Activity and Safety of Tegafur, Gimeracil, and Oteracil Potassium for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In clinical practice, tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil potassium (S-1) therapy is commonly administered to treat nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, its efficacy and safety remain controversial in both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of S-1 treatment for NPC. We searched PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and VIP databases for RCTs of chemotherapy with or without S-1 for NPC, from 2001 to 2020. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 and Stata15. Randomized controlled trials published in journals were included irrespective of blinding and language used. Patients were diagnosed with NPC through a clinicopathological examination; patients of all cancer stages and ages were included. Overall, 25 trials and 1858 patients were included. There were significant differences in the complete remission (OR = 2.42, 95% CI (1.88–3.10), P < 0.05 ) and overall response rate (OR = 2.68, 95% CI (2.08–3.45), P < 0.05 ) between the S-1 and non-S-1 groups. However, there was no significant difference in partial remission (OR = 1.10, 95% CI (0.87–1.39), P = 0.42 ) and seven adverse reactions (leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, dermatitis, oral mucositis, and anemia) between the S-1 and non-S-1 groups. Additionally, statistical analyses with six subgroups were performed. S-1 was found to be a satisfactory chemotherapeutic agent combined with radiotherapy, intravenous chemotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy for NPC. As an oral medicine, the adverse reactions of S-1, especially gastrointestinal reactions, can be tolerated by patients, thereby optimizing their quality of life. S-1 may be a better choice for the treatment of NPC. This trial is registered with CRD42019122041.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Sinomenine Preparation for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Randomized Controlled Trials

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2020/4593412 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2020 ◽

pp. 1-16

Author(s):

Shan-Shan Lin ◽

Chun-Xiang Liu ◽

Jun-Hua Zhang ◽

Hui Wang ◽

Jing-Bo Zhai ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Morning Stiffness ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Objectives. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of sinomenine preparation (SP) for treating ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods. Clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SP for treating AS were systematically identified in six electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Wanfang Databases from the inception up to 31 October 2019. Cochrane’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality and Review Manager 5.3 software was used to analyze data. Results. A total of 12 RCTs involving 835 patients were finally included. According to interventions, RCTs were divided into two types. The intervention in 10 RCTs was SP combined with conventional pharmacotherapy (CPT) versus CPT and that in 2 RCTs was SP alone versus CPT. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with CPT alone, SP combined with oral CPT has better improvement in BASDAI (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.31, −0.37], P=0.01), morning stiffness time (WMD = −13.46, 95% CI [−16.12, −10.79], P<0.00001), the Schober test (WMD = 1.26, 95% CI [0.72, 1.80], P<0.00001), the occipital wall test (WMD = −0.55, 95% CI [−0.96, −0.14], P=0.009), the finger-to-ground distance (WMD = −3.28, 95% CI [−5.64, −0.93], P=0.006), 15 m walking time (WMD = −8.81, 95% CI [−13.42, −4.20], P=0.0002), the C-reactive protein (CRP) (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.24, −0.45], P=0.01), and the total effective rate (RR = 1.10, 95% CI [1.01, 1.20], P=0.03). Besides, it also showed that oral SP alone may be more effective in improving morning stiffness time (WMD = −31.89, 95% CI [−34.91, −28.87], P<0.00001) compared with CPT alone. However, this study cannot provide evidence that loading the injectable SP based on CPT can significantly increase the efficacy due to the insufficient number of studies included. In terms of adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. Conclusions. This study shows that oral SP may be effective and safe in the treatment of AS. Due to the low methodological quality of the included RCTs and the limitations of the meta-analysis, it is still necessary to carry out more multicenter, large-sample, and high-quality RCTs to further verify the conclusions. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018099170), and the review was constructed following the PRISMA guidelines (Annex 1).

