ReviewCureus2023
Upadacitinib in Crohn's Disease: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dual targeted therapy with biologic agents and small molecules in refractory inflammatory arthritis: clinical outcomes and safety profile.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Updated review of Janus kinase inhibitors for the management of inflammatory bowel disease.World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Design and rationale for the VICTRIVA study: A randomized, double-blind, phase 3b study of vedolizumab in combination with upadacitinib in Crohn's disease.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Rituximab, Apremilast, and Upadacitinib as Selected Biosimilar and Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs with Diverse Mechanisms of Action: Their Current Use in Slowing Down the Progression of Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Advancements in Targeted Therapies for the Management of Crohn's Disease: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Upadacitinib Treatment Outcomes in Crohn's Disease: A Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Response and Perianal Fistula Resolution.Inflammatory intestinal diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 11 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Crohn's disease (CD) presents a formidable challenge as a chronic inflammatory condition. This systematic review aimed to comprehensively assess upadacitinib, a novel Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, regarding its efficacy, safety, and mechanistic insights in CD treatment. A thorough search of electronic databases identified studies investigating upadacitinib's impact on CD patients. Study characteristics, efficacy outcomes (clinical remission and endoscopic response), safety profiles, and mechanistic insights were extracted and qualitatively synthesized. Methodological quality was assessed using established tools. The synthesis of three studies consistently demonstrated improvements in clinical remission rates and endoscopic outcomes in upadacitinib-treated patients. Adverse events, such as herpes zoster, intestinal perforation, non-melanoma skin cancer, adjudicated cardiovascular events, and anemia, were reported, necessitating vigilant safety monitoring. Upadacitinib emerges as a promising therapeutic option for CD, supported by its observed clinical benefits and mechanistic implications. However, safety concerns underscore the importance of careful patient selection. These findings contribute to the ongoing discussion surrounding personalized treatment approaches for CD, emphasizing the need for further research to confirm its enduring efficacy and safety.
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.