ArticleIntestinal research2025
A real-world comparison of subcutaneous to intravenous administration of infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.
Article in Intestinal research, 2025. 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.
- Subcutaneous infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease: bridging the gap between theory and practice.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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsWe compared intravenous and subcutaneous infliximab (IFX) as treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
methodsThis retrospective, multicenter, observational study enrolled patients treated with either intravenous or subcutaneous IFX. Sequential parameters were compared at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months following the initiation of treatment with either type of IFX. The primary outcome was the comparison of the IFX trough levels after 12 months of treatment.
resultsIn total, 183 participants were included in this study. After 6 months, the subcutaneous group exhibited significant differences compared to the intravenous group; in terms of clinical disease activity (0% vs. 15%, P= 0.007) and IFX trough level (21.72 ± 8.71 μg/mL vs. 7.70 ± 16.65 μg/mL, P= 0.002). After 12 months, subcutaneous, as compared to intravenous, achieved improved clinical disease activity (0% vs. 15%, P= 0.044) and IFX trough level (20.41 ± 12.91 μg/mL vs. 7.06 ± 6.81 μg/mL, P< 0.001). Analyzing the sequential changes compared with baseline data within each group, we observed significant alterations in subcutaneous; 6 months fecal calprotectin (676.3 ± 976.6 μg/g vs. 253.9 ± 483.9 μg/g, P= 0.014), 6 months IFX trough level (7.00 ± 5.67 μg/mL vs. 18.44 ± 6.34 μg/mL, P= 0.026), and 12 months IFX trough level (7.00 ± 5.67 μg/mL vs. 21.33 ± 4.50 μg/mL, P= 0.034).
conclusionsThis study indicates the potential suitability of subcutaneous IFX as an alternative treatment option for IBD.
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.