Evidence Hub

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

Mohammad Shehab, F. Alrashed, A. AlSayegh, U. Aldallal, Christopher Ma, N. Narula, V. Jairath, Siddharth Singh et al.

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2024

14,270 participants · 61 citations

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 (RCTs) 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 RCT 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…

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: 14,270 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