ArticleBMC gastroenterology2023
Network meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of different biologics for ulcerative colitis.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biological Therapy and Small Molecules for Adults With Crohn's Disease: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Pharmacotherapy · 2025Pooled it
- What is the optimal biological therapy for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Considerations in reviewing network meta-analyses of heterogeneous clinical trial designs: a methodological review in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2026Article
- Insights into the treatment of infliximab and vedolizumab in positive PR3-ANCA patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: multicenter real-world evidence.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Observational
- From guidelines to evidence-based practice - A German perspective on mesalazine as first-line therapy for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis.Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie · 2025Review
- The Use and Role of Mesalamine in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis: A Literature Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Hydrogen Gas Inhalation Improved Intestinal Microbiota in Ulcerative Colitis: A Randomised Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Tuberculosis risk in patients with Crohn's disease on biologics: a retrospective analysis of the Japanese Medical Claims Database.Intestinal research · 2025Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Vedolizumab with Glucocorticoids vs Infliximabin Severe Ulcerative Colitis: A Retrospective Study.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Optimizing 5-aminosalicylate for moderate ulcerative colitis: expert recommendations from the Asia-Pacific, Middle East, and Africa Inflammatory Bowel Disease Coalition.Intestinal research · 2025Review
- Exploring Dual-Targeted Therapy in the Management of Moderate to Severe Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Retrospective Study.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2025Article
- Clinical features and current treatment approach to ulcerative proctitis.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Review
- Ameliorative effects and mechanism ofFrontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Real-world effectiveness of vedolizumab in refractory pouchitis: a focus on biomarker changes during intravenous to subcutaneous transition (POUCHIVED study).Frontiers in immunology · 2025Observational
- Identification of potential novel targets for treating inflammatory bowel disease using Mendelian randomization analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- [Old and New Biologics and Small Molecules in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Anti-interleukins].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2024Review
- Current Treatments, Emerging Therapeutics, and Natural Remedies for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Treatment endpoints in ulcerative colitis: Does one size fit all?World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTherapeutic options for ulcerative colitis (UC) have increased since the introduction of biologics a few decades ago. Due to the wide range of biologics available, physicians have difficulty in selecting biologics and do not know how to balance the best drug between clinical efficacy and safety. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of biologics in treating ulcerative colitis.
methodsIn this study, eight electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, Sinomed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP Information, and WanFang Data) were searched to collect eligible studies without language restrictions. Retrieved 1 June 2023, from inception. All articles included in the mesh analysis are randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The inclusion of drugs for each outcome was ranked using a curved surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA). Higher SUCRA scores were associated with better outcomes, whereas lower SUCRA scores were associated with better safety. This study has registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023389483.
resultsInduction Therapy: Among the biologic therapies evaluated for induction therapy, vedolizumab demonstrated the highest efficacy in achieving clinical remission (OR vs daclizumab, 9.09; 95% CI, 1.01-81.61; SUCRA 94.1) and clinical response. Guselkumab showed the lowest risk of recurrence of UC (SUCRA 94.9%), adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation (SUCRA 94.8%), and serious infections (SUCRA 78.0%). Maintenance Therapy: For maintenance therapy, vedolizumab ranked highest in maintaining clinical remission (OR vs mesalazine 4.36; 95% CI, 1.65-11.49; SUCRA 89.7) and endoscopic improvement (SUCRA 92.6). Infliximab demonstrated the highest efficacy in endoscopic improvement (SUCRA 92.6%). Ustekinumab had the lowest risk of infections (SUCRA 92.9%), serious adverse events (SUCRA 91.3%), and serious infections (SUCRA 67.6%).
conclusionOur network meta-analysis suggests that vedolizumab is the most effective biologic therapy for inducing and maintaining clinical remission in UC patients. Guselkumab shows promise in reducing the risk of recurrence and adverse events during induction therapy. Infliximab is effective in improving endoscopic outcomes during maintenance therapy. Ustekinumab appears to have a favorable safety profile. These findings provide valuable insights for clinicians in selecting the most appropriate biologic therapy for UC 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.