ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2024
Meta-analysis of etrolizumab
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The existing body of scientific literature offers inconclusive findings on the safety and therapeutic effectiveness of etrolizumab (ETR) for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). Objectives: The goal of this meta-analysis is to furnish a comprehensive synthesis of evidence that evaluates the safety and therapeutic effects of ETR in the management of UC. Design: Meta-analysis. Data sources and methods: PubMed, Embase, and Web of science were searched to collect relevant English studies, and the reference lists of eligible studies were manually searched to avoid missing any eligible studies. Outcome measures encompassed clinical response, incidence of adverse events, histological remission, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, and antidrug antibodies. Relevant data were extracted by two independent investigators. Results: The meta-analysis incorporated five eligible studies, involving a total of 1528 patients, with 1015 treated with ETR and 513 with placebo. The pooled analysis indicates that ETR is both effective and safe. The adverse event rates, endoscopic and histological response, as well as overall remission were comparable between the two groups. The monoclonal antibody group had a lower incidence rate of adverse reactions than the placebo group [odds ratio (OR): 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-1.03; Conclusion: Given the heterogeneity and potential biases in the included studies, gastroenterologists should cautiously tailor drug delivery strategies based on their clinical experience and the unique needs of individual patients. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023396100.
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.