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Banxia Formulae for Insomnia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of High-Quality Randomized Controlled Trials

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2021/8833168 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 ◽

pp. 1-18

Author(s):

Yan-Hua Lin ◽

Cong Chen ◽

Xiu Zhao ◽

Yi-Fei Mao ◽

Guang-Xin Xiang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Effective Rate ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Bias Risk

Objective. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of Banxia (Pinellia Tuber) formulae in the treatment of insomnia compared with those of conventional western medicines. Methods. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of Banxia formulae in the treatment of insomnia were searched from the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP), and Wanfang database. The literature collected was from the time when the databases were established to April 2020. Quality assessment and meta-analysis were conducted by using Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and RevMan 5.2, respectively. Publication bias was assessed by Egger’s test. Results. Fourteen RCTs with 910 participants were identified. A total of 46 traditional Chinese medicines involving 2 different dosage forms were used in the included studies. Meta-analysis indicated that Banxia formulae had more significant effects on improving the total effective rate (RR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.31), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI, MD = −1.05, 95% CI −1.63 to −0.47), and the TCM syndrome score (SMD = −0.78, 95% CI −1.18 to −0.39). Meanwhile, on reducing adverse events, Banxia formulae also showed an advantage (RR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.93). Conclusion. According to the current studies, the efficacy of Banxia formulae in the treatment of insomnia is better than that of the conventional western medicines, and its safety is relatively stable. However, due to the limitations of this study, further research and evaluation are needed.

Download Full-text

Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-021-91089-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Bahman Amani ◽

Ahmad Khanijahani ◽

Behnam Amani

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

AbstractThe efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of sciences, and medRxiv were searched up to March 15, 2021. Clinical studies registry databases were also searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The references list of the key studies was reviewed to identify additional relevant resources. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Jadad checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3). Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8161 patients were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of negative rate of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.08; P = 0.76), PCR negative conversion time (Mean difference [MD]: − 1.06, 95% CI − 3.10, 0.97; P = 0.30), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.06), body temperature recovery time (MD: − 0.64, 95% CI − 1.37, 0.10; P = 0.09), length of hospital stay (MD: − 0.17, 95% CI − 0.80, 0.46; P = 0.59), use of mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.32; P = 0.19), and disease progression (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.37, 1.85; P = 0.64). However, there was a significant difference between two groups regarding adverse events (RR: 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the addition of HCQ to SOC has no benefit in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it is associated with more adverse events.

Download Full-text

Hydroxychloroquine plus standard care compared with the standard care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

10.1101/2020.06.05.20122705 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Bahman Amani ◽

Ahmad Khanijahani ◽

Behnam Amani

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Standard Care ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

AbstractBackground & ObjectiveThe efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease COVID-19 pandemic is disputed. This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ plus the standard of care in COVID-19 patients.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, and web of sciences were searched up to June 1, 2020. The references list of the key studies was reviewed for additional relevant resources. Clinical studies registry databases were searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3).ResultsThree randomized controlled trials with total number of 242 patients were identified eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between HCQ and standard care in terms of viral clearance (Risk ratio [RR] = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91, 1.16; P = 0.68), disease progression (RR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.10, 0.81; P = 0.94), Chest CT (RR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.91; P = 0.03). There is a significant difference between HCQ and standard care for adverse events (RR = 2.88; 95% CI = 1.50, 5.54; P = 0.002).ConclusionAlthough the current meta-analysis failed to confirm the efficacy and safety of HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, further rigorous randomized clinical trials are necessary to evaluate conclusively the efficacy and safety of HCQ against COVID-19.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety of Dan’e-Fukang Soft Extract in the Treatment of Endometriosis: A Meta-Analysis of 39 Randomized Controlled Trials Enrolling 5442 Patients

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2017/9767391 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 2017 ◽

pp. 1-14

Author(s):

Yantao Li ◽

Te Li ◽

Shilin Song

Keyword(s):

Relative Risk ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Confidence Intervals ◽

Adverse Reactions ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Outcome Indicators ◽

