-
Cureus Apr 2023This meta-analysis has been conducted to compare ustekinumab and adalimumab as induction or maintenance therapy in patients with moderate to severe Crohn's disease... (Review)
Review
Comparison of Effectiveness and Safety of Ustekinumab and Adalimumab As Induction or Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Moderate to Severe Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
This meta-analysis has been conducted to compare ustekinumab and adalimumab as induction or maintenance therapy in patients with moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD). The current meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Two investigators independently searched online databases including PubMed, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Library for relevant articles published up to April 2023. The initial search terms were "ustekinumab," "adalimumab," and "Crohn's disease". Three studies (with a total of 612 patients) were included in the present meta-analysis. We did not find any significant difference in clinical remission (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.68-2.52), clinical response (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 0.39-4.91), endoscopic remission (OR: 1.56, 95% CI: 0.66-3.64), and steroid-free remission (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.67-1.42) between patients who received ustekinumab and patients who received adalimumab. In conclusion, this meta-analysis provides valuable insights into the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab and adalimumab in the treatment of moderate to severe CD. Our findings indicate that both drugs have similar effectiveness in achieving clinical remission, clinical response, radiological remission and steroid-free remission.
PubMed: 37255887
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.38277 -
Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia 2013Since the discovery of the role of tumor necrosis factor in the physiopathological process of rheumatoid arthritis, five drugs that block this cytokine have been used as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Since the discovery of the role of tumor necrosis factor in the physiopathological process of rheumatoid arthritis, five drugs that block this cytokine have been used as therapeutic options. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. A search of relevant studies in Medline (through PubMed) and LILACS in June 2011 was carried out. Study selection, data collection and analysis were performed in pairs and independently by two reviewers and by a third reviewer in cases of disagreement. The meta-analysis was performed using the software Review Manager® 5.1 using the random effects model. Eleven articles related to adalimumab were included and considered nine studies with 3461 patients. Ten studies showed low risk of bias regarding the blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment. Patients who received the combination treatment of adalimumab and methotrexate showed better efficacy results and lower radiographic progression when compared to placebo + methotrexate in 24-104 weeks. Patients who received adalimumab as monotherapy showed better efficacy outcomes when compared to placebo in 24 and 26 weeks. The results of the meta-analyses of adverse events were not statistically significant, except for reactions at the injection site, which favored the control group. Adalimumab efficacy was demonstrated in monotherapy and when associated to a DMARD, but the evidence for combined use is more robust.
Topics: Adalimumab; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Methotrexate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24316899
DOI: No ID Found -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Feb 2022Adalimumab is a biological therapy used to treat different chronic inflammatory diseases. At present, there is an increasing number of adalimumab biosimilars. To assume... (Review)
Review
AIMS
Adalimumab is a biological therapy used to treat different chronic inflammatory diseases. At present, there is an increasing number of adalimumab biosimilars. To assume the acceptability of interchangeability between reference adalimumab and biosimilars, there should be evidence about efficacy and safety of this switching. Regulation of this practice falls under the authority of individual European Union Member States. The aim of this study is to systematically review the evidence on the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars in different chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.
METHODS
Studies presenting data about switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars were identified by sensitive search strategies in Medline and EMBASE from 1 January 2004 to 30 June 2021.
RESULTS
A total of 471 references were obtained and 21 finally included in the analysis (total number of patients switching: 2802). Eight different adalimumab biosimilars were tested after receiving reference adalimumab. Eight articles included rheumatoid arthritis (RA), one miscellaneous rheumatic disease, six psoriasis (PSO) and six inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Overall, the efficacy results in the switching groups were comparable to those obtained in the arms of continuous biosimilar and continuous reference adalimumab. There were no significant differences in treatment emergent adverse events, anti-drug or neutralising antibodies among the three groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars has no impact on efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with RA, PSO and IBD. This finding was consistent for the different adalimumab biosimilars analysed. These conclusions could probably be extended to other rheumatic diseases such as psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.
