Treatment patterns for advanced therapies in Canadians with moderate-to-severe inflammatory bowel disease: a retrospective cohort analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) show an inadequate response or experience a loss of response to advanced therapies. Guidelines recommend dose optimization and switching among therapies until an optimal treatment response is attained. With several advanced treatments available, we aimed to evaluate the persistence of different therapeutic sequences in IBD. The RECORDED study was a retrospective cohort study of Canadians with moderate-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD) who had been exposed to more than 1 advanced therapy between May 2015 and April 2021 for UC, and May 2016 and April 2021 for CD. The primary endpoint was time to permanent discontinuation of the first advanced treatment. Overall, 330 patients had CD and 344 had UC. The most common first-line treatments for CD and UC were adalimumab and infliximab, respectively. The median (95% CI) time to permanent discontinuation of first-line treatment was 12.3 (10.9, 13.6) months in patients with CD and 9.2 (8.2, 10.8) months for those with UC. The most common reason for treatment change across both diseases was lack of efficacy. First-line advanced treatments were optimized in 191 (58.1%) CD patients and 202 (59.1%) UC patients prior to permanent discontinuation. Second-line therapy was typically from a different class compared with the first-line treatment choice. The RECORDED study provides insights into the real-world sequencing and optimization patterns of advanced treatments in patients with moderate-to-severe IBD in Canada. Lack of efficacy was the most cited reason for switching to a different therapy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".