SynthesisInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2023
Comparative efficacy of advanced treatments in biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of advanced therapies for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in induction and maintenance: systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Therapies in Moderately-to-Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.Advances in therapy · 2024Pooled it
- Comparative Efficacy of Subcutaneous and Intravenous Infliximab and Vedolizumab for Maintenance Treatment of TNF-naive Adult Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Advances in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis-From Conventional Therapies to Targeted Biologics and Small Molecules.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Optimizing Drug Positioning in IBD: Clinical Predictors, Biomarkers, and Practical Approaches to Personalized Therapy.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- An inverse probability of treatment weighted comparison between vedolizumab, ustekinumab, and tofacitinib in anti-TNF-experienced ulcerative colitis patients.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Predictors of histologic remission in patients with biologic-naïve, moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis treated with first-line biologic agents and small-molecule drugs: a single-center, retrospective cohort study.Intestinal research · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of adalimumab in severe ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and a meta-analysis.Health science reports · 2024Review
- Article
- Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons of Filgotinib vs Vedolizumab, Tofacitinib, and Ustekinumab for Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis.Inflammatory bowel diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOnly one head-to-head comparison of advanced treatments in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) has been published; therefore, there remains a need for further comparisons.
aimThe relative treatment effects of filgotinib and adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, tofacitinib, ustekinumab and vedolizumab were estimated using a network meta-analysis (NMA).
methodSystematically identified studies (MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library; searched: inception-May 2019, updated November 2020) investigating treatments for moderately to severely active UC were re-evaluated for inclusion in a Bayesian NMA (fixed-effects model). Relative treatment effects were estimated using different permutations of patient population (biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced), treatment phase (induction or maintenance) and outcomes (MCS response/remission or endoscopic mucosal healing).
resultsSeventeen trials (13 induction; 9 maintenance) were included in the NMA; 8 treatment networks were constructed. Most targeted therapies were superior to placebo in terms of MCS response/remission and endoscopic mucosal healing; filgotinib 200 mg was similar to most other treatments. Infliximab 5 mg/kg was superior to filgotinib 200 mg (biologic-naïve; induction) for MCS response/remission (mean relative effect, 0.34 [95% credible interval: 0.05, 0.62]). Filgotinib 200 mg was superior to adalimumab 160/80/40 mg for MCS response/remission (biologic-experienced; induction; - 0.75 [- 1.16, - 0.35]), and endoscopic mucosal healing (biologic-naïve; maintenance; - 0.90 [- 1.89, - 0.01]); and to golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks (biologic-naïve; maintenance; - 0.46 [- 0.94, 0]) for MCS response/remission.
conclusionThe current treatment landscape benefits patients with moderately to severely active UC, improving key outcomes; filgotinib 200 mg was similar to current standard of care in most outcomes.
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.