ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of subcutaneous vedolizumab versus other targeted inflammatory bowel therapies in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: a network meta-analysis update.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
backgroundThe growing number of targeted inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapies available for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis has increased the complexity of treatment decisions for clinicians. Clinical decision-making is further hindered by a paucity of head-to-head clinical trials comparing the relative efficacy and safety of available targeted IBD therapies; however, network meta-analyses (NMAs) can indirectly compare treatments.
methodsNetworks of evidence were formed from 29 randomized controlled trials of targeted IBD therapies. To address differences in study design, adjustments were made to the treat-through trials in order to mimic a re-randomization design. A Bayesian NMA was conducted with the primary analysis using fixed-effect models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for efficacy and safety outcomes.
resultsThere was no significant difference in the maintenance of clinical response or clinical remission of any targeted IBD therapy relative to vedolizumab 108 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) subcutaneously (SC), except for adalimumab 40 mg every other week (EOW) SC, which had significantly lower odds (clinical response: OR, 0.36; 95% CrI, 0.17-0.76; clinical remission: OR, 0.35; 95% CrI, 0.16-0.75). The odds of experiencing overall adverse events were significantly higher for patients receiving placebo and treatment regimens for six targeted IBD therapies (adalimumab, etrasimod, golimumab, infliximab, ozanimod, and tofacitinib) than those receiving vedolizumab 108 mg Q2W SC. The odds of serious adverse events were not significantly different between any targeted IBD therapy and vedolizumab 108 mg Q2W SC. The odds of overall infections were significantly higher for those receiving treatment regimens for three targeted IBD therapies (golimumab, ozanimod, and tofacitinib) than those receiving vedolizumab 108 mg Q2W SC; the odds for other treatments were not significantly different.
conclusionsThe results of this NMA update indicate that vedolizumab SC demonstrates efficacy that is either superior or not significantly different from other targeted IBD therapies, including established biologics and novel oral therapies, and a safety profile that is superior or not significantly different with regard to overall adverse events and overall infections. The efficacy and safety of intravenous vedolizumab is equivalent to that of vedolizumab SC.
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.