Observational studyScientific reports2025
Comparison of endoscopic healing and durability between combination therapy with infliximab and azathioprine versus infliximab monotherapy in pediatric Crohn's disease.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This retrospective observational study evaluated the effectiveness of endoscopic healing (EH) and the durability of infliximab (IFX) in combination with azathioprine (AZA) versus IFX monotherapy in pediatric patients with Crohn's disease (CD). EH was assessed after 1 year of treatment, whereas IFX durability and associated risk factors were evaluated over an extended follow-up period. Data from 108 pediatric patients were analyzed by comparing the EH rates, IFX trough levels (TLs), antibody-to-IFX (ATIs), and IFX durability between the AZA combination therapy (combination therapy group) and IFX monotherapy (monotherapy group) groups. Of the 108 patients who received IFX therapy, 85 (78.7%) received AZA combination therapy, and 23 (21.3%) received IFX monotherapy. The combination therapy group demonstrated superior EH rates (78.6 vs. 33.3%, p < 0.001), higher IFX TLs (4.6 µg/mL vs. 3.9 µg/mL, p = 0.016), lower ATI positivity (25.0% vs. 52.2%, p = 0.025), and prolonged IFX durability than the monotherapy group. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis showed that ATI positivity (hazard ratio [HR] 5.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.61-17.60, p = 0.006) and combination therapy with IFX and AZA (HR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03-0.51, p = 0.004) were associated with IFX durability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.