Randomized Controlled

Objective. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of Dan’e-fukang soft extract in endometriosis treatment. Method. PubMed, CNKI, Wanfang Database, VIP, SinoMed, and Cochrane Library were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of Dan’e-fukang soft extract and conventional western medicines for endometriosis treatment were included. The data were extracted independently by two people and analyzed using RevMan 5.2.0 software. The relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals were considered as effective outcome indicators. Results. Thirty-nine papers including 5442 patients with endometriosis were included in this study. A meta-analysis revealed that Dan’e-fukang soft extract was more efficient than gestrinone in the treatment of endometriosis (RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.15, I2 = 71%, REM, 18 trials) and its efficacy was comparable to that of danazol and mifepristone. Dan’e-fukang soft extract was also as effective as gestrinone and mifepristone in terms of relapse rate and relieving dysmenorrhea. The incidence of adverse reactions was lower than that of conventional western medicines. Conclusions. The results of this study showed that Dan’e-fukang soft extract offers certain advantages in endometriosis treatment, but rigorously designed, strictly implemented RCTs are needed to further validate its efficacy.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation (TEAS) for Postoperative Pain in Laparoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2022/9922879 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 2022 ◽

pp. 1-17

Author(s):

Dan Meng ◽

Yifei Mao ◽

Quan-mei Song ◽

Chun-chun Yan ◽

Qin-yu Zhao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Postoperative Pain ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Complementary And Alternative Therapy ◽

Randomized Controlled

Objectives. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous acupoint electrical stimulation (TEAS) for postoperative pain in laparoscopy. The review has been registered on the “INPLASY” website and the registration number is INPLASY202150101. Methods. Relevant randomized controlled trials are selected from seven electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP Information, WanFang Data, and Chinese Biomedical Database) from their inception up to November 30, 2020. Twenty-eight studies were included in this meta-analysis, and the statistical analyses and the exploration of heterogeneity sources were conducted by Stata 15.0 software. Besides, the bias assessment of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results. In total, 28 RCTs covering 2787 participants were included. The meta-analysis suggested that TEAS can effectively relieve pain in the short term after laparoscopy, reduce the postoperative consumption of rescue analgesics, improve the quality of life of patients, and shorten the length of hospitalization. And no serious adverse events are related to TEAS. Therefore, TEAS is relatively safe and efficacy for clinical application. The most used acupoints were Hegu (LI14), Neiguan (PC6), and Zusanli (ST36). Conclusions. TEAS can be recommended as a complementary and alternative therapy for the treatment of postoperative pain after laparoscopy. However, the included RCTs had some methodological limitations. Therefore, larger-size, more rigorous, and higher-quality RCTs are needed in the future to further explore the efficacy and safety of TEAS for postoperative pain after laparoscopy.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials ◽

10.2174/1574887114666191105152404 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

pp. 34-47 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Muhammed Rashid ◽

Madhan Ramesh ◽

K. Shamshavali ◽

Amit Dang ◽

Himanshu Patel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Quality Assessment ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa). Methodology: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Results: Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; p<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant. Conclusion: Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.

Download Full-text

Early Versus Routine Stoma Closure in Patients With Colorectal Resection: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

Surgical Innovation ◽

10.1177/1553350620907812 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 27 (3) ◽

pp. 291-298

Author(s):

Yinyin Guo ◽

Yanxin Luo ◽

Hui Zhao ◽

Liangliang Bai ◽

Juan Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Surgery ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Bowel Obstruction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Wound Complications ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Stoma Closure ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Background. A substantial proportion of patients undergoing colorectal surgery receive a temporary stoma, and the timing for stoma closure remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of early stoma closure (ESC) compared with routine stoma closure (RSC) after colorectal surgery. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared ESC and RSC after colorectal surgery. Results. A total of 7 randomized controlled trials with 814 enrolled patients were identified for this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the ESC and RSC groups regarding the complications of stoma closure (26.8% and 16.6%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.90; P = .17). A subgroup analysis was conducted by Clavien-Dindo grade of complication, and no significant difference was observed in any subgroup ( P > .05). However, the ESC group had a significantly higher risk of wound complications than the RSC group (17.6% and 7.8%, respectively; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.43-4.76; P = .002), and the RSC group had more cases of small bowel obstruction than the ESC group (3.1% and 8.4%, respectively; OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.15-0.87; P = .02). Conclusions. ESC is a safe and effective therapeutic approach in patients who have undergone colorectal surgery; it is associated with a reduced risk of bowel obstruction but a higher risk of wound complications.

