Observational studyDigestive diseases and sciences2024
Transition to Subcutaneous Infliximab vs Vedolizumab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Prospective Multicenter Study.
Observational study in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Needle or Drip?-Real-World Comparison of Intravenous to Subcutaneous Infliximab and Vedolizumab in the Management of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsTransition from intravenous (IV) to subcutaneous (SC) administration is an option in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with Infliximab (IFX) or Vedolizumab (VDZ). The aim was to compare the adherence, the persistence in therapy, and quality of life (QoL) at baseline, at 6, at 12 months of SC IFX versus SC VDZ.
methodsThis was a prospective, observational, multicenter study on patients with IBD in treatment with IV IFX or VDZ who switched to SC. All patients investigated the QoL by the short IBD Questionnaire (sIBDQ) and the concerns and expectations by a 6-item survey. Any adverse events, local and systemic, were reported. Safety, concerns, and satisfaction were evaluated.
resultsOne hundred and eight out of 93 patients were replaced, 51 to SC IFX and 42 to SC VDZ. The majority accepted the SC route. Persistence in therapy was similar between the two groups. The QoL improved after 6 months (p = 0.004), but at T12 both groups show a significant decline in QoL. SC administration has not caused any concern for patients. As safety, both groups reported a similar number of local reactions (IFX 19.60% vs VDZ 19.04%). In the IFX group were reported more systemic reactions (IFX 11.6% vs VDZ 7.14%) without the need for hospitalization.
conclusionThe transition from IV to SC administration is an appropriate and safe option for treatment with IFX or VDZ. It is very important to consider the patient's choice and preference. The SC administration led to a significant benefit in QoL, especially in the first 6 months of therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39349905What 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.