ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Efficacy and safety of vedolizumab in elderly and younger patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: a retrospective real-world study in China.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vedolizumab in biologic-naïve ulcerative colitis: a multicenter real-world evaluation of clinical benefits and exploratory inflammatory indices.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Association of nutritional indices with early clinical remission in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis treated with vedolizumab.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLimited data exist regarding the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab (VDZ) in China's elderly adult population with ulcerative colitis (UC) in China. In this investigation, a comparative analysis of its efficacy and safety was performed between elderly and younger adult UC cohorts.
methodsPatients with moderate-to-severe UC and at least three VDZ infusions at our clinic between March 2021 and November 2024 were retrospectively recruited. The elderly adult patients (≥ 60 years at first VDZ dose) were matched clinically 1:2 to younger patients (18-59 years).
resultsThis study included 30 elderly and 60 younger adult patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding sex, body mass index, percentage of smokers, disease duration, disease extent, disease activity, Mayo endoscopic scores, extra-intestinal manifestations, perianal disease, history of bowel-related surgery, or previous and concomitant therapies. At week 6, the clinical remission and steroid-free clinical remission (SFCR) rates were significantly lower (10.00% vs. 33.33%, P = 0.017; 3.33% vs. 26.67%, P = 0.005) in the elderly group than in the younger group, but there was no significant difference in the clinical response rates (P = 1.000). There was no significant difference in the clinical response, remission, and SFCR rates between the two groups at weeks 14, 22, 38, 46, and 54 (P > 0.05). The frequency of adverse events associated with VDZ was comparable between the two groups (33.33% vs. 38.33%, P = 0.643).
conclusionsThe efficacy and safety of VDZ in elderly and younger adult patients with UC are similar. Thus, VDZ can be considered both safe and efficacious for treating elderly adult patients with UC.
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.