Author
Listed:
- Yanan Xu
- Wenshuo Jiang
- Meizhu Jiang
- Bin Zhu
- Jiping Huo
- Mingfen Wu
- Li Yang
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapies for ulcerative colitis (UC), promoting more precise management of refractory ulcerative colitis. Methods: Relevant randomized controlled trials involving refractory UC patients were systematically searched in electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted by three investigators. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for key outcomes: remission, response, mucosal healing, and serious adverse events using random-effects models. Network meta-analysis, utilizing a frequency model, established comparative rankings, with surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) determining optimal treatments. Results: A total of nineteen studies, containing 5,450 patients, were included. In the induction phase, Qing-Chang-Hua-Shi emerged as the most effective drug for remission (RR vs placebo 0.78, 95% CI 0.64–0.95; SUCRA, 0.89). Cyclosporine showed the most promising effect for treatment response (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07–0.67; SUCRA, 0.90). Tacrolimus was most effective in terms of mucosal healing (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44–0.73; SUCRA, 0.89). Recombinant interferon-β-1a exhibited the lowest risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01–0.62; SUCRA, 0.94). Conclusion: No single drug demonstrated consistent superiority across all four evaluated outcomes for refractory ulcerative colitis. Treatment strategies should therefore be individualized according to specific clinical objectives and the quality of available evidence.
Suggested Citation
Yanan Xu & Wenshuo Jiang & Meizhu Jiang & Bin Zhu & Jiping Huo & Mingfen Wu & Li Yang, 2025.
"Second-line treatment strategies of ulcerative colitis after conventional therapy failure: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(12), pages 1-12, December.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0337222
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0337222
Download full text from publisher
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:pone00:0337222. 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.