SYSTEMATIC REVIEW/META-ANALYSIS
An indirect comparison of infliximab versus adalimumab or golimumab for active ulcerative colitis
 
More details
Hide details
Submission date: 2015-05-13
Final revision date: 2015-10-03
Acceptance date: 2015-10-19
Online publication date: 2016-03-22
Publication date: 2016-08-31
 
Arch Med Sci 2016;12(5):1097–1109
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Thea im of the study was to compare adalimumab or golimumab with infliximab in patients with moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (UC).
Material and methods: This paper was prepared according to the PRISMA guidelines. The systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. No direct head-to-head comparisons for infliximab vs. adalimumab or golimumab were available so an indirect comparison according to the Bucher method was performed after a homogeneity evaluation of the included studies.
Results: Six RCTs were included in the systematic review. An indirect comparison was performed, which revealed that infliximab was more effective in inducing clinical response compared with both doses of adalimumab (160/80 mg or 80/40mg; p < 0.05), and, in clinical remission, infliximab was more effective than adalimumab (only for a dosage regime of 80/40 mg; p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences in clinical response and clinical remission were observed between infliximab and golimumab in the induction phase. A significant (p < 0.05) advantage only of infliximab compared with adalimumab at doses of 80 mg/40 mg and 80/160 mg was seen in terms of clinical response in the maintenance phase (up to 52–54 weeks). The indirect comparison revealed that serious adverse events were significantly more frequent among patients treated with a maintenance dose of 100 mg of golimumab compared with those treated with infliximab (p < 0.05).
Conclusions: No significant differences in efficacy in the maintenance phase between infliximab and golimumab or adalimumab were revealed. Infliximab proved to be more effective than adalimumab but of similar efficacy to that of golimumab in the induction phase.
eISSN:1896-9151
ISSN:1734-1922