ArticleJAMA network open2026
Comparative Safety of Advanced Therapies for Crohn Disease.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: With the availability of multiple classes of advanced therapies for the treatment of Crohn disease (CD), understanding the comparative safety of different therapies can inform treatment positioning. Objective: To compare the risk of serious infections, venous thromboembolism (VTE), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with different advanced therapies in patients with CD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective comparative effectiveness research study was conducted between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2022, with a mean (SD) follow-up of 26.9 (2.4) months until July 1, 2024. Using an administrative claims database (OptumLabs Data Warehouse), commercially insured patients with CD, who initiated treatment with tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF) antagonists, anti-integrin agents (vedolizumab), interleukin (IL)-12/23p40 antagonists (ustekinumab), IL-23p19 antagonists (primarily risankizumab), or Janus kinase inhibitors (upadacitinib) between 2016 and 2022 and had follow-up for at least 1 year before and after treatment initiation, were included. Exposure: TNF antagonists vs anti-integrin agents (vedolizumab) vs IL-12/23p40 antagonists (ustekinumab) vs IL-23p19 antagonists (risankizumab) vs Janus kinase inhibitors (upadacitinib). Main Outcomes and Measures: The risk of serious infections, VTE, and MACE was compared with various advanced therapies through multinomial propensity score-based inverse probability treatment weighting, with propensity scores estimated through generalized boosted models, accounting for disease characteristics, health care utilization, comorbidities, and prior and concomitant medications, and through competing risk of mortality. Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for multiple treatment comparisons were calculated. Results: This study included 12 245 patients with CD (mean [SD] age, 46.5 [17.5] years; 6642 females [54.2%]), who were treated with TNF antagonists (n = 5274), vedolizumab (n = 2716), ustekinumab (n = 3544), risankizumab (n = 559), or upadacitinib (n = 152). Serious infection incidence rates ranged from 5.46 (95% CI, 4.86-6.07) to 9.02 (95% CI, 6.38-11.89) per 100 person-years across therapies. After adjusting for confounding variables, there were no statistically significant differences in the risk of serious infections across different agents, including between risankizumab and ustekinumab (HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.78-1.67]), risankizumab and TNF antagonists (HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.68-1.47]), or ustekinumab and TNF antagonists (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.74-1.04]). The incidence of VTE (incidence rate, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.71-1.10] to 2.33 [95% CI, 1.06-3.82] per 100 person-years) and MACE (0.68 [95% CI, 0.51-0.85] to 1.49 [95% CI, 0.43-2.76] per 100 person-years) was low, without any significant differences across agents. Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness research study of patients with CD, no significant differences in the risks of serious infections, VTE, or MACE across various advanced therapies were found. These findings support clinical decision-making on choice of advanced therapies for most individual patients with CD to be driven primarily by comparative treatment effectiveness rather than driven by concerns of serious adverse events.
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.