MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407285071 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwae059.091

A91 OUTCOMES OF PATIENTS WITH PRIOR BIOLOGIC INTOLERANCE ARE BETTER THAN THOSE WITH BIOLOGIC FAILURE IN CLINICAL TRIALS OF INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE

2025· article· en· W4407285071 on OpenAlexaff
Sunil Samnani, Eric Wong, Hasan Hamam, P Dulai, John C. Marshall, Vipul Jairath, Walter Reinisch, Neeraj Narula

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicroscopic Colitis
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInflammatory bowel diseaseDiseaseClinical trialIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) trials often stratify patients by prior biologic exposure, including prior biologic failure or intolerance. Aims This study aimed to assess clinical outcomes in IBD patients with prior biologic failure versus intolerance treated with ustekinumab or vedolizumab. Methods A post-hoc analysis of ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) clinical trials for ustekinumab (UNITI, UNIFI) and vedolizumab (GEMINI-1, GEMINI-2) was performed. Clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic improvement (for UC) were compared among biologic naïve, biologic-failure, and biologic intolerant patients. Statistical analyses, including chi-square tests and logistic regression, were performed. Results 1178 UC and 1439 CD patients received either ustekinumab or vedolizumab. In UC, biologic intolerant patients exhibited higher clinical response (54.7% vs. 38.8%, aOR 1.87 [95% CI 0.93-3.73]), clinical remission (25.0% vs. 11.0%, aOR 2.84 [95% CI 1.47-5.49]), and endoscopic improvement (40.6% vs. 24.8%, aOR 2.76 [95% CI 1.28-5.94]) compared to biologic failure, with outcomes similar to biologic naïve patients. In biologic-intolerant CD patients, clinical response was similar between prior biologic failure and intolerance (34.2% vs 32.8%), but after adjustment for potential confounders, biologic intolerance was associated with higher odds of clinical response (aOR: 1.67, 95% CI 1.09-2.55), with no significant difference observed for clinical remission (aOR: 1.48, 95% CI 0.88-2.49). Conclusions Improved treatment outcomes were generally observed in patients with biologic intolerance compared to failure, especially in UC, where outcomes were similar to biologic naïve patients. Future clinical trials should meticulously differentiate prior biologic failure versus intolerance to mitigate potential bias. Funding Agencies None

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicMicroscopic ColitisFrench-language works237,207