Download Full-text

Nurse Participation in Colonoscopy Observation versus the Colonoscopist Alone for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

Gastroenterology Research and Practice ◽

10.1155/2016/7631981 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 2016 ◽

pp. 1-7 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Lei Xu ◽

Yu Zhang ◽

Haojun Song ◽

Weihong Wang ◽

Sijie Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Detection Rate ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Research Question ◽

Adenoma Detection Rate ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Adenoma Detection ◽

Significant Difference

The role of nurse participation (NP) in colonoscopy observation for polyp and adenoma detection is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether nurse participation can improve polyp and adenoma detection.Patients and Methods. The PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English. The outcome measurements included (1) the polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR); (2) the advanced lesions detection rate; and (3) the mean polyp and adenoma detection rate per colonoscopy.Results. Three RCTs with a total of 1676 patients were included. The pooled data showed a significantly higher ADR in the NP group than colonoscopist alone (CA) (45.7% versus 39.3%; RR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04–1.30). And it showed no significant difference in the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate between the two groups (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.95–1.37; RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.91–2.00; resp.).Conclusions. Nurse participation during a colonoscopy can improve the ADR, whereas no benefit for the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate was observed. All RCTs included in the meta-analysis had high risk of bias. Thus, there is a need for new research that uses sound methodology to definitively address the research question under study.

Download Full-text

Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis: Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilars, Biologics and JAK1 Inhibitors for Active Crohn Disease

Frontiers in Pharmacology ◽

10.3389/fphar.2021.655865 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Guozhi Wu ◽

Yuan Yang ◽

Min Liu ◽

Yuping Wang ◽

Qinghong Guo

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Crohn Disease ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Certolizumab Pegol ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Maintenance Of Remission

Background: Crohn disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects quality of life. There are several drugs available for the treatment of CD, but their relative efficacy is unknown due to a lack of high-quality head-to-head randomized controlled trials.Aim: To perform a mixed comparison of the efficacy and safety of biosimilars, biologics and JAK1 inhibitors for CD.Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, embase and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to Dec. 28, 2020. Only RCTs that compared the efficacy or safety of biosimilars, biologics and JAK1 inhibitors with placebo or another active agent for CD were included in the comparative analysis. Efficacy outcomes were the induction of remission, maintenance of remission and steroid-free remission, and safety outcomes were serious adverse events (AEs) and infections. The Bayesian method was utilized to compare the treatments. The registration number is CRD42020187807.Results: Twenty-eight studies and 29 RCTs were identified in our systematic review. The network meta-analysis demonstrated that infliximab and adalimumab were superior to certolizumab pegol (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.35–4.97; OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.57–5.40, respectively) and tofacitinib (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.27–5.97; OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.47–6.52, respectively) and revealed the superiority of CT-P13 compared with placebo (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.31–7.59) for the induction of remission. Infliximab (OR 7.49, 95% CI 1.85–34.77), adalimumab (OR 10.76, 95% CI 2.61–52.35), certolizumab pegol (OR 4.41, 95% CI 1.10–21.08), vedolizumab (OR 4.99, 95% CI 1.19–25.54) and CT-P13 (OR 10.93, 95% CI 2.10–64.37) were superior to filgotinib for the maintenance of remission. Moreover, infliximab (OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.49–10.23), adalimumab (OR 4.86, 95% CI 1.43–16.95), vedolizumab (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.21–6.52) and CT-P13 (OR 5.15, 95% CI 1.05–27.58) were superior to placebo for steroid-free remission. Among all treatments, adalimumab ranked highest for the induction of remission, and CT-P13 ranked highest for the maintenance of remission and steroid-free remission.Conclusion: CT-P13 was more efficacious than numerous biological agents and JAK1 inhibitors and should be recommended for the treatment of CD. Further head-to-head RCTs are warranted to compare these drugs.

Download Full-text