Topics: Adalimumab; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Chronic Disease; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Psoriasis; Rheumatic Diseases
PubMed: 34622969
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15101 -
PharmacoEconomics May 2023Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib versus current biologics, considering combinations of first-line (1L) and second-line (2L) therapies, from a Japanese payer's perspective in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC following an inadequate response to conventional therapy and in those who were naïve to biologics.
METHODS
A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted during the time horizon specified in the Markov model, which considers a patient's lifetime as 60 years and an annual discount rate of 2% on costs and effects. The model compared tofacitinib with vedolizumab, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab. The time of active treatment was divided into induction and maintenance phases. Patients not responding to their biologic treatment after induction or during the maintenance phase were switched to a subsequent line of therapy. Treatment response and remission probabilities (for induction and maintenance phases) were obtained through a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis that employed a multinomial analysis with fixed effects. Patient characteristics were sourced from the OCTAVE Induction trials. Mean utilities associated with UC health states and adverse events (AEs) were obtained from published sources. Direct medical costs related to drug acquisition, administration, surgery, patient management, and AEs were derived from the JMDC database analysis, which corresponded with the medical procedure fees from 2021. The drug prices were adjusted to April 2021. Further validation through all processes by clinical experts in Japan was conducted to fit the costs to real-world practices. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were also performed to confirm the accuracy and robustness of the base-case results.
RESULTS
In the base-case, the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib was more cost-effective than vedolizumab, infliximab, golimumab, and ustekinumab for 1L therapies in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (based on the Japanese threshold of 5,000,000 yen/QALY [38,023 United States dollars {USD}/QALY]). The base-case results demonstrated that the incremental costs would be reduced for all biologics, and decreases in incremental QALYs were observed for all biologics other than adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was found to be dominant for adalimumab; for the other biologics, it was found to be less costly and less efficacious. The efficiency frontier on the cost-effectiveness plane indicated that tofacitinib-infliximab and infliximab-tofacitinib were more cost-effective than the other treatment patterns. When infliximab-tofacitinib was compared with tofacitinib-infliximab, the ICER was 282,609,856 yen/QALY (2,149,157 USD/QALY) and the net monetary benefit (NMB) was -12,741,342 yen (-96,894 USD) with a threshold of 5,000,000 yen (38,023 USD) in Japan. Therefore, infliximab-tofacitinib was not acceptable by this threshold, and tofacitinib-infliximab was the cost-effective treatment pattern.
CONCLUSION
The current analysis suggests that the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib is a cost-effective alternative to the biologics for patients with moderate-to-severe UC from a Japanese payer's perspective.
Topics: Humans; Colitis, Ulcerative; Infliximab; Adalimumab; Ustekinumab; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Japan; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Biological Products; Quality-Adjusted Life Years
PubMed: 36884164
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01254-x -
Health Technology Assessment... Nov 2017Non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis and panuveitis are a heterogeneous group of inflammatory eye disorders. Management includes local and systemic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis and panuveitis are a heterogeneous group of inflammatory eye disorders. Management includes local and systemic corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and biological drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous adalimumab (Humira; AbbVie Ltd, Maidenhead, UK) and a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex; Allergan Ltd, Marlow, UK) in adults with non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases and clinical trials registries including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched to June 2016, with an update search carried out in October 2016.
REVIEW METHODS
Review methods followed published guidelines. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and adalimumab, each compared with current practice, from a NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon, parameterised with published evidence. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. Substantial sensitivity analyses were undertaken.
