid-free CR at 1 year but more likely to achieve CR at 1 year. Consideration should be given to implementing mandatory fixed steroid weaning protocols in future clinical trials of UC.
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 | 0.049 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".