SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
What is the optimal biological therapy for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The biologics for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) have expanded with an increasing array. We performed an updated network meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the relative efficacy and safety profiles of biologics in moderate to severe UC. Design: We searched literature to 18 May 2024, to identify eligible studies. The clinical remission, clinical response, or endoscopic improvement, stratified by previous exposure or naive to biologics, and safety were assessed. A network meta-analysis was performed through the bayesian model, obtaining pairwise relative ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities (SUCRA) was used to rank the included agents for each outcome. Results: A total of 23 trials (10,839 patients) were included. In induction therapy, based on achieving clinical remission and endoscopic improvement, infliximab 5 mg/kg ranked first. For clinical response, ustekinumab 6 mg/kg superior to other drugs. Infliximab 5 mg/kg demonstrated superior efficacy in biologic-naive patients, whereas ustekinumab 6 mg/kg was the most effective in biologic-exposed patients. No significant differences between active interventions were observed when assessing safety outcomes, except for visilizumab. In maintenance therapy, for clinical remission and endoscopic improvement, vedolizumab 108 mg every other week and vedolizumab 300 mg every 4 weeks ranked first respectively, with infliximab 5 mg/kg performed best in achieving clinical response. Regarding safety ranking, golimumab 100 mg was the lowest. Conclusion: In this network meta-analysis, infliximab and vedolizumab emerged as the most effective biologics for inducing and maintaining efficacy outcomes for patients with UC. Most drugs were found to be safe and well-tolerated, with ustekinumab and mirikizumab exhibiting particularly favorable safety profiles.
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.