ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Targeted Therapies in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Mechanisms, Comparative Evidence, and Clinical Translation.
Review in Journal of clinical 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), encompassing Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), is a chronic immune-mediated condition with substantial global burden and rising incidence, requiring an expanding range of advanced therapies. This focused narrative review examines the mechanistic rationale, comparative clinical evidence, and translational implications of approved and emerging targeted therapies for adult IBD. A structured literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for publications from January 2021 to March 2026. Thirty-eight articles were selected as the core evidence set with landmark trials and clinical guidelines added when needed for historical or practice context. Evidence was synthesised narratively, with an explicit distinction between direct head-to-head comparisons, placebo-controlled trials, indirect network comparisons, and observational data. In UC, VARSITY showed higher week-52 clinical remission and endoscopic improvement with vedolizumab than adalimumab; in CD after anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) failure, SEQUENCE showed risankizumab noninferior to ustekinumab for week-24 clinical remission and superior for week-48 endoscopic remission. Agents targeting tumour necrosis factor-like cytokine 1A (TL1A) have shown encouraging activity in phase 2/2b trials, but long-term effectiveness and safety remain uncertain. The current evidence supports mechanism-informed rather than biomarker-defined treatment selection. Confidence in comparative conclusions is greatest when supported by direct randomised evidence, whereas observational and indirect comparisons require caution because of confounding, heterogeneity, and differences in populations and outcome definitions. Clinical translation therefore requires the integration of the disease phenotype, prior treatment exposure, safety risks, and patient preference, with objective reassessment after therapy initiation.
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.