RESULTS
Of the 134 full-text articles screened, three studies (four articles) were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [VISUAL I (active uveitis) and VISUAL II (inactive uveitis)] compared adalimumab with placebo, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Time to treatment failure (reduced visual acuity, intraocular inflammation, new vascular lesions) was longer in the adalimumab group than in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio of 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.70; < 0.001] in the VISUAL I trial and 0.57 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; = 0.004) in the VISUAL II trial. The adalimumab group showed a significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) composite score in the VISUAL I trial (mean difference 4.20; = 0.010) but not the VISUAL II trial (mean difference 2.12; = 0.16). Some systemic adverse effects occurred more frequently with adalimumab than with placebo. One RCT [HURON (active uveitis)] compared a single 0.7-mg dexamethasone implant against a sham procedure, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Dexamethasone provided significant benefits over the sham procedure at 8 and 26 weeks in the percentage of patients with a vitreous haze score of zero ( < 0.014), the mean best corrected visual acuity improvement ( ≤ 0.002) and the percentage of patients with a ≥ 5-point improvement in VFQ-25 score ( < 0.05). Raised intraocular pressure and cataracts occurred more frequently with dexamethasone than with the sham procedure. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for one dexamethasone implant in one eye for a combination of patients with unilateral and bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the HURON trial, was estimated to be £19,509 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ICER of adalimumab for patients with mainly bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the VISUAL trials, was estimated to be £94,523 and £317,547 per QALY gained in active and inactive uveitis respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the rate of blindness has the biggest impact on the model results. The interventions may be more cost-effective in populations in which there is a greater risk of blindness.
LIMITATIONS
The clinical trials did not fully reflect clinical practice. Thirteen additional studies of clinically relevant comparator treatments were identified; however, network meta-analysis was not feasible. The model results are highly uncertain because of the limited evidence base.
CONCLUSIONS
Two RCTs of systemic adalimumab and one RCT of a unilateral, single dexamethasone implant showed significant benefits over placebo or a sham procedure. The ICERs for adalimumab were estimated to be above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone was estimated to fall below standard thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around the model assumptions. In future work, primary research should compare dexamethasone and adalimumab with current treatments over the long term and in important subgroups and consider how short-term improvements relate to long-term effects on vision.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041799.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Adalimumab; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dexamethasone; Humans; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Uveitis, Intermediate; Uveitis, Posterior
PubMed: 29183563
DOI: 10.3310/hta21680 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Nov 2022Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a condition that affects most of the digestive tract. There is no report of fertility reduction in medically managed IBD women... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a condition that affects most of the digestive tract. There is no report of fertility reduction in medically managed IBD women compared with the general population. On the other hand, active IBD can lead to significantly decreased fertility. Over the previous 2 decades, anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) has been an effective treatment for managing patients with IBD, increasing the use of infliximab and adalimumab in clinical practice. However, it is unclear which biologics are better for pregnant women with IBD.
AIM
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis for the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes following treatment with infliximab and adalimumab in women with IBD.
METHODS
Bibliographic databases were retrieved from their inception to July 2022. The results were adverse pregnancy outcomes, including congenital malformations and spontaneous abortion.
RESULTS
A total of 8 studies included 527 pregnant women with IBD. Of these, 343 received infliximab, and 184 received adalimumab therapy. Compared to adalimumab, adverse pregnancy outcomes were not increased in infliximab therapy including congenital malformations and spontaneous abortion.
CONCLUSION
Infliximab and adalimumab therapy did not show the difference of risk in adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with IBD.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO , identifier: CRD 42,021,277,869.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Infliximab; Adalimumab; Pregnancy Outcome; Abortion, Spontaneous; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors; Pregnancy Complications; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
PubMed: 36402978
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-022-05191-z -
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Sep 2016Immunogenicity to therapeutic proteins has been linked to loss of response by a large percentage of patients taking anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha agents. Drug... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Immunogenicity to therapeutic proteins has been linked to loss of response by a large percentage of patients taking anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha agents. Drug monitoring can be extremely useful, allowing physicians to adjust the therapeutic scheme individually. This article aims to systematically review the published data with respect to cutoff levels of infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADA) and relate them to the methodology adopted for quantification of IFX and ADA levels and clinical outcomes.
METHODS
The PubMed database was searched to identify studies focusing on the association between IFX or ADA cutoff levels and clinical outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.
