ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology2021
Infliximab is more effective than cyclosporine as a rescue therapy for acute severe ulcerative colitis: a retrospective single-center study.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early infliximab rescue therapy is associated with reduced length of stay in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Present and Future Therapeutic Approaches to Barrier Dysfunction.Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Review
- Long-Term Outcome of Ciclosporin and Infliximab as Rescue Therapy in Steroid-Refractory Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis.Inflammatory intestinal diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is a potentially life-threatening disease, and the best option in cases of steroid-refractory disease is still debated. We compared the early- and long-term efficacy and safety of the 2 available "rescue therapies", infliximab (IFX) and cyclosporine (CYS), in this setting.
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated patients admitted for ASUC and treated with "rescue therapy". The primary endpoint was early colectomy-free survival (30 days) and colectomy-free survival until the end of follow up. The secondary endpoints were predictors of colectomy and long-term maintenance of the treatment strategy over time.
resultsOf 129 patients admitted, 68 received rescue therapy (47 with IFX), whereas 7 underwent early colectomy (10.3%). At 30 days, fewer patients treated with IFX showed a need for colectomy (8.5% vs. 14.3%) compared to those in the CYS group, though the difference was non-significant (odds ratio [OR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10-4.69; P=0.47). No severe side effects due to IFX and CYS were observed. During a mean follow up of 40 months, 23 additional patients (37.7%) underwent colectomy, and the rate was significantly lower in the IFX group (25.6%) than in the CYS group (66.7%) (hazard ratio 0.25, 95%CI 0.10-0.61; P=0.003). Colectomy-free survival was significantly higher in the IFX group than in the CYS group (P=0.018) at 12 months.
conclusionsIn our setting, the early outcomes of IFX and CYS for ASUC were comparable. IFX was associated with significantly lower colectomy rates during the observation period and had a similar safety profile to CYS.
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.