ArticleYonsei medical journal2020
Comparison of Real-World Outcomes of Infliximab versus Adalimumab in Biologic-Naïve Korean Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: A Population-Based Study.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of infliximab and adalimumab in inflammatory bowel disease patients.Inflammopharmacology · 2024Trial
- Effectiveness of adalimumab in severe ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and a meta-analysis.Health science reports · 2024Review
- Review
- Real-World Incidence of Suboptimal Response to Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy for Ulcerative Colitis: A Nationwide Population-Based Study.Gut and liver · 2021Article
- Incidence and Prevalence of Inflammatory Bowel Disease across Asia.Yonsei medical journal · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeData on the comparative effectiveness of infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab (ADA) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) are extremely limited, especially in the Asian population. We compared clinically important outcomes [colectomy, UC-related emergency room (ER) visits, UC-related hospitalizations, and need for corticosteroids] for these two biologics in biologic-naïve Korean patients with UC. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing National Health Insurance claims, we collected data on patients who were diagnosed with UC and exposed to IFX or ADA between 2010 and 2016.
resultsA total of 862 new users of biologics were included, of whom 630 were treated with IFX and 232 were treated with ADA. Over a median follow-up of 1.8 years after starting biologic therapy, there were no significant differences in the risk of colectomy [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.30-11.63], ER visits (aHR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.79-3.16), hospitalizations (aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.59-1.17), and corticosteroid use (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.76-1.78) between IFX and ADA users. These results were stable even when only patients who used biologics for ≥6 months were analyzed. Additionally, these results were unchanged in patients treated with biologic monotherapy or combination therapy with immunomodulators.
conclusionIn this nationwide population-based study, there was no significant difference in the risk of colectomy, ER visits, hospitalizations, and corticosteroid use between IFX and ADA users. Our findings indicate that IFX and ADA have comparable effectiveness in biologic-naïve Korean patients with UC.
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.