RESULTS
Of the 1654 articles initially selected by queries, 20 were included. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to identify cutoff levels of IFX or ADA that correlated with a clinical outcome, but only 6 studies performed the same analysis for antidrug antibody levels. Cutoff levels were different between studies. The methodology chosen for level quantifications, clinical outcomes, and sample size and characteristics were also different. Nevertheless, measurement of drug levels should be performed during maintenance, and with loss of response, with persistent high levels of C-reactive protein, and when mucosal lesions are still present. In these scenarios, drug and antidrug levels were correlated with clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Concerning drug levels monitoring any methodology is adequate. With respect to antidrug antibody levels, it will be necessary to define a gold standard method or to establish different cutoff levels for different methodologies.
Topics: Adalimumab; C-Reactive Protein; Drug Monitoring; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Infliximab; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 27508512
DOI: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000855 -
Advances in Rheumatology (London,... Mar 2024Psoriatic arthritis (PA) is a chronic inflammatory systemic arthritis that can result in loss of functional capacity and joint deformation. This systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Psoriatic arthritis (PA) is a chronic inflammatory systemic arthritis that can result in loss of functional capacity and joint deformation. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and safety of biological and target synthetic drugs for treating PA.
METHODS
We searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of Adalimumab, Etanercept, Infliximab, Golimumab, Secukinumab, Certolizumab Pegol and Tofacitinib in the main general databases and clinical trial registers databases. The primary outcomes were ACR 50, PsARC, and serious adverse events. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. Network meta-analyses were conducted using a random effects model and frequentist approach. The CINeMA software was used to assess the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
We included 33 RCTs (n = 11,034). The results from the network meta-analysis for the ACR 50 at 6-months follow-up showed that all drugs were superior to placebo, with Secukinumab (high certainty of evidence), Infliximab (very low certainty of evidence) and Adalimumab (high certainty of evidence) ranking the highest. Regarding the PsARC (at 6-months follow-up), all drugs, except for Golimumab (very low certainty of evidence), were superior to placebo, with Etanercept (low certainty of evidence), Infliximab (low certainty of evidence) and Certolizumab Pegol (low certainty of evidence) being the most effective drugs. There were no significant differences in the risk of serious adverse events between the drugs and placebo. Golimumab (very low certainty of evidence), Secukinumab (low certainty of evidence), and Adalimumab (very low certainty of evidence) ranked the highest for safety.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, based on the balance between efficacy and safety, Secukinumab and Adalimumab may be the preferred options among the evaluated drugs for treating patients with PsA. However, caution is necessary when interpreting the safety findings, as they are supported by evidence of low to very low certainty. Consequently, the balance between benefits and potential risks may change as new safety evaluation studies become available.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO: CRD42022315577.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Infliximab; Etanercept; Adalimumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Certolizumab Pegol
PubMed: 38515177
DOI: 10.1186/s42358-024-00361-3 -
JAMA Dermatology Jul 2023Biosimilars have the potential to reduce costs for the management of moderate-to-severe psoriasis compared with originators. However, the extrapolation of evidence...
IMPORTANCE
Biosimilars have the potential to reduce costs for the management of moderate-to-severe psoriasis compared with originators. However, the extrapolation of evidence enables the approval of a biosimilar for use in indications held by the originator without directly being studied in clinical trials. Thus, biosimilars can be approved for psoriasis based on extrapolated evidence from other diseases. The availability of evidence for the effectiveness and safety of biosimilars for the treatment of psoriasis is therefore unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of biosimilars with originator biologics for the treatment of patients with psoriasis.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and The European Union Clinical Trials Register were searched in August 2022. Eligible studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and ROBINS-I tools. All analyses were conducted from September 2022 to November 2022.
