ReviewDrugs2026
Oral Gut-Restricted Targeted Therapy for IBD: A Pipeline Review.
Review in Drugs, 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
Oral gut-restricted therapies are being explored as a drug delivery strategy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), with the aim of achieving therapeutic effects within the intestinal mucosa while minimizing systemic exposure. Advances in molecular engineering and formulation technologies have enabled the development of orally administered agents intentionally designed to act locally within the gastrointestinal tract. This narrative review examines the biological, pharmacokinetic, and formulation principles underlying oral gut-restricted drug delivery in IBD, including an analysis of discontinued clinical development programs in ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Across locally acting antibodies, peptides, and small molecules, the analysis of these programs reveals recurring factors contributing to discontinuation. These include limited or absent clinical efficacy despite evidence of mucosal target engagement, challenges in achieving consistent and adequate intestinal exposure, constraints related to formulation or delivery technologies, and trial-related factors such as high placebo response rates. In several cases, manufacturing variability or strategic considerations also influenced development outcomes. The review of the current clinical trial pipeline suggests an evolution in development strategies relative to earlier programs, with increasing emphasis on the confirmation of local tissue drug levels, incorporation of mucosal pharmacodynamic readouts, and selection of endpoints aligned with localized mechanisms of action, including endoscopic and histologic outcomes. These elements appear critical for interpreting early phase efficacy signals for agents designed to have minimal systemic activity. Effective translation requires alignment between mechanism of action, intestinal drug delivery, tissue-level pharmacodynamics, and clinical trial design. Incorporating these lessons may improve the likelihood of success for future oral gut-restricted therapies in IBD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41926043What 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.