MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412662528 · doi:10.14740/wjon2613

Efficacy of Infliximab Versus Vedolizumab in the Management of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4412662528 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Shreya Shambhavi, Harmanjeet Singh, Ganesh Ramaprasad, Murod Khikmatov, Varun Vankeshwaram, Kumar Ashish, Carlos Valladares, Tanushree Bhatt, Seth D. Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVedolizumabMedicineInfliximabMeta-analysisColitisInternal medicineSystematic reviewGastroenterologyMEDLINEUlcerative colitisTumor necrosis factor alphaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can cause severe gastrointestinal immune-related adverse events (irAEs), often leading to treatment interruption and increased morbidity. Immune-mediated colitis (IMC) ranges from mild diarrhea to life-threatening colitis, sometimes requiring urgent intervention. While corticosteroids are the first-line treatment, selective immunosuppressive therapy (SIT) with either infliximab or vedolizumab is used for steroid-refractory or dependent cases. However, standardized practices are lacking, and treatment decisions are largely left to provider discretion. This study compares infliximab and vedolizumab for IMC, focusing on remission rates, recurrence, SIT dosing, and systemic steroid exposure duration. Methods: We identified six retrospective cohort studies that compared infliximab with vedolizumab in the treatment of IMC through a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Web of Science in English from inception until October 2024. From the identified literature, we extracted pertinent data such as remission and recurrence of IMC. Pooled analysis and heterogeneity analysis were performed using R Studio version 4.4.1. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: A total of six studies with 645 patients were included. In ICI-associated colitis, vedolizumab was associated with lower recurrence rates (odds ratio (OR): 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.15 - 0.54) and shorter systemic steroid exposure (mean difference (MD): -16.88 days, 95% CI: -20.47 to -13.30) compared to infliximab. While vedolizumab showed improved remission, there was no statistically significant difference in remission rates between vedolizumab and infliximab monotherapy (OR: 3.16, 95% CI: 0.29 - 34.01). Remission was achieved with fewer doses of infliximab than vedolizumab (MD: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.09 - 2.22). The mean number of vedolizumab doses was 2.57 (raw mean score (MRAW): 2.57, 95% CI: 1.43 - 2.71), while the mean number of infliximab doses was 1.36 (MRAW: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.69 - 2.02). Conclusions: Among patients with ICI-induced colitis, vedolizumab demonstrated superiority over infliximab by being associated with lower rates of colitis recurrence and decreased systemic steroid exposure, although it required a higher number of doses compared to infliximab.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.044
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207