Management Patterns of Teduglutide Use in Short Bowel Syndrome: A Survey of 70 Healthcare Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to gain real-world insights from healthcare professionals (HCPs) regarding the management of adult patients with short bowel syndrome and intestinal failure (SBS-IF) who received teduglutide and achieved parenteral support (PS) independence or PS volume stability for ≥12 months. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey was conducted in five European countries and Canada via a self-reported questionnaire (November 2022-March 2023) among HCPs who manage patients with SBS-IF and who had prescribed teduglutide to ≥5 patients with SBS-IF receiving PS. RESULTS: Of the 70 HCPs who completed the survey, almost all reported managing patients with SBS-IF who achieved PS independence or PS volume stability (99%, 69/70 and 97%, 68/70, respectively) and maintained the standard teduglutide dose, without changes. A total of 52 HCPs managed patients who achieved PS independence and discontinued teduglutide. Of these HCPs, 73% (38/52) anticipated that these patients would remain PS-independent, not requiring PS reintroduction. Of the remainder, 79% (11/14) estimated that ≤40% of these patients would require PS reintroduction. While many HCPs (81%, 42/52) would reintroduce teduglutide in patients who discontinued its use after achieving PS independence, none would do so for patients who discontinued teduglutide after achieving PS volume stability if a patient's condition worsened. CONCLUSIONS: This survey found that patients with SBS-IF can achieve PS independence or PS volume stability with teduglutide treatment. However, some HCPs (27%, 14/52) believe that a proportion of patients discontinuing teduglutide after achieving PS independence will require PS reintroduction. This survey suggests that teduglutide treatment should continue uninterrupted, unless clinically indicated, but this requires confirmation in future studies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".