FINDINGS
Fourteen trials (10 adalimumab, 2 etanercept, 1 infliximab, and 1 ustekinumab) and 3 cohort studies (1 adalimumab, 1 etanercept, 1 infliximab and etanercept) were included. Twelve trials compared biosimilars with originators in originator-naive patients (starters), and 11 trials compared switching from originator to biosimilar (switchers) with continuous originator treatments. There was no clinically or statistically significant difference in rates of achieving 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores and risks of adverse events (AEs) at week 16 and week 52 between the comparators. Two cohort studies showed no difference in effectiveness and safety outcomes between originators and biosimilars, whereas 1 study reported more AEs in patients who switched to biosimilars of adalimumab at 12 months. Three trials showed low risk of bias, whereas 11 trials had moderate risk of bias. All cohort studies had moderate to high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review, there was no clinically or statistically significant difference in the efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators for the treatment of patients with psoriasis. Most of the available evidence was based on randomized clinical trials, although high-quality real-world evidence was lacking. Future studies are needed to examine the long-term effectiveness and safety of biosimilars for the treatment of patients with psoriasis.
Topics: Humans; Etanercept; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Infliximab; Adalimumab; Psoriasis
PubMed: 37256582
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2023.1338 -
Drugs Jul 2023Budesonide is accepted as first-choice therapy for microscopic colitis (MC); however, symptoms often recur and some patients may be dependent, intolerant, or even fail... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Budesonide is accepted as first-choice therapy for microscopic colitis (MC); however, symptoms often recur and some patients may be dependent, intolerant, or even fail budesonide. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of non-budesonide therapies (thiopurines, bismuth subsalicylate [BSS], bile acid sequestrants [BAS], loperamide and biologics) for MC suggested by international guidelines.
METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases from their inception to 18 April 2023 for the above-mentioned therapeutics in MC. We pooled the response and remission rates by medication using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Twenty-five studies comprising 1475 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Treatment with BSS showed the highest response rate of 75% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.83; I = 70.12%), with 50% achieving remission of symptoms (95% CI 0.35-0.65; I = 71.06%). Treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (infliximab and adalimumab) demonstrated a response rate of 73% (95% CI 0.63-0.83; I = 0.00%), with a remission rate of 44% (95% CI 0.32-0.56; I = 0.00%). The response rate for those treated with vedolizumab was similar; 73% responded to treatment (95% CI 0.57-0.87; I = 35.93%), with a remission rate of 56% (95% CI 0.36-0.75; I = 46.30%). Loperamide was associated with response and remission rates of 62% (95% CI 0.43-0.80; I = 92.99%) and 14% (95% CI 0.07-0.25), respectively, whereas BAS use was associated with response and remission rates of 60% (95% CI 0.51-0.68; I = 61.65%) and 29% (95% CI 0.12-0.55), respectively. Finally, the outcomes for thiopurine use were 49% (95% CI 0.27-0.71; I = 81.45%) and 38% (95% CI 0.23-0.54; I = 50.05%), respectively DISCUSSION: The present systematic review and meta-analysis provides rates of effectiveness of non-budesonide therapies for MC based on available data in the field. Studies in the meta-analysis showed a large amount of heterogeneity due to the variability in assessing the clinical effects of intervention between the studies caused by differences in the definitions of response or remission rates between the studies included. This may likely result in overestimating the benefit of a treatment. Furthermore, the number of participants and drug dosages varied, and only a few studies applied disease-specific activity indices. Only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) was identified. All other 24 included studies were either case series or (retrospective) cohort studies, which complicated efforts to perform further sensitivity analyses to adjust for potential confounders and risk of bias. In addition, the overall evidence on the effect of these treatment options was judged as low, mostly due to comparability bias and the observational nature of the available studies, which limited statistically robust comparisons of rates of effectiveness of the different non-budesonide agents ranked against each other. However, our observational findings may inform clinicians regarding the most rational selection of non-budesonide therapies to patients with MC.
CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION
PROSPERO protocol #CRD42020218649.
Topics: Humans; Budesonide; Loperamide; Salicylates; Colitis, Microscopic
PubMed: 37358712
DOI: 10.1007/s40265-023-01914-4