Abstract
BACKGROUND: Only one head-to-head comparison of advanced treatments in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) has been published; therefore, there remains a need for further comparisons. AIM: The relative treatment effects of filgotinib and adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, tofacitinib, ustekinumab and vedolizumab were estimated using a network meta-analysis (NMA). METHOD: Systematically identified studies (MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library; searched: inception-May 2019, updated November 2020) investigating treatments for moderately to severely active UC were re-evaluated for inclusion in a Bayesian NMA (fixed-effects model). Relative treatment effects were estimated using different permutations of patient population (biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced), treatment phase (induction or maintenance) and outcomes (MCS response/remission or endoscopic mucosal healing). RESULTS: Seventeen trials (13 induction; 9 maintenance) were included in the NMA; 8 treatment networks were constructed. Most targeted therapies were superior to placebo in terms of MCS response/remission and endoscopic mucosal healing; filgotinib 200 mg was similar to most other treatments. Infliximab 5 mg/kg was superior to filgotinib 200 mg (biologic-naïve; induction) for MCS response/remission (mean relative effect, 0.34 [95% credible interval: 0.05, 0.62]). Filgotinib 200 mg was superior to adalimumab 160/80/40 mg for MCS response/remission (biologic-experienced; induction; - 0.75 [- 1.16, - 0.35]), and endoscopic mucosal healing (biologic-naïve; maintenance; - 0.90 [- 1.89, - 0.01]); and to golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks (biologic-naïve; maintenance; - 0.46 [- 0.94, 0]) for MCS response/remission. CONCLUSION: The current treatment landscape benefits patients with moderately to severely active UC, improving key outcomes; filgotinib 200 mg was similar to current standard of care in most outcomes.