SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Infection risk in inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with vedolizumab: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Objective: To evaluate the infection risk associated with vedolizumab (VDZ) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and to compare its safety with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, ustekinumab, and placebo. Methods: A systematic search of five databases was conducted from inception to December 2025. Infection outcomes were standardized per CTCAE v5.0. Proportion meta-analyses employed random-effects models with Knapp-Hartung adjustment and prediction intervals; comparative safety was assessed by pooling risk ratios. Meta-regression explored sources of heterogeneity. Results: Sixty-six studies (24,000 patients) were included. The overall pooled infection incidence was 13.08% (95% CI: 9.85-17.18%), with respiratory tract infections being the most common (4.25%). Serious systemic and rare infections were infrequent. No significant difference in infection risk was observed between VDZ and TNF inhibitors (RR = 0.91) or placebo (RR = 1.02). VDZ was associated with a significantly higher risk compared with ustekinumab (RR = 1.63). Meta-regression identified study design and geographic region as significant moderators. Conclusion: VDZ is associated with a moderate infection risk, primarily consisting of mild respiratory events, and a safety profile broadly comparable to TNF inhibitors and placebo but inferior to ustekinumab. Extreme heterogeneity limits the clinical utility of pooled incidence estimates; comparative risk assessment is essential for therapeutic decision-making. Systematic review registration: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2026-6-0022/, identifier INPLASY202660022.
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.