Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32312035›Full record

ArticleIntestinal research2021

Efficacy of biologic therapies for biologic-naïve Japanese patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a network meta-analysis.

Toshifumi Hibi, Isao Kamae, Philippe Pinton, Lyann Ursos, Ryuichi Iwakiri, Greg Hather, Haridarshan Patel

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Intestinal research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. [Latent and Active Tuberculosis Infection in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2022
    Review
  12. [Viral Hepatitis in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Toshifumi HibiCenter for Advanced IBD Research and Treatment, Kitasato University Kitasato Institute Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Isao KamaeDepartment of Health Policy and Technology Assessment, Graduate School of Public Policy, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Philippe PintonJapan Medical Office, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Tokyo, Japan.
Lyann UrsosGlobal Medical Affairs, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Deerfield, IL, USA.
Ryuichi IwakiriJapan Medical Office, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Tokyo, Japan.
Greg HatherStatistical & Quantitative Sciences, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Haridarshan PatelDepartment of Evidence and Value Generation, Global Medical Affairs, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Deerfield, IL, USA.
Takeda (United States) · USTakeda (Japan) · JPKitasato Institute Hospital · JPThe University of Tokyo · JP

Funding

Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsSeveral biologic therapies are approved in Japan to treat moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC), but there are no published comparative efficacy studies in a Japanese population. We compared the efficacy of biologics approved in Japan (adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, and vedolizumab) for treating biologic-naïve patients with UC at their approved doses.

methodsA targeted literature review identified 4 randomized controlled trials of biologics for UC in biologicnaïve Japanese patients. For each study, efficacy outcome data from induction (weeks 6-12) and maintenance (weeks 30-60) treatment were extracted for analysis. Treatment effects on clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing relative to the average placebo results across all trials were estimated using network meta-analyses followed by transformation into probabilities and odds ratios (OR).

resultsAt the end of induction, the likelihood of clinical response and clinical remission was highest with infliximab (OR: 2.12 and 2.35, respectively) and vedolizumab (OR: 2.10 and 2.32, respectively); the likelihood of mucosal healing was highest with infliximab (OR: 2.24) and adalimumab (OR: 1.86). During maintenance, the likelihood of clinical response and clinical remission was highest with vedolizumab (OR: 6.44 and 4.68, respectively) and golimumab (OR: 5.13 and 3.84, respectively); the likelihood of mucosal healing was significantly higher than placebo with all biologics.

conclusionsAll active treatments were efficacious compared with placebo. Infliximab and vedolizumab had the highest odds for induction of clinical response, remission, and mucosal healing. Golimumab and vedolizumab had numerically higher odds of achieving efficacy outcomes in the maintenance phase.

Indexed as

BiologicsColitis, ulcerativeEfficacyNetwork meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID32312035
PMCPMC7873404
OpenAlexW3017037327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.