ArticleCrohn's & colitis 3602022
Real-World Treatment Patterns and Physician Preferences for Biologics in Moderate-to-Severe Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Retrospective Chart Review in Europe.
Article in Crohn's & colitis 360, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of the Economic and Health-Related Quality of Life Impact of Advanced Therapies Used to Treat Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis.Advances in therapy · 2023Pooled it
- Sex Differences in Treatment Expectations, Satisfaction and Tolerance After Switching to CT-P17, an Adalimumab Biosimilar: A Post Hoc Analysis of the YU-MATTER Study.Rheumatology and therapy · 2026Article
- Long-Term Comparative Outcomes of TNF-α Antagonists vs. Vedolizumab as First-Line Biologic Therapy for Refractory Ulcerative Proctitis: A Propensity-Matched Study.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Advancing Equity and Patient Partnership in Clinical Trials for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Model for Inclusive Trial Design.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Treatment sequences, outcomes, healthcare utilization, and costs in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases requiring advanced treatment-real world comparative effectiveness from German claims data.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Relationship Between Patient Demographics and Biologic Therapy Use in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. A Single Center Cross-Sectional Study.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Article
- Biologic Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Real-World Comparative Effectiveness and Impact of Drug Sequencing in 13 222 Patients within the UK IBD BioResource.Journal of Crohn's & colitis · 2024Article
- Treatment persistence and switching patterns of ABP 501 in European patients with inflammatory bowel disease.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With many options available for treating inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Europe, this study sought to characterize physician treatment preferences and real-world treatment patterns in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). Methods: This was a retrospective, noninterventional, physician-administered study. Gastroenterologists and general practitioners ( Results: Physicians largely preferred infliximab and adalimumab or their biosimilars as first-line therapy for UC (originators, 65.8%; biosimilars, 26.1%) and CD (originators, 61.8%; biosimilars, 30.5%). Effectiveness was the most cited reason for treatment preference (92%-93% of physicians). Three-quarters of patients (UC, 75.8%; CD, 73.6%) received infliximab or adalimumab originators in the first line, with more patients receiving infliximab biosimilars than adalimumab biosimilars (12.4%-12.5% and 0.5%-4.1%, respectively, across UC and CD). Persistence was longer for first-line infliximab than adalimumab (UC, 26.6 vs 21.2 months; CD, 31.2 vs 26.7 months) and was generally shorter for their respective biosimilars. Nonbiologic treatments were used in combination with biologics in 14.1% (UC) and 11.5% (CD) of patients. Most patients received 1 biologic therapy (UC, 90.6%; CD, 83.2%); only 9.4% (UC) and 16.8% (CD) received a second biologic. Conclusions: Infliximab and adalimumab originators dominated first-line biologic therapy for moderate-to-severe UC and CD. Understanding real-world treatment patterns can help assess new treatment uptake and suggest opportunities for improving treatment.
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.