Comparative Efficacy of Biologics and Small Molecule in Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

IF 11.6 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Mohammad Shehab, Fatema Alrashed, Abdulwahab Alsayegh, Usama Aldallal, Christopher Ma, Neeraj Narula, Vipul Jairath, Siddharth Singh, Talat Bessissow
{"title":"Comparative Efficacy of Biologics and Small Molecule in Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.","authors":"Mohammad Shehab, Fatema Alrashed, Abdulwahab Alsayegh, Usama Aldallal, Christopher Ma, Neeraj Narula, Vipul Jairath, Siddharth Singh, Talat Bessissow","doi":"10.1016/j.cgh.2024.07.033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background & aims: </strong>Treatment options for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) are increasing rapidly, but the lack of comparative efficacy trials makes treatment choices a clinical challenge. This network-meta-analysis aimed to compare the relative efficacy of biologics and small molecules in achieving remission in patients with moderate to severe UC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The literature was searched up to May 2024. Phase 3 placebo or active comparator randomized controlled trials were included. The primary outcome was induction and maintenance of endoscopic improvement (Mayo Endoscopic Score [MES] ≤1). Secondary outcomes were the induction and maintenance of clinical remission, endoscopic (MES = 0) and histological remission. A sub-analysis was performed based on the randomized controlled trial design and previous exposure to biologic therapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 36 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with 14,270 patients with UC. Upadacitinib ranked highest in inducing clinical remission (99.6%), and endoscopic improvement (99.2%), followed by risankizumab (91.4%) and (82.3%), respectively. In maintenance of endoscopic improvement, upadacitinib ranked first (98.6%) followed by filgotinib 200 mg (79.2%). Risankizumab ranked first in the induction of histological remission (89.4%), followed by guselkumab (88.3%). Upadacitinib ranked first (93.1%) in maintaining histological remission, followed by guselkumab (89.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Upadacitinib appears to be superior to other therapies in achieving clinical remission, endoscopic improvement and remission, and histological remission. Furthermore, novel biologics such as risankizumab and guselkumab ranked high in achieving these outcomes. This study highlights the efficacy of small molecule drugs and novel selective interleukin-23s as alternatives to other biologics.</p>","PeriodicalId":10347,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2024.07.033","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background & aims: Treatment options for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) are increasing rapidly, but the lack of comparative efficacy trials makes treatment choices a clinical challenge. This network-meta-analysis aimed to compare the relative efficacy of biologics and small molecules in achieving remission in patients with moderate to severe UC.

Methods: The literature was searched up to May 2024. Phase 3 placebo or active comparator randomized controlled trials were included. The primary outcome was induction and maintenance of endoscopic improvement (Mayo Endoscopic Score [MES] ≤1). Secondary outcomes were the induction and maintenance of clinical remission, endoscopic (MES = 0) and histological remission. A sub-analysis was performed based on the randomized controlled trial design and previous exposure to biologic therapy.

Results: We identified 36 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with 14,270 patients with UC. Upadacitinib ranked highest in inducing clinical remission (99.6%), and endoscopic improvement (99.2%), followed by risankizumab (91.4%) and (82.3%), respectively. In maintenance of endoscopic improvement, upadacitinib ranked first (98.6%) followed by filgotinib 200 mg (79.2%). Risankizumab ranked first in the induction of histological remission (89.4%), followed by guselkumab (88.3%). Upadacitinib ranked first (93.1%) in maintaining histological remission, followed by guselkumab (89.5%).

Conclusion: Upadacitinib appears to be superior to other therapies in achieving clinical remission, endoscopic improvement and remission, and histological remission. Furthermore, novel biologics such as risankizumab and guselkumab ranked high in achieving these outcomes. This study highlights the efficacy of small molecule drugs and novel selective interleukin-23s as alternatives to other biologics.

生物制剂和小分子药物在溃疡性结肠炎中的疗效比较:系统综述与网络 Meta 分析》。
背景与目的:中度至重度溃疡性结肠炎(UC)的治疗方案正在迅速增加,但由于缺乏疗效比较试验,治疗选择成为临床难题。这项网络-荟萃分析旨在比较生物制剂和小分子药物对中重度溃疡性结肠炎患者获得缓解的相对疗效:方法:检索截至 2024 年 5 月的文献。方法:检索了截至2024年5月的文献,纳入了3期安慰剂或活性对比剂随机对照试验(RCT)。主要结果是诱导和维持内镜改善(梅奥内镜评分 [MES] ≤1)。次要结果是诱导和维持临床缓解、内镜(MES = 0)和组织学缓解。根据 RCT 设计和既往接受生物疗法的情况进行了子分析:我们确定了符合纳入标准的 36 项研究,共纳入 14,270 名 UC 患者。在诱导临床缓解(99.6%)和内镜改善(99.2%)方面,乌达替尼排名第一,其次分别是利桑珠单抗(91.4%)和(82.3%)。在维持内镜改善方面,达帕替尼排名第一(98.6%),其次是菲戈替尼 200 毫克(79.2%)。在诱导组织学缓解方面,利桑珠单抗排名第一(89.4%)。其次是 Guselkumab(88.3%)。在维持组织学缓解方面,乌达替尼排名第一(93.1%),其次是古谢库单抗(89.5%):结论:在实现临床缓解、内镜改善和缓解以及组织学缓解方面,乌达替尼似乎优于其他疗法。此外,新型生物制剂,如利桑珠单抗和古舍库单抗,在取得这些疗效方面也名列前茅。这项研究强调了小分子药物和新型选择性 IL-23s 作为其他生物制剂替代品的疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
903
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH) is dedicated to offering readers a comprehensive exploration of themes in clinical gastroenterology and hepatology. Encompassing diagnostic, endoscopic, interventional, and therapeutic advances, the journal covers areas such as cancer, inflammatory diseases, functional gastrointestinal disorders, nutrition, absorption, and secretion. As a peer-reviewed publication, CGH features original articles and scholarly reviews, ensuring immediate relevance to the practice of gastroenterology and hepatology. Beyond peer-reviewed content, the journal includes invited key reviews and articles on endoscopy/practice-based technology, health-care policy, and practice management. Multimedia elements, including images, video abstracts, and podcasts, enhance the reader's experience. CGH remains actively engaged with its audience through updates and commentary shared via platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信