AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of biological agents for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library were searched to screen relevant articles from January 1996 to August 2014. The mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework was performed using WinBUGS14 software. The proportions of patients reaching clinical response, clinical remission and mucosal healing in induction and maintenance phases were analyzed as efficacy indicators. Serious adverse events in maintenance phase were analyzed as safety indicators. RESULTS: The meta-analysis results showed that biological agents achieved better clinical response, clinical remission and mucosal healing than placebo. Indirect comparison indicated that in induction phase, infliximab was more effective than adalimumab in inducing clinical response (OR = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.29-0.57), clinical remission (OR = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.19-0.56) and mucosal healing (OR = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.19-0.56), and golimumab in inducing clinical response (OR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.39-2.33) and mucosal healing (OR = 2.15, 95%CI: 1.18-4.22). No significant difference was found between placebo and biological agents regarding their safety. CONCLUSION: All biological agents were superior to placebo for UC treatment in both induction and maintenance phases with a similar safety profile, and infliximab had a better clinical effect than the other biological agents.
AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of biological agents for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library were searched to screen relevant articles from January 1996 to August 2014. The mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework was performed using WinBUGS14 software. The proportions of patients reaching clinical response, clinical remission and mucosal healing in induction and maintenance phases were analyzed as efficacy indicators. Serious adverse events in maintenance phase were analyzed as safety indicators. RESULTS: The meta-analysis results showed that biological agents achieved better clinical response, clinical remission and mucosal healing than placebo. Indirect comparison indicated that in induction phase, infliximab was more effective than adalimumab in inducing clinical response (OR = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.29-0.57), clinical remission (OR = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.19-0.56) and mucosal healing (OR = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.19-0.56), and golimumab in inducing clinical response (OR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.39-2.33) and mucosal healing (OR = 2.15, 95%CI: 1.18-4.22). No significant difference was found between placebo and biological agents regarding their safety. CONCLUSION: All biological agents were superior to placebo for UC treatment in both induction and maintenance phases with a similar safety profile, and infliximab had a better clinical effect than the other biological agents.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biological agents; Drug safety; Efficacy; Meta-analysis; Ulcerative colitis
Authors: E F Stange; S P L Travis; S Vermeire; W Reinisch; K Geboes; A Barakauskiene; R Feakins; J F Fléjou; H Herfarth; D W Hommes; L Kupcinskas; P L Lakatos; G J Mantzaris; S Schreiber; V Villanacci; B F Warren Journal: J Crohns Colitis Date: 2008-01-18 Impact factor: 9.071
Authors: Mark A Samaan; Preet Bagi; Niels Vande Casteele; Geert R D'Haens; Barrett G Levesque Journal: Gastroenterol Clin North Am Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 3.806
Authors: Walter Reinisch; William J Sandborn; Daniel W Hommes; Geert D'Haens; Stephen Hanauer; Stefan Schreiber; Remo Panaccione; Richard N Fedorak; Mary Beth Tighe; Bidan Huang; Wendy Kampman; Andreas Lazar; Roopal Thakkar Journal: Gut Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Paul Rutgeerts; William J Sandborn; Brian G Feagan; Walter Reinisch; Allan Olson; Jewel Johanns; Suzanne Travers; Daniel Rachmilewitz; Stephen B Hanauer; Gary R Lichtenstein; Willem J S de Villiers; Daniel Present; Bruce E Sands; Jean Frédéric Colombel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-12-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brian G Feagan; Walter Reinisch; Paul Rutgeerts; William J Sandborn; Songkai Yan; Debra Eisenberg; Mohan Bala; Jewel Johanns; Allan Olson; Stephen B Hanauer Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2007-02-23 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Brian G Feagan; Paul Rutgeerts; Bruce E Sands; Stephen Hanauer; Jean-Frédéric Colombel; William J Sandborn; Gert Van Assche; Jeffrey Axler; Hyo-Jong Kim; Silvio Danese; Irving Fox; Catherine Milch; Serap Sankoh; Tim Wyant; Jing Xu; Asit Parikh Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-08-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William J Sandborn; Brian G Feagan; Colleen Marano; Hongyan Zhang; Richard Strauss; Jewel Johanns; Omoniyi J Adedokun; Cynthia Guzzo; Jean-Frederic Colombel; Walter Reinisch; Peter R Gibson; Judith Collins; Gunnar Järnerot; Toshifumi Hibi; Paul Rutgeerts Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-06-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: A Cholapranee; G S Hazlewood; G G Kaplan; L Peyrin-Biroulet; A N Ananthakrishnan Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Adrian D Vickers; Claire Ainsworth; Reema Mody; Annika Bergman; Caroline S Ling; Jasmina Medjedovic; Michael Smyth Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Fumi Varyani; Konstantinos Argyriou; Frank Phillips; Eirini Tsakiridou; Gordon William Moran Journal: Drug Des Devel Ther Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 4.162