Pharmacological management of upper gastrointestinal Crohn’s disease: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Upper gastrointestinal Crohn's disease (UGICD) is an uncommon phenotype with limited management guidelines. We reviewed evidence on the safety and efficacy of pharmacological interventions for UGICD. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL (1990-2025) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies evaluating pharmacological or dietary interventions for UGICD, including esophagus to jejunum. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). Primary outcomes were clinical remission and response. Due to limited, heterogeneous evidence, data are summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Of 1207 citations, 11 observational studies (nine retrospective, two prospective) and post-hoc analyses from two RCTs met the criteria, involving 387 patients. Most had ileocolonic involvement (280/387; 72.3%); only 8.5% (33/387) had isolated UGICD. Five studies (137 patients) reported esophageal CD. Follow-up ranged from 6 weeks to 28 years. Interventions and outcomes varied. Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs and corticosteroids, alone or combined with other treatments, were associated with improvements in clinical outcomes, endoscopic healing, and histology, but controlled data are lacking. Other therapies, including proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists, enteric nutrition, immunomodulators, anti-integrins, and anti-interleukin12/23, showed moderate to minimal improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review highlights a paucity of evidence to inform therapeutic strategies in UGICD. Positive outcomes were reported for corticosteroids and anti-TNF, but from small observational and uncontrolled studies. Data for most advanced therapies remain limited, highlighting a large unmet need to inform clinical practice.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".