ReviewCureus2023
The Efficacy of Currently Licensed Biologics for Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis: A Literature Review.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- IBDTransDB: a manually curated transcriptomic database for inflammatory bowel disease.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2024Pooled it
- Lanatoside C ameliorates DSS-induced colitis with improved intestinal barrier integrity and reduced M1 macrophage polarization.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Kangfuxin liquid enema plus adalimumab for ulcerative colitis: a retrospective cohort study.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Once-Daily Oral Ozanimod for Japanese Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: Results From the Phase 2/3 J-True North Study.Gastro hep advances · 2026Article
- Vedolizumab-steroid combination therapy improves long-term prognosis in patients with ulcerative colitis.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Ultrasound of the bowel with a focus on IBD: the new best practice.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- LTr1 alleviates DSS-induced ulcerative colitis by modulating macrophages to inhibit M1 polarization and associated inflammatory responses.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Identification of potential novel targets for treating inflammatory bowel disease using Mendelian randomization analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Real-World Treatment Persistence Among Advanced Therapy-Naïve or -Experienced Patients with Ulcerative Colitis Initiated on Ustekinumab or Adalimumab.Advances in therapy · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biologics have been emerging as promising therapies in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients who are refractory to conventional medical treatment. This literature review aims to appraise the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of NICE approved biological therapies, of which there are currently five licensed drugs, available for the treatment of UC in adults. An initial search was performed using National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines. A further literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Science Direct and Cochrane Library databases was done, resulting in a total of 62 studies being included in this review. Recent and seminal papers were included. Inclusion criteria for this review were adult participants and English papers only. In most studies, anti-tumour necrosis factor ɑ (TNFɑ) naïve patients were found to have improved clinical outcomes. Infliximab was found to be highly effective in inducing short-term clinical response, clinical remission as well as mucosal healing. However, loss of response was common and dose escalation was often required for achievement of long-term efficacy. Adalimumab was found to have both short-term and long-term efficacy which was also supported by real-world data. Golimumab was shown to have comparable efficacy and safety profiles to other biologics, although lack of therapeutic dose monitoring and loss of response is a barrier to optimising golimumab treatment efficacy. Vedolizumab was shown to have higher clinical remission rates when compared to adalimumab in a head-to-head trial, and the most cost-effective biologic when calculating quality-adjusted life years. Ustekinumab was found to significantly improve clinical remission rates in UC patients who were previously unresponsive to other biological treatments. However, as this is a newly licensed drug, there is limited literature currently available. Further, head-to-head studies are required to help determine the optimal treatment for patients with UC. With patents expiring, the development of biosimilars will help to reduce costs and increase the availability of these drugs to patients.
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.