ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2024
Efficacy of Second-Line Biological Therapies in Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis Patients with Prior Failure of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy: A Multi-Center Study.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Infection risk in inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with vedolizumab: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- A real-world observational study of second-line anti-TNFα treatment in patients with ulcerative colitis who received vedolizumab as a first-line biologic.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have compared the efficacy and safety of second-line biological therapies in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients with prior exposure to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety between ustekinumab, vedolizumab, and tofacitinib, a current option as second-line biological therapy with different mechanisms in those patients.
methodsThis retrospective multi-center study was conducted across five institutions from 2011 to 2022. We enrolled patients with moderate to severe UC who failed anti-TNF therapy and subsequently received ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib as second-line biological therapy. The outcomes were analyzed for clinical response/remission and endoscopic improvement/remission rates after induction therapy, drug persistency, and adverse events.
resultsA total of 70 UC patients were included and grouped into ustekinumab (11 patients), vedolizumab (40 patients), and tofacitinib (19 patients) treatments. The clinical response/remission rates after induction therapy were similar between ustekinumab (90.9/81.8%), vedolizumab (92.5/65.0%), and tofacitinib (94.7/73.7%). There were no significant differences in the endoscopic improvement/remission rates between the three groups: 90.9/18.2% for ustekinumab, 72.5/12.5% for vedolizumab, and 84.2/26.3% for tofacitinib. Drug persistence was similar across the three agents (
conclusionsBased on real-world data, second-line biological therapy with ustekinumab, vedolizumab, and tofacitinib showed comparable efficacy in patients with moderate to severe UC with prior exposure to anti-TNF therapy.
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.