Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Adalimumab and Vedolizumab in Treating Moderate to Severe Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Numerous patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) do not respond to conventional or biological therapy. Adalimumab (ADA) and vedolizumab (VDZ), according to certain research, may be a useful alternative treatment for these people. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of using ADA and VDZ to treat moderate to severe IBD: Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods: We searched PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, and WHO trials registry (ICTRP). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ADA or VDZ with placebo in participants with active CD or UC were included. The primary outcomes were the clinical response and remission at induction and maintenance phases and mucosal healing. The secondary outcome was the incidence of profound negative events. The research used Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3 (Biostat Inc., USA). Results: Eighteen RCTs were incorporated, in which 11 studies described the usefulness and safeness of ADA or VDZ in CD patients, and seven studies investigated the efficacy and safety of ADA or VDZ in UC patients. The meta-analysis revealed that both ADA and VDZ treatments were superior to placebo for producing clinical remission and eliciting clinical response at induction and maintenance phases in individuals with moderately to severely active CD or UC. Interestingly, we found that ADA was superior to VDZ as first-line treatment for patients with CD, but not UC. Conclusion: ADA and VDZ are effective and safe in CD and UC patients. However, RCTs of a larger number of patients are still required for better assessing the safety profile of ADA and VDZ.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".