Triple therapy in uncontrolled asthma: a network meta-analysis of Phase III studies

2021 ◽  
pp. 2004233
Author(s):  
Paola Rogliani ◽  
Beatrice Ludovica Ritondo ◽  
Luigino Calzetta
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Severe Exacerbation ◽  
Triple Combination ◽  
Combination Therapies ◽  
Uncontrolled Asthma ◽  
Long Acting ◽  
The Impact

Conflicting evidence is currently available concerning the impact on asthma exacerbation of triple inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA), and long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combination (FDC). Since meta-analyses allow settling controversies of apparently inconsistent results, we performed a network meta-analysis of Phase III randomised controlled trials including 9535 patients to assess the effect of ICS/LABA/LAMA combinations in uncontrolled asthma. Triple combination therapies with an ICS administered at high dose (HD) were more effective (p<0.05) than medium dose (MD) ICS/LABA/LAMA FDC and both MD and HD ICS/LABA FDCs against moderate to severe exacerbation (relative risk [RR] from 0.61 to 0.80) and increasing trough forced expiratory volume in the 1st second (mL from +33 to +114). Triple combination therapies including HD ICS were superior (p<0.05) than MD ICS/LABA/LAMA FDC in preventing severe exacerbation (RR from 0.46 to 0.65), but not with respect to moderate exacerbation (p>0.05). Triple combination therapies were equally effective on asthma control, with no safety concerns. This quantitative synthesis suggests that ICS/LABA/LAMA FDCs are effective and safe in uncontrolled asthma, and that the dose of ICS in the combination represents the discriminating factor to treat patients with a history of moderate or severe exacerbation.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) as empirical treatment comparing to ceftolozane/tazobactam and to meropenem for complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI)

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thitima Kongnakorn ◽  
Christian Eckmann ◽  
Matteo Bassetti ◽  
Eszter Tichy ◽  
Roberto Di Virgilio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
The United States ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The rising incidence of resistance to currently available antibiotics among pathogens, particularly Gram-negative pathogens, in complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) has become a challenge for clinicians. Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a fixed-dose antibiotic approved in Europe and the United States for treating (in combination with metronidazole) cIAI in adult hospitalised patients who have limited or no alternative treatment options. The approval was based on the results of RECLAIM, a Phase III, parallel-group, comparative study (RECLAIM 1 [NCT01499290] and RECLAIM 2 [NCT01500239]). The objective of our study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole compared with 1) ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole and 2) meropenem, as an empiric treatment for the management of cIAI in Italy. Methods A sequential, patient-level simulation model, with a 5-year time horizon and 3% annual discount rate (applied to both costs and health benefits), was developed using Microsoft Excel® to demonstrate the clinical course of the disease. The impact of resistant pathogens was included as an additional factor. Results In the base-case analysis, the CAZ-AVI sequence (CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole followed by a colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem combination after treatment failure), when compared to sequences for ceftolozane/tazobactam (ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole followed by colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem after treatment failure) and meropenem (meropenem followed by colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem after treatment failure), had better clinical outcomes with higher cure rates (93.04% vs. 91.52%; 92.98% vs. 90.24%, respectively), shorter hospital stays (∆ = − 0.38 and ∆ = − 1.24 days per patient, respectively), and higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient (4.021 vs. 3.982; 4.019 vs. 3.960, respectively). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio in the CAZ-AVI sequence was €4099 and €15,574 per QALY gained versus each comparator sequence, respectively, well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY accepted in Italy. Conclusions The model results demonstrated that CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole could be a cost-effective alternative when compared with other antibiotic treatment options, as it is expected to provide better clinical benefits in hospitalised patients with cIAI in Italy.

scholarly journals Triple therapy versus single and dual long-acting bronchodilator therapy in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 1801586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Cazzola ◽  
Paola Rogliani ◽  
Luigino Calzetta ◽  
Maria Gabriella Matera
Keyword(s):  
Relative Risk ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Blood Eosinophil ◽  
Triple Combination ◽  
Triple Combination Therapy ◽  
Bronchodilator Therapy ◽  
Long Acting ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Eosinophil Counts

