Advanced Therapies in Elderly Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comparative Retrospective Cohort Study in Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) predominantly affects younger individuals, but emerging data indicates a shift toward older populations. Elderly-onset IBD (diagnosed at 60 years or older) differs from younger-onset IBD, presenting with atypical symptoms and higher risks of infections and malignancies. However, drug persistence is underexplored in the elderly IBD group, warranting further investigation to optimize treatment strategies for this demographic. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included IBD patients receiving advanced therapies at the Chang Gung IBD Center from October 2017 to September 2023. Patients were stratified into two groups: elderly-onset (≥60 years) and control (<60 years). We compared one-year persistence of advanced therapies, opportunistic infections, IBD-related admissions, complications, surgeries, and acute flare-ups between the groups. Specifically, we analyzed the one-year persistence of various advanced therapies within the elderly-onset cohort. Results: The study included 511 IBD patients, 107 of whom were elderly-onset. Elderly-onset patients had a higher body mass index, a higher proportion of ulcerative colitis, fewer smokers, and lower levels of white blood cells, hemoglobin, and albumin. Differences were noted in Montreal classifications and a higher use of Vedolizumab. Clinical outcomes, including steroid-free remission rates, one-year therapy persistence, infections, complications, surgeries, and flare-ups, were comparable between groups. In Crohn's disease (CD), Infliximab and Ustekinumab exhibited higher one-year persistence. Predictors of one-year therapy persistence included Montreal L1 (OR: 6.722; 95% CI: 1.296-34.852; P=0.023), Ustekinumab use (OR: 5.672; 95% CI: 1.138-28.267; P=0.034), and hemoglobin level (OR: 1.612; 95% CI: 1.210-2.147; P=0.001) with an optimal cutoff of 11.65 g/dL. Conclusion: Elderly-onset IBD patients display unique clinical characteristics and therapy persistence, particularly in CD, highlighting the necessity for customized therapeutic strategies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".