ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2026
Biological therapies for inflammatory pouch disorders: insights and outcomes from the RESERVO study of GETECCU.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
50 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Inflammatory pouch disorders can be refractory to conventional therapy. Evidence on biological therapy from large cohorts is scarce. Objective: To explore the use and effectiveness of biological therapy for inflammatory pouch disorders. Design: A retrospective and multicentre study. Methods: We included patients diagnosed with pouchitis, Crohn's Disease of the Pouch (CDP) or cuffitis and treated with biological therapy. Effectiveness was evaluated at 12 months based on normalisation of stool frequency, absence of pain, faecal urgency or fistula discharge (clinical remission), or as any improvement in these symptoms (clinical response). We also compared the effectiveness of a second biologic after anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) failure using descriptive and comparative statistics. Results: In total, 145 patients were included; 62% were men and the median age was 54 (20-71) years. Overall, 212 lines of treatment were evaluated (95 infliximab, 69 adalimumab, 7 golimumab, 35 vedolizumab and 26 ustekinumab). At least a second line of treatment was received by 41% of patients. Overall, 66% had chronic pouchitis and 29% had CDP. Clinical remission rates at 12 months were 45%, 44%, 43%, 39% and 45% for infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, vedolizumab and ustekinumab, respectively. No differences were found based on the type of disease. Vedolizumab was the only treatment to show better results as a first-line therapy (50% vs 33%, Conclusion: Biological therapy is a cornerstone in the treatment of pouch disorders, demonstrating consistently high effectiveness. After anti-TNF failure, another mechanism of action should be employed.
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.