Vedolizumab for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis: A cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

71Citations
Citations of this article
126Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: We performed a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Methods: A literature search to June 2014 identified all applicable randomized trials. Outcome measures were clinical and endoscopic remission, clinical and endoscopic response, quality of life, and adverse events. The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for each outcome. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The GRADE criteria were used to assess the quality of the evidence. Main Results: Four studies (606 patients) were included. The risk of bias was low. Pooled analyses indicated that vedolizumab was significantly superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR 0.86, 95% CI, 0.80-0.91), clinical response (RR 0.82, 95% CI, 0.75-0.91), endoscopic remission (RR 0.82, 95% CI, 0.75-0.91), and for achieving remission at 52 weeks in week 6 responders (RR 2.73, 95% CI, 1.78-4.18). GRADE analyses suggested that the overall quality of the evidence was high for induction of remission and moderate for maintenance therapy (due to sparse data consisting of 246 events). No statistically significant difference was observed in the incidence of adverse events between vedolizumab and placebo. Conclusions: Vedolizumab is superior to placebo as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. Future studies are needed to define long-term efficacy and safety of this agent.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mosli, M. H., Macdonald, J. K., Bickston, S. J., Behm, B. W., Tsoulis, D. J., Cheng, J., … Feagan, B. G. (2015). Vedolizumab for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis: A cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 21(5), 1151–1159. https://doi.org/10.1097/MIB.0000000000000396

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free