BACKGROUND AND AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biological agents (vedolizumab, abatacept, visilizumab, golimumab) in patients with active moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. METHODS: This paper was prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and other databases until December 27, 2013 to identify randomized controlled trials fulfilling the established inclusion criteria for this review. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review. Vedolizumab was significantly more effective compared with placebo (P < 0.05) increasing the percentage of patients with a clinical response, clinical remission and mucosal healing in the induction phase, and patients with a clinical remission and mucosal healing in the maintenance phase. Similarly, golimumab was significantly more effective than placebo (P < 0.05) regarding the percentage of patients with a clinical response and mucosal healing in the induction phase, and patients with a clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing in the maintenance phase. The safety of these two biological agents was comparable with placebo during the treatment (P > 0.05). However, the efficacy of visilizumab or abatacept was related to the higher risk of treatment failure and a worse safety profile than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the systematic review demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of particular biological agents are differentiated. Vedolizumab and golimumab occurred more effective, and comparably as safe as placebo in patients with active moderate to severe ulcerative colitis increasing the number of available therapeutic options.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biological agents (vedolizumab, abatacept, visilizumab, golimumab) in patients with active moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. METHODS: This paper was prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and other databases until December 27, 2013 to identify randomized controlled trials fulfilling the established inclusion criteria for this review. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review. Vedolizumab was significantly more effective compared with placebo (P < 0.05) increasing the percentage of patients with a clinical response, clinical remission and mucosal healing in the induction phase, and patients with a clinical remission and mucosal healing in the maintenance phase. Similarly, golimumab was significantly more effective than placebo (P < 0.05) regarding the percentage of patients with a clinical response and mucosal healing in the induction phase, and patients with a clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing in the maintenance phase. The safety of these two biological agents was comparable with placebo during the treatment (P > 0.05). However, the efficacy of visilizumab or abatacept was related to the higher risk of treatment failure and a worse safety profile than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the systematic review demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of particular biological agents are differentiated. Vedolizumab and golimumab occurred more effective, and comparably as safe as placebo in patients with active moderate to severe ulcerative colitis increasing the number of available therapeutic options.