Comparative efficacy and safety of subcutaneous vedolizumab versus other targeted inflammatory bowel therapies in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: a network meta-analysis update.
- 1Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA.
- 2IQVIA, San Francisco, CA, USA.
- 3Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA. [email protected].
Abstract
Background
The growing number of targeted inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapies available for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis has increased the complexity of treatment decisions for clinicians. Clinical decision-making is further hindered by a paucity of head-to-head clinical trials comparing the relative efficacy and safety of available targeted IBD therapies; however, network meta-analyses (NMAs) can indirectly compare treatments.Methods
Networks of evidence were formed from 29 randomized controlled trials of targeted IBD therapies. To address differences in study design, adjustments were made to the treat-through trials in order to mimic a re-randomization design. A Bayesian NMA was conducted with the primary analysis using fixed-effect models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for efficacy and safety outcomes.Results
There was no significant difference in the maintenance of clinical response or clinical remission of any targeted IBD therapy relative to vedolizumab 108 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) subcutaneously (SC), except for adalimumab 40 mg every other week (EOW) SC, which had significantly lower odds (clinical response: OR, 0.36; 95% CrI, 0.17-0.76; clinical remission: OR, 0.35; 95% CrI, 0.16-0.75). The odds of experiencing overall adverse events were significantly higher for patients receiving placebo and treatment regimens for six targeted IBD therapies (adalimumab, etrasimod, golimumab, infliximab, ozanimod, and tofacitinib) than those receiving vedolizumab 108 mg Q2W SC. The odds of serious adverse events were not significantly different between any targeted IBD therapy and vedolizumab 108 mg Q2W SC. The odds of overall infections were significantly higher for those receiving treatment regimens for three targeted IBD therapies (golimumab, ozanimod, and tofacitinib) than those receiving vedolizumab 108 mg Q2W SC; the odds for other treatments were not significantly different.Conclusions
The results of this NMA update indicate that vedolizumab SC demonstrates efficacy that is either superior or not significantly different from other targeted IBD therapies, including established biologics and novel oral therapies, and a safety profile that is superior or not significantly different with regard to overall adverse events and overall infections. The efficacy and safety of intravenous vedolizumab is equivalent to that of vedolizumab SC.
Related
- Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients’ Acceptance for Switching from Intravenous Infliximab or Vedolizumab to Subcutaneous Formulation: The Nancy Experience
- Comparative Safety of Ustekinumab and Vedolizumab in Older Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Bicentric Cohort Study
- Exploratory baseline mucosal transcriptomics and vedolizumab response in ulcerative colitis
- Biologic and small-molecule therapies for inflammatory bowel disease: mechanisms, comparative evidence and the emerging pipeline
- Associations between redox-related biomarkers and treatment response in patients with inflammatory bowel disease initiating infliximab or vedolizumab
BibTeX
@article{jiang2026comparative,
title = {{Comparative efficacy and safety of subcutaneous vedolizumab versus other targeted inflammatory bowel therapies in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: a network meta-analysis update.}},
author = {Jeanne Jiang and Abigail Wojtowicz and Jennifer Uyei and He Jin and Kristina Lindsley and Marie Sanchirico},
journal = {BMC gastroenterology},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1186/s12876-026-04804-7},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42907748},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Comparative efficacy and safety of subcutaneous vedolizumab versus other targeted inflammatory bowel therapies in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: a network meta-analysis update.
AU - Jeanne Jiang
AU - Abigail Wojtowicz
AU - Jennifer Uyei
AU - He Jin
AU - Kristina Lindsley
AU - Marie Sanchirico
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/01
JO - BMC gastroenterology
DO - 10.1186/s12876-026-04804-7
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42907748
AB - Background The growing number of targeted inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapies available for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis has increased the complexity of treatment decisions for clinicians. Clinical decision-making is further hindered by a paucity of head-to-head clinical trials comparing the relative efficacy and safety of available targeted IBD therapies; however, network meta-analyses (NMAs) can indirectly compare treatments.Methods Networks of evidence were formed from 29 randomized controlled trials of targeted IBD therapies. To address differences in study design, adjustments were made to the treat-through trials in order to mimic a re-randomization design. A Bayesian NMA was conducted with the primary analysis using fixed-effect models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for efficacy and safety outcomes.Results There was no significant difference in the maintenance of clinical response or clinical remission of any targeted IBD therapy relative to vedolizumab 108 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) subcutaneously (SC), except for adalimumab 40 mg every other week (EOW) SC, which had significantly lower odds (clinical response: OR, 0.36; 95% CrI, 0.17-0.76; clinical remission: OR, 0.35; 95% CrI, 0.16-0.75). The odds of experiencing overall adverse events were significantly higher for patients receiving placebo and treatment regimens for six targeted IBD therapies (adalimumab, etrasimod, golimumab, infliximab, ozanimod, and tofacitinib) than those receiving vedolizumab 108 mg Q2W SC. The odds of serious adverse events were not significantly different between any targeted IBD therapy and vedolizumab 108 mg Q2W SC. The odds of overall infections were significantly higher for those receiving treatment regimens for three targeted IBD therapies (golimumab, ozanimod, and tofacitinib) than those receiving vedolizumab 108 mg Q2W SC; the odds for other treatments were not significantly different.Conclusions The results of this NMA update indicate that vedolizumab SC demonstrates efficacy that is either superior or not significantly different from other targeted IBD therapies, including established biologics and novel oral therapies, and a safety profile that is superior or not significantly different with regard to overall adverse events and overall infections. The efficacy and safety of intravenous vedolizumab is equivalent to that of vedolizumab SC.
SN - 1471-230X
ER -