ArticleCrohn's & colitis 3602026
Subcutaneous infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease: bridging the gap between theory and practice.
Article in Crohn's & colitis 360, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: At the end of the past century, infliximab (IFX), the first-in-class biological therapy approved in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), dramatically modified the therapeutic armamentarium. The recent development of subcutaneous (SC) formulations of IFX offers a promising alternative, with the potential to improve patient convenience, adherence, and overall outcomes. This review explores the clinical evidence supporting the initiation of SC IFX and the transition from intravenous (IV) to SC IFX. Methods: Comprehensive review using MEDLINE (source PUBMED). Results: Comparative studies have shown that SC IFX is associated with higher IFX serum concentration levels than IV, fewer neutralizing antibodies and similar levels of remission. Real-world studies have confirmed that switching from IV to SC IFX 120 mg is well accepted with a low risk of relapse. The ease of at-home administration has been associated with improved patient satisfaction and reduced healthcare burdens. The adoption of SC IFX could profoundly change the therapeutic landscape, offering a more patient-centered approach to long-term disease control but some questions remain, particularly about the place of IFX in certain populations. Conclusion: In this article, we reviewed the known and unknown data on SC IFX to provide a comprehensive summary and assist IBD physicians in integrating this knowledge into everyday clinical practice.
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.