Evidence Hub

Efficacy of Biologic Agents and Small Molecules for Endoscopic Improvement and Mucosal Healing in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Christos Mademlis, A. Katsoula, T. Koufakis, P. Paschos, Aristeidis Kefas, Lefteris Teperikidis, Niki Theodoridou, Olga Giouleme

Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2025

14,369 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background and Aim: The therapeutic landscape for ulcerative colitis (UC) is rapidly evolving, with an increasing number of biologic agents available. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) data on biologic therapies for achieving key endoscopic and histologic endpoints in moderate to severe UC. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and grey literature was conducted through November 2024. Separate meta-analyses were performed for induction and maintenance. A random-effects model was used to estimate relative risks (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and confidence in estimates was evaluated with the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Results: We included 40 RCTs (13 therapies, 14,369 patients). Thirty-two trials provided data in induction and twenty-eight in maintenance. During induction, all biologic therapies, except mirikizumab and filgotinib 100 mg, demonstrated superiority over placebo (RR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.76–2.31, I2 = 72%) for endoscopic improvement. Upadacitinib showed the highest efficacy (RR 5.53, 95% CI: 3.78–8.09). For mucosal healing, all interventions were superior to placebo (RR 2.95, 95% CI: 2.11–4.13, I2 = 61%), except filgotinib 100 mg. Risankizumab showed the highest efficacy (RR 10.25, 95% CI: 2.49–42.11). In maintenance, all therapies showed superiority over placebo for endoscopic improvement. For mucosal…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 14,369 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free