Network Meta-Analysis: Efficacy of Biological Therapies and Small Molecules as Maintenance Therapy in Ulcerative Colitis.

Authors

Brigida Barberio, David J Gracie, Christopher J Black, Alexander C Ford

Published in

Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. May 23, 2025. Epub May 23, 2025.

Abstract

Numerous biologics and small molecules are licensed as maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis (UC). Differences in the design of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have not been considered when comparing efficacy between them.
To examine the relative efficacy of biologics and small molecules by network meta-analysis according to trial design.
We searched the literature to 27 February 2025 for RCTs. We judged efficacy using clinical remission, endoscopic improvement, endoscopic remission, or corticosteroid-free remission and according to previous exposure or non-exposure to advanced therapies. Random effects model with data reported as pooled relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI); drugs ranked by p-score.
We identified 28 RCTs, 16 re-randomising 6568 patients and 12 treating through 3771 patients. In re-randomised studies, upadacitinib 30 mg o.d. ranked first for clinical remission (RR of failure to achieve clinical remission = 0.52; 95% CI 0.44-0.61, p-score 0.99) and endoscopic improvement (RR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.35-0.52, p-score 0.99). Vedolizumab 300 mg 4-weekly ranked first for endoscopic remission (RR = 0.73; 95% CI 0.64-0.84, p-score 0.92) and guselkumab 200 mg 4-weekly first for corticosteroid-free remission (RR = 0.40; 95% CI 0.28-0.55, p-score 0.95). In treat-through studies, etrasimod 2 mg o.d. ranked first for clinical remission (RR = 0.73; 95% CI 0.64-0.83, p-score 0.88) and infliximab 10 mg/kg 8-weekly first for endoscopic improvement (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.56-0.74, p-score 0.94).
In network meta-analysis, upadacitinib and etrasimod were consistently efficacious as maintenance therapy in UC.

PMID:
40407729
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 23 May 2025.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.