Systematic review: Infliximab therapy in ulcerative colitis

127Citations
Citations of this article
121Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Aim: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerance of infliximab in ulcerative colitis. Methods: Selection of studies: evaluating efficacy of infliximab in ulcerative colitis. For the meta-analysis, randomized clinical trials comparing infliximab vs. placebo/steroids. Search strategy: electronic and manual. Study quality: independently assessed by two reviewers. Data synthesis: meta-analysis combining the odds ratios (OR). Results: Thirty-four studies (896 patients) evaluated infliximab therapy in UC, with heterogeneous results. Mean short-term (2.3 weeks) response and remission with infliximab was 68% (95% CI 65-71%) and 40% (36-44%). Mean long-term (8.9 months) response and remission was 53% (49-56%) and 39% (35-42%). Five randomized double-blind studies compared infliximab with placebo, the meta-analysis showing an advantage (P < 0.001) of infliximab in all endpoints (short-/long-term response/remission): ORs from 2.7 to 4.6, and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) from 3 to 5. Similar infliximab response was calculated independently of the indication (steroid-refractory/non-steroid- refractory) or the dose (5/10 mg/kg). Adverse effects were reported in 83% and 75% of the infliximab and placebo-treated patients (OR = 1.52; 95% CI 1.03-2.24; number-needed-to-harm (NNH) was 14). Conclusion: Infliximab is more effective than placebo, with an NNT from 3 to 5, for the treatment of moderate-to-severe UC, achieving clinical remission in 40% of the patients at approximately 9 months of follow-up. Further studies are necessary to confirm the long-term efficacy of infliximab in ulcerative colitis. © 2007 The Authors.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gisbert, J. P., González-Lama, Y., & Maté, J. (2007). Systematic review: Infliximab therapy in ulcerative colitis. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 25(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03131.x

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