ArticleGastroenterology report2026
Real-world data on clinical response to inflammatory bowel disease biological treatments in patients with concurrent primary sclerosing cholangitis: a case-control study.
Article in Gastroenterology report, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The intestinal therapy response in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis-associated inflammatory bowel disease (PSC-IBD) is not well explored. This study compared the intestinal therapy response to biological therapies in patients with PSC and IBD (PSC-IBD group) vs patients with IBD alone (IBD group). Methods: We performed a case-control study and identified 46 patients in the PSC-IBD group and 180 in the IBD group who were treated with infliximab, vedolizumab, and/or ustekinumab at the IBD outpatient clinic of Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus-Virchow-Klinikum. To account for differences in demographics and disease characteristics, propensity score matching (ratio 1:1) was performed. The primary outcome was clinical therapy response within 20 weeks, defined as remission (partial Mayo Score ≤ 1 or Harvey-Bradshaw-Index < 5) or partial response (decrease of partial Mayo Score ≥ 2 or a decrease of Harvey-Bradshaw-Index > 3). Secondary outcomes included treatment persistence, endoscopic response, decrease in faecal calprotectin, concomitant medication and safety. Results: After matching, 46 patients per group were analysed (median follow-up: PSC-IBD: 44 months; IBD: 60 months), with a total of 136 treatments administered. The cohort demographics and disease characteristics were balanced between both groups. While clinical response rates did not significantly differ between groups in patients receiving infliximab or vedolizumab, in patients receiving ustekinumab, clinical response rates within the first 20 weeks were significantly lower in the PSC-IBD group (9 of 21, 42.9%) compared with the IBD group (20 of 26, 76.9%; Conclusion: Infliximab and vedolizumab appear equally effective for achieving clinical response in patients with PSC-IBD and IBD, while the early clinical response to ustekinumab was significantly lower in patients with PSC-IBD.
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.