MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406705117 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjae190.0086

DOP047 Effectiveness of second-and-third line biologics in perianal Crohn’s disease (pCD) – a multicenter propensity score-matched study

2025· article· en· W4406705117 on OpenAlexaff
Uria Shani, Monica State, Bogdan Mateescu, Ana Davidoiu, Lucian Negreanu, Inês Pires da Silva, Fernando Magro, Nikolas Plevris, Xavier Roblin, Sílvia Castellet-Farrús, Y. González Lama, Shoujun Wang, Cybéle Lara R. Abad, N Imperatore, Gabriela Vojtěchová, Offir Ukashi, S Nancey, E Savarino, Kamila Stawczyk‐Eder, Piotr Eder, Alexandros Toskas, Nikolaos Kamperidis, Naila Arebi, B Farkas, K Farkas, Barbora Pipek, Přemysl Falt, K Karmiris, P Nikolaou, Željko Krznarić, Marko Brinar, L van Lierop, M Barreiro-de Acosta, Marta Zaborowska, Edyta Zagórowicz, D Pugliese, Giuseppe Cuccia, Marie Truyens, Uri Kopylov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePropensity score matchingCrohn's diseaseInternal medicineSecond lineGastroenterologyDiseaseFirst line

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Perianal involvement affects approximately 20-30% of Crohn’s Disease patients, significantly impairing their quality of life. Anti-tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (anti-TNFs) are still the established biological treatment for perianal Crohn's disease (pCD). However, relapse and non-response are frequent and evidence regarding the effectiveness of 2nd- and 3rd-line biologics is limited. This study aims to compare the efficacy of 2nd- and 3rd-line biologics in patients with pCD who have previously failed 1st-line anti-TNF therapy. Methods A retrospective multicenter study of adult pCD patients who failed 1st line anti-TNF therapy. The primary outcome was defined as clinical perianal response based on physician assessment. The main secondary outcome was radiological perianal response, based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). Additional secondary outcomes were clinical perianal remission and radiological perianal healing. Propensity-score matching (PSM) used to address baseline clinic-demographics differences between treatments. Results 486 patients with pCD were included. Of them, 333/486 patients (68.5%) in 2nd-line and 216/263 patients (82.1%) in 3rd-line treatment-groups were matched by PSM. Figure 1 illustrates patient inclusion in the study, stratified by active versus inactive disease status and 2nd-line versus 3rd-line treatment, along with the respective rates of primary outcome achievement. 62/78 (79.5%) patients with active pCD who were treated with ustekinumab (UST) as 2nd-line biologic met the primary outcome, compared to 46/78 patients (58.9%) with VDZ (OR 4.47, 95%CI 1.94-10.28, p<0.001) and 38/78 patients (48.7%) - anti-TNF (OR 5.29, 95%CI 2.39-11.71, p<0.001). 38/49 patients (77.6%) with active pCD who were treated with UST as 3rd line met the primary outcome, compared to 29/49 patients (59.2%) with VDZ (OR 9.96, 95%CI 2.6-38.4, p<0.001) and 27/49 (55.1%) with anti TNF (OR 12.03, 95%CI 2.99-48.47, p<0.001). Patients who were treated with UST as 3rd-line biologic had higher rates of radiological response and healing than patients who were treated with VDZ (OR of 3.28 95%CI 1.07-10.07, p=0.038) and anti-TNF (OR of 2.80 95%CI 0.95-8.21, p=0.061). Conclusion Clinical perianal outcomes in patients with active perianal Crohn’s disease were more frequently achieved with ustekinumab following the failure of 1st-line anti-TNFs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→