Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40327280›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in therapy2025

One-Year Efficacy of Guselkumab Versus Advanced Therapies for the Treatment of Moderately to Severely Active Crohn's Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Tim Disher, Dominik Naessens, Myrlene Sanon, Ashley Bonner, Jenna Ellis, Meaghan Bartlett, Becky Hooper, Zijiang Yang, Jessica R Allegretti, Axel Dignass

Abstract readComparative StudyNetwork Meta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. New Kids on the Block: IL-23 Inhibitors in IBD Management.Current gastroenterology reports · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Tim DisherEVERSANA Value & Evidence Services, Burlington, ON, Canada.
Dominik NaessensJanssen Pharmaceutica N.V., Beerse, Belgium.
Myrlene SanonJohnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA. MSanon@ITS.jnj.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4027-1254
Ashley BonnerEVERSANA Value & Evidence Services, Burlington, ON, Canada.
Jenna EllisEVERSANA Value & Evidence Services, Burlington, ON, Canada.
Meaghan BartlettEVERSANA Value & Evidence Services, Burlington, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4616-8776
Becky HooperEVERSANA Value & Evidence Services, Burlington, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0146-5577
Zijiang YangJohnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA.
Jessica R AllegrettiBrigham and Women's Hospital, Crohn's and Colitis Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Axel DignassDepartment of Medicine I, Agaplesion Markus Hospital, Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9724-054X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study used network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the comparative efficacy of available advanced therapies for moderately to severely active Crohn's disease (CD) versus the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab.

methodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of advanced therapies in moderately to severely active CD. Bayesian NMAs were conducted for outcomes of clinical response, clinical remission, endoscopic response, and a combined outcome of clinical remission with endoscopic response, at the end of the maintenance phase (up to 1 year). Primary analyses included patients with varied prior inadequate treatment responses, with additional analyses conducted for specific subgroups. Re-randomized trials were normalized in several cases to mimic a standard treat-through design, incorporating data from additional sources, when necessary, for patients who had an inadequate response or experienced a delayed response following induction.

resultsOf the 58 RCTs identified, 13 with maintenance endpoint data were ultimately included in the NMAs. Guselkumab 100 mg and 200 mg were more likely to be effective versus several comparators. Guselkumab 200 mg demonstrated significantly greater efficacy versus infliximab 10 mg/kg every 8 weeks and upadacitinib 30 mg daily for clinical response and clinical remission. For endoscopic response, guselkumab 200 mg showed significantly greater efficacy than ustekinumab, adalimumab, and upadacitinib. Significance was also noted versus ustekinumab on the combined outcome of clinical remission with endoscopic response. Similarly, guselkumab 100 mg demonstrated efficacy versus comparators across analyses. Guselkumab achieved higher rankings based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Findings of primary analyses within mixed populations were generally corroborated by subpopulation analyses.

conclusionResults of this NMA in moderately to severely active CD indicate a higher likelihood of guselkumab achieving each clinical and endoscopic endpoint analyzed at the end of the maintenance phase versus other advanced therapies assessed.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalCrohn DiseaseAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedHumansInfliximabRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRemission InductionSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedguselkumabInfliximabBiologicsCrohn’s diseaseGuselkumabIndirect treatment comparisonsNetwork meta-analysisStudy design

Identifiers

PMID40327280
PMCPMC12085339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.