ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Infliximab Monotherapy Versus Infliximab and Azathioprine Combination Therapy in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInflammatory bowel disease, encompassing ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease, is increasing in prevalence in Western populations. Infliximab (IFX) is a standard treatment for severe UC. Evidence suggests combination therapy with IFX and azathioprine (AZA) improves clinical outcomes. However, AZA increases non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) risk.
aimsWe modeled the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy with IFX and AZA versus IFX monotherapy.
methodsWe used a Markov model to simulate 25-year-old patients with UC over a 5-year time horizon in eight-week cycles. Patients received monotherapy, combination therapy for all 5 years ("continuous combination therapy"), or combination therapy for 1 year followed by monotherapy ("one-year combination therapy"). We measured quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs of drug therapy, complications, and NHL.
resultsWith monotherapy, patients experienced 3.263 QALYs and 6.84 flares; with 1-year combination therapy, 3.349 QALYs and 5.73 flares; and with continuous combination therapy, 3.351 QALYs and 5.67 flares. After 5 years, NHL incidence was 0.188% with monotherapy; 0.207% with 1-year combination therapy; and 1.121% with continuous combination therapy. Healthcare costs were $312,500 for monotherapy, $264,700 for 1-year combination therapy, and $265,400 for continuous combination therapy. Results were robust across sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsCombination therapy with IFX and AZA is a cost-saving strategy for moderate-to-severe UC, providing superior outcomes and lower costs compared to IFX monotherapy. Both 1-year and continuous combination therapy achieve comparable health outcomes. Short-term combination therapy may be preferable, as it captures the benefits of improved UC management while avoiding the deleterious effects of long-term exposure to thiopurines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41723800What 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.