IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0293655.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An indirect comparison of efficacy including histologic assessment and safety in biologic therapy in ulcerative colitis: Systemic review and network meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Kyungsun Chae
  • Yeon Sook Seo
  • Yun Mi Yu
  • Min Jung Chang
  • Junjeong Choi

Abstract

Backgrounds and aims: There are currently no studies comparing histologic remission of FDA-approved biologics for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC), except for one head-to-head VARSITY trial. The current study employs a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy, including histologic remission and safety of biologic agents for UC. Methods: Using four electronic databases, including Pubmed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, a search was conducted of all literature published until September 2022. Included were studies of randomized controlled trials with adult patients with moderate to severe UC using biologics approved by the FDA. An odd ratio with a 95 percent credible interval and ranking information was calculated for each endpoint. Results: The results of the network meta-analysis did not reveal statistically significant differences among biological agents. However, the ranking information for each biological agent exhibited the following patterns. Vedolizumab was ranked first for overall efficacy endpoints in the maintenance phase, including histologic remission. Except for histologic remission, Ustekinumab was identified as the top-ranked drug for induction phase efficacy endpoints other than histologic remission. Adalimumab was identified as the top-ranked drug for maintenance phase corticosteroid-free remission. Vedolizumab was identified as the top-ranked drug in the induction phase for Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAE). Adalimumab was identified as the top-ranked drug in the induction phase for infection. For TEAE and infection in the maintenance phase and Treatment Emergent Severe Adverse Events (TESAE) in both the induction and maintenance phases, Ustekinumab was determined to be the top-ranked medication. Conclusions: Including histologic remission, for the overall efficacy endpoints in the maintenance phase, VDZ was identified as the first rank drug, but there was no statistically significant difference between biologics. Therefore, the generalization of the results of this study is bounded due to the intrinsic limitations of the study provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Kyungsun Chae & Yeon Sook Seo & Yun Mi Yu & Min Jung Chang & Junjeong Choi, 2023. "An indirect comparison of efficacy including histologic assessment and safety in biologic therapy in ulcerative colitis: Systemic review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(11), pages 1-15, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0293655
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293655
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0293655
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0293655&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0293655?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0293655. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.