ArticleClinical and experimental medicine2025
Finding appropriate timing for the combination of azathioprine and infliximab: propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.
Article in Clinical and experimental medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe combination of azathioprine (AZA) with infliximab (IFX) enhances clinical efficacy in treating Crohn's disease (CD), increasing the risk of adverse events. This study aims to identify the optimal timing for AZA administration in IFX combination therapy to maximize patient benefit.
methodsThis was a retrospective, single-center study, which analyzed patients with CD undergoing IFX treatment from January 2017 to December 2022. Baseline data were collected. To minimize potential confounding effects, we utilized two established propensity score methods: propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). The primary efficacy outcome was defined as the proportion of patients achieving clinical remission at the 54-week follow-up. Safety outcomes were evaluated through comprehensive monitoring and systematic classification of adverse events.
resultsA total of 528 active CD patients were included. Of these, 146 received concomitant AZA (AZA group), while 382 did not (non-AZA group). Following PSM or IPTW, the AZA group demonstrated significantly higher clinical remission rates (PSM: P < 0.001, IPTW: P < 0.001) compared to the non-AZA group. Furthermore, 46 patients used AZA during induction (IP-AZA group) and 100 during maintenance (MP-AZA group). After PSM or IPTW, both groups showed similar remission rates at 54 weeks (PSM: P = 0.793, IPTW: P = 0.508), with comparable safety profiles.
conclusionFor CD patients treated with IFX, whether AZA was initiated in the induction phase or during the maintenance phase, the impact on clinical outcomes and occurrence of adverse events was similar.
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.