Trial reportScientific reports2024
Induction and maintenance of mucosal healing in Crohn's disease with ustekinumab in clinical practice across all care levels in Germany (MUCUS).
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective Bi-Centric Real-World Outcomes of Upadacitinib in Biologic-Experienced Patients with Crohn's Disease.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ustekinumab in the Treatment of Crohn's Disease-A Narrative Review on Clinical Efficacy and Safety Profile.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The impact of ustekinumab (UST) on mucosal- and fistula healing and extraintestinal manifestations (EIM) in Crohn's disease (CD) were not fully elucidated in the registration trials. In this prospective, multicenter study (EudraCT number: 2017-005151-83) we evaluated the German label real-world-effectiveness of UST to achieve the primary endpoint of combined clinical and endoscopic response at week 52 and several secondary endpoints. Of 79 screened we enrolled 52 patients (female n = 28, bionaïve n = 13, biologic n = 39). At week 52 (per protocol analysis), 52% (n = 13/25) of patients achieved the primary endpoint [50% (n = 3/6) in the bionaïve, 45.5% (n = 5/11) biologic, 62.5% (n = 5/8 ) multiple biologics cohorts, respectively with age as independent predictor [OR 95% CI 0.933 (0.873, 0.998) p = 0.043], 60% (n = 15/25) achieved endoscopic response [50% (n = 3/6) in the bionaïve, 54.5% (n = 6/11) biologic, 75% (n = 6/8) multiple biologics cohorts, respectively], 36% (n = 9/25) achieved endoscopic remission [50% (n = 3/6) in the bionaïve, 27.3% (n = 3/11) biologic, 37.5% (n = 3/8) multiple biologics cohorts, respectively], 48% (n = 12/25) achieved mucosal healing [50% (n = 3/6) in the bionaïve, 36.4% (n = 4/11) biologic, 62.5% (n = 5/8) multiple biologics cohorts, respectively]. All achieved a fistula response and 33.3% (n = 1/3) in the multiple biologics group fistula remission at week 52. EIM decreased (week 0 28.2% vs. week 52 8%). CRP, FCP, PRO-2, EQ-5D-5L improved throughout. 36 patients (69.2%) experienced ≥ 1 treatment emergent adverse event, in 8 (15.4%) cases rated as severe and in 5 (9.6%) leading to UST discontinuation, but no very severe events or deaths. The effectiveness of UST was better than in the registration trials.
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.