We performed a meta-analysis to compare the impact of triple combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMAs) versus LABA/LAMA combination therapy or single long-acting bronchodilator therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The ICS/LABA/LAMA combination reduced the risk of exacerbation (relative risk 0.70, 95% CI 0.53–0.94) and improved trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference in mL +37.94, 95% CI 18.83–53.89) versus LABA/LAMA combination therapy. The protective effect of triple combination therapy versus LABA/LAMA combination therapy against risk of exacerbation was greater in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells·µL−1 (relative risk 0.57, 95% CI 0.48–0.68). While ∼38 patients had to be treated for 1 year with ICS/LABA/LAMA combination therapy to prevent one exacerbation compared to LABA/LAMA combination therapy, the number needed to treat (NNT) was ∼21 when compared to single long-acting bronchodilator therapy. The person-based NNT per year of ICS/LABA/LAMA combination therapy versus LABA/LAMA combination therapy was significantly (p<0.05) lower in patients with eosinophil counts ≥300 cells·µL−1 (NNT value: 8.58) than in those with counts <300 cells·µL−1 (NNT value: 46.28). The risk of pneumonia did not differ between ICS/LABA/LAMA combination therapy and its comparators. The number needed to harm was ∼195. This meta-analysis suggests that patients on single long-acting bronchodilator therapy or LABA/LAMA combination therapy, who still have exacerbations and have blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells·µL−1, could benefit from ICS/LABA/LAMA combination therapy.

scholarly journals Symptom Burden of Busulfan and Melphalan Versus Melphalan Alone for Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 681-681
Author(s):  
Loretta A. Williams ◽  
Muzaffar H. Qazilbash ◽  
Qiuling Shi ◽  
Qaiser Bashir ◽  
Huei K. Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Muscle Weakness ◽  
Symptom Severity ◽  
Conditioning Regimen ◽  
Symptom Burden ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Dry Mouth ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem

Abstract Background: High-dose melphalan 200 mg/m2 (Mel) is the standard for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (autoHSCT) for multiple myeloma. Retrospective analyses suggested that a combination of busulfan and melphalan (Bu-Mel) may be associated with a longer progression-free survival (PFS). A secondary aim of a randomized, phase III trial that compared the safety and efficacy of Bu-Mel vs Mel was to compare the symptom burden of the two regimens. Symptom burden is the combined impact of disease- and therapy-related symptoms on patient functional ability. Methods: Patients were randomized to Bu-Mel (Bu 130 mg/m2 daily for 4 days, either as a fixed dose or to target an average daily area under the curve of 5000 μmol-min, followed by 2 daily doses of Mel 70 mg/m)2or Mel (Mel 100 mg/m2 daily for 2 days). A subset of patients completed the 20 symptom severity and 6 interference items of MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for Multiple Myeloma (MDASI-MM) prior to the start of the treatment regimen and weekly for 4 weeks post autoHSCT. Symptoms and interference are rated on 0-10 scales (0 = none or no interference, 10 = worst imaginable or complete interference). Differences in individual symptom severity and interference between the two arms were assessed by t-tests and mixed modeling. Results: As previously reported, 204 (Bu-Mel: 104, Mel: 100) were enrolled between October 2011 and March 2017. At last evaluation, 52 (51%) and 49 (49%) patients achieved a CR (p=0.88), and 69 (68%) and 67 (67%) patients achieved a CR+nCR (p=0.88) in Bu-Mel and Mel arms, respectively. Median PFS was 64.7 months and 34.4 months (p=0.013) in Bu-Mel and Mel arms, respectively. There was no difference in OS between the two arms. One hundred sixty-five of the patients (Bu-Mel: 81, Mel: 84) completed at least one MDASI-MM assessment. Median ages at autoHSCT were 57.2 and 57.0 years in Bu-Mel and Mel groups, respectively (p=0.86). At baseline, t-tests showed significantly higher mean severity of constipation (1.80, standard deviation [SD] = 2.87 vs 0.98, SD = 1.94; p=0.036), muscle weakness (2.38, SD=2.49 vs 1.44, SD=1.87; p=0.034), diarrhea (1.45, SD=2.43 vs 0.60, SD=1.10; p=0.005), and global symptom interference (2.96, SD=2.81 vs 1.77, SD=2.00; p=0.003) in the Bu-Mel arm than the Mel arm. The Bu-Mel patients had a significantly higher mean severity of pain (5.67, SD=2.65 vs 3.17, SD=3.07; p=0.0043) and mouth sores (7.35, SD=2.41 vs 1.25, SD=2.22; p &lt;0.0001) than the Mel patients 7 days post autoHSCT. Longitudinal analysis using mixed modeling showed that the Bu-Mel arm had a significantly higher mean severity of pain (ED = 1.102, p=0.003), drowsiness (ED = 0.674, p=0.040), dry mouth (ED = 0.904, p=0.009), constipation (ED = 0.695, p=0.006), muscle weakness (ED = 0.815, p=0.006), mouth sores (ED = 1.683, p &lt;0.0001), rash (ED = 0.362, p=0.019), and interference with physical functions (general activity: ED = 1.015, p=0.010; working: ED=1.229, p=0.006; walking: ED=0.920, p=0.009) than the Mel arm during the 4 weeks following autoHSCT. Conclusions: Patients receiving Bu-Mel vs Mel prior to autoHSCT report some differences in symptom severity, with Bu-Mel patients experiencing more severe sore mouth, pain, and symptom interference with daily functioning. The greater intensity of the double-alkylating agent conditioning regimen of Bu-Mel likely led to these differences. The increased severity of drowsiness, dry mouth, constipation, and muscle weakness may be due to an increased need for opioids to control severe pain and mouth sores. The effect of significant differences in symptom severity and interference at baseline between these two groups, despite randomization, is not clear. However, the longer time to progression of myeloma with the Bu-Mel regimen may offset the greater symptom burden early post autoHSCT. Systematic measurement of symptom burden during clinical trials can provide useful information for clinicians and patients in evaluating the full impact of different treatment regimens and enhance treatment decision making and discussion between clinicians and patients. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Single Inhaler Triple Therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) Versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in Patients with COPD: Subgroup Analysis of the China Cohort in the IMPACT Trial

