Trial reportAdvances in therapy2023
Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Between Risankizumab and Ustekinumab for Induction and Maintenance Treatment of Moderately to Severely Active Crohn's Disease.
Trial report in Advances in therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 6 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 10 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.
A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Ustekinumab Induction Therapy in Subjects With Moderately to Severely Active Crohn's Disease Who Have Failed or Are Intolerant to TNF Antagonist Therapy (UNITI-1)
A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Ustekinumab Induction Therapy in Subjects With Moderately to Severely Active Crohn's Disease (UNITI-2)
A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Ustekinumab Maintenance Therapy in Subjects With Moderately to Severely Active Crohn's Disease
A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Induction Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Risankizumab in Subjects With Moderately to Severely Active Crohn's Disease Who Failed Prior Biologic Treatment
A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo Controlled 52-Week Maintenance and an Open-Label Extension Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Risankizumab in Subjects With Crohn's Disease
A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo Controlled Induction Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Risankizumab in Subjects With Moderately to Severely Active Crohn's Disease
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adalimumab Therapy for Crohn's Disease and Axial Spondyloarthritis in Latent Tuberculosis:Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2026Pooled it
- Comparing the efficacy and safety of safinamide with rasagiline in China Parkinson's disease patients with a matching adjusted indirect comparison.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of risankizumab vs ustekinumab in patients with Crohn's disease: a propensity score-matched multicenter retrospective cohort study.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2026Article
- Development of a stacking model for personalized treatment of Crohn's disease: leveraging routine clinical features to forecast infliximab response.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Ustekinumab in the Treatment of Crohn's Disease-A Narrative Review on Clinical Efficacy and Safety Profile.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- New Interleukin-23 Antagonists' Use in Crohn's Disease.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Immunity in digestive diseases: new drugs for inflammatory bowel disease treatment-insights from Phase II and III trials.Journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease: concomitant IMID or paradoxical therapeutic effect? A scoping review on anti-IL-12/23 and anti-IL-23 antibodies.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Anti-IL23/12 agents and JAK inhibitors for inflammatory bowel disease.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Recent clinical evidence on nutrition, novel pharmacotherapy, and vaccination in inflammatory bowel diseases.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRisankizumab (RZB) and ustekinumab (UST), interleukin (IL)-23 and IL-12/23 inhibitors, respectively, are approved treatments for moderately to severely active Crohn's disease (CD); direct comparison between the two is ongoing. We indirectly compared efficacy of RZB versus UST using data from phase 3 trials (RZB: NCT03104413; NCT03105128; NCT03105102; UST: NCT01369329; NCT01369342; NCT01369355).
methodsMatching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using individual patient-level data from RZB trials and published aggregated data from UST trials. During induction, patients received RZB 600 mg intravenous (IV) at weeks 0, 4, and 8 or a single dose of UST 6 mg/kg IV at week 0. During maintenance, patients received RZB 180 or 360 mg subcutaneous (SC) or UST 90 mg SC every 8 or 12 weeks to 52 weeks. Outcomes included proportion of patients achieving Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) response (decrease of ≥ 100 points or total score < 150) or remission (CDAI ≤ 150) and endoscopic improvement (measured by the Simple Endoscopic Score in CD [SES-CD]; response, ≥ 50% reduction from baseline; remission, SES-CD ≤ 2) following induction/baseline.
resultsHigher proportions of patients achieved clinical and endoscopic outcomes with RZB vs. UST induction treatment, resulting in significantly (p ≤ 0.05) greater percent differences (95% confidence intervals) between groups for CDAI remission (15% [5%, 25%]) and endoscopic response (26% [13%, 40%]) and remission (9% [0%, 19%]). Following maintenance, rates of CDAI remission were similar (range - 0.3% to - 5.0%) for RZB vs. UST. Differences for endoscopic response and remission ranged from 9.3% to 27.7% and 11.6% to 12.5%, respectively; differences were significant (p < 0.05) for endoscopic response for both doses of RZB compared to UST 12-week dosing.
conclusionsThis indirect comparison demonstrated higher rates of clinical and endoscopic outcomes during induction for RZB compared to UST; CDAI remission following maintenance was comparable. Direct comparisons of RZB and UST are warranted to validate these findings.
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.