-
Review Meta Analysis Comparative Study
Biological agents for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
- Silvio Danese, Gionata Fiorino, Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, Ersilia Lucenteforte, Gianni Virgili, Lorenzo Moja, and Stefanos Bonovas.
- Ann. Intern. Med. 2014 May 20; 160 (10): 704-11.
BackgroundBiological agents are emerging treatment options for the management of ulcerative colitis (UC).PurposeTo assess the comparative efficacy and harm of biological agents in adult patients with moderately to severely active UC who are naive to biological agents.Data SourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception through December 2013, without language restrictions, and ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web sites.Study SelectionRandomized, placebo-controlled or head-to-head trials assessing biological agents as induction or maintenance therapy for moderately to severely active UC.Data ExtractionTwo reviewers independently abstracted study data and outcomes and rated each trial's risk of bias.Data SynthesisThere were no head-to-head trials. There were 7 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that were rated as low risk of bias and showed that all biological agents (adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, and vedolizumab) resulted in more clinical responses, clinical remissions, and mucosal healings than placebo for induction therapy. The results of network meta-analysis suggested that infliximab is more effective to induce clinical response (odds ratio, 2.36 [95% credible interval, 1.22 to 4.63]) and mucosal healing (odds ratio, 2.02 [95% credible interval, 1.13 to 3.59]) than adalimumab. No other indirect comparison reached statistical significance. For maintenance, 6 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that were rated high risk of bias showed that all biological agents have greater clinical efficacy than placebo. The occurrence of adverse events was not different between biological agents and placebo.LimitationFew trials, no head-to-head comparisons, and inadequate follow-up in maintenance trials.ConclusionBiological agents are effective treatments for UC, but head-to-head trials are warranted to establish the best therapeutic option.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.