ArticleIntestinal Failure (New York, N.Y.)
Use of vedolizumab in pediatric intestinal transplant rejection.
Article in Intestinal Failure (New York, N.Y.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intestinal and Multivisceral Transplantation: Where We Stand Today.Pediatric transplantation · 2026Review
- The current state of paediatric intestinal transplantation: A global review.Intestinal Failure (New York, N.Y.)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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Blockade of α4β7 integrin cell adhesion receptors on activated lymphocytes with the monoclonal antibody vedolizumab (VDZ) is efficacious in treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and most probably intestinal graft versus host disease (GVHD) after stem cell transplantation. Recently, there have been reports indicating that VDZ may be similarly effective in the treatment of acute rejection after intestinal transplantation (ITx). Herein, we report 3 additional cases. Case Presentation: Mucosal recovery was achieved in 2 of the 3 patients, within 6 days after the first VDZ dose in one and with early restoration of enteral nutrition in the other. There was no response to VDZ in the third case. Complications potentially attributable to VDZ included graft pneumatosis and late-onset histoplasmosis. Conclusions: These cases describe both benefits and limitations of VDZ in ITx. They also suggest that VDZ may be useful in post-ITx rejection prophylaxis and for the treatment of intestinal GVHD.
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.