SynthesisAlimentary pharmacology & therapeutics2025
Meta-Analysis: Intravenous Versus Subcutaneous Infliximab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.
Synthesis in Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Immunogenicity on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Inflammatory Bowel Disease Receiving Subcutaneous Infliximab: A Post Hoc Analysis of the LIBERTY Trials.United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Trial
- Persistence and safety of subcutaneous infliximab up to 1 year after switching from intravenous infliximab in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: a multicenter real-world cohort study.Inflammatory bowel diseases · 2026Article
- Switching from Intravenous to Subcutaneous Infliximab in Psoriasis: A Case Series on Efficacy and Treatment Satisfaction.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSubcutaneous infliximab may provide multiple benefits over intravenous formulations. However, there is uncertainty about the relative efficacy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
aimTo evaluate the relative efficacy of intravenous versus subcutaneous infliximab in patients with IBD using clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic remission outcomes at 30- and 54-week outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis with results up to August 2024. We calculated comparative efficacy using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), posterior probability, and contrast plots.
resultsA total of 9 studies with 2519 patients met the selection criteria for inclusion; 33.6% (846/2519) of patients had Crohn's disease and 66.4% (1673/2519) had ulcerative colitis. Via SUCRA analysis, subcutaneous infliximab was ranked first in all comparisons. Via posterior probability modelling, there was strong or very strong evidence of superiority with subcutaneous over intravenous infliximab for clinical response (30-week outcomes), clinical remission (30- and 54-week outcomes), although with moderate evidence for clinical response at 54 weeks, and no evidence of any difference for endoscopic remission (54 weeks). Via contrast plot analysis, no comparison reached statistical significance.
conclusionSubcutaneous infliximab is associated with high efficacy rates in IBD. Subcutaneous infliximab may offer clinical benefit above the intravenous formulation. This should provide patients and clinicians with confidence in using subcutaneous infliximab in IBD. Further head-to-head trials are needed to confirm the relative efficacy between these formulations.
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.