ArticleGut and liver2021
Comparison of Long-term Outcomes of Infliximab versus Adalimumab in 1,488 Biologic-Naive Korean Patients with Crohn's Disease.
Article in Gut and liver, 2021. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Data on the comparative effectiveness of infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab (ADA) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) are rare, particularly for Asian patients. We compared the key clinical outcomes (surgery, hospitalization, and corticosteroid use) of use of these two drugs in biologic-naive Korean patients with CD. Methods: Using National Health Insurance claims, we collected data on patients who were diagnosed with CD and exposed to IFX or ADA between 2010 and 2016. Results: We included 1,488 new users of biologics (1,000 IFX users and 488 ADA users). Over a median follow-up period of 2.1 years after starting biological therapy, no significant differences were found between IFX and ADA users in the risks for surgery (ADA vs IFX: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.84), hospitalization (aHR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.28), and corticosteroid use (aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.19). These results were unchanged even when only patients who used biologics for over 6 months were analyzed (aHR [95% CI]: surgery, 1.31 [0.82 to 2.11]; hospitalization, 1.02 [0.80 to 1.30]; corticosteroid use, 0.80 [0.54 to 1.18]). Additionally, these results were unchanged in patients treated with biologics as monotherapy or in combination with immunomodulators. Conclusions: In this nationwide population-based study, no significant difference was found in the long-term effectiveness of IFX and ADA in the real-world setting of biologic-naive Korean patients with CD. In the absence of trials to directly compare IFX and ADA, our study indicates that the selection of one of these two biologics can be determined by patient and/or physician preference.
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.