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinping Zheng ◽  
Nanshan Zhong ◽  
Changzheng Wang ◽  
Li Ping Wei ◽  
Xiang Dong Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Dual Therapy ◽  
Multicenter Trial ◽  
Forced Expiratory Volume ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Severe Exacerbation ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Treatment Difference ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background In the Phase III InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, fluticasone furoate [FF]/umeclidinium [UMEC]/vilanterol [VI] single-inhaler triple therapy resulted in lower rates of moderate/severe exacerbations than dual therapy with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations. Here we present the result in the subpopulation of patients enrolled in China. Methods The IMPACT trial was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter trial. Patients (≥40 years of age) with COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbations in the prior year were randomized 2:2:1 to once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg administered via the Ellipta inhaler. Endpoints, assessed in the overall intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients from China, included annual rates of exacerbations, time-to-first on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation, and change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at Week 52. Results Of the 10,355 patients randomized, 535 (5.2%) were from China. In the China cohort, the rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations was 0.81 per year with FF/UMEC/VI versus 0.96 with FF/VI (rate ratio [RR]: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64, 1.11; p=0.227) and 0.80 with UMEC/VI (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.44; p=0.929). Hazard ratio for time-to-first moderate/severe exacerbation was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.11; p=0.218) for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.27; p=0.516) for FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI. Improvements in mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 were observed for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI (treatment difference 137 mL; 95% CI: 86, 188; p<0.001) and FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI (treatment difference 63 mL; 95% CI: 0, 125; p=0.0.050) in China. Health status was also improved with FF/UMEC/VI versus both dual therapies. Broadly, these results were in the same direction as those seen in the overall ITT population. No new safety signals were identified. Conclusions In the China cohort of the IMPACT trial, single-inhaler triple therapy with FF/UMEC/VI versus dual therapy with FF/VI or UMEC/VI reduced the rate and risk of exacerbations, and improved lung function and quality of life similar to the overall ITT population. Trial registration: NCT02164513 (GSK study number CTT116855).

scholarly journals Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Progressive Midgut Neuroendocrine Tumors Treated With 177Lu-Dotatate in the Phase III NETTER-1 Trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (25) ◽  
pp. 2578-2584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Strosberg ◽  
Edward Wolin ◽  
Beth Chasen ◽  
Matthew Kulke ◽  
David Bushnell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Health Related Qol ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Neuroendocrine tumor (NET) progression is associated with deterioration in quality of life (QoL). We assessed the impact of 177Lu-Dotatate treatment on time to deterioration in health-related QoL. Methods The NETTER-1 trial is an international phase III study in patients with midgut NETs. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with 177Lu-Dotatate versus high-dose octreotide. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaires QLQ C-30 and G.I.NET-21 were assessed during the trial to determine the impact of treatment on health-related QoL. Patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and every 12 weeks until tumor progression. QoL scores were converted to a 100-point scale according to European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer instructions, and individual changes from baseline scores were assessed. Time to QoL deterioration (TTD) was defined as the time from random assignment to the first QoL deterioration ≥ 10 points for each patient in the corresponding domain scale. All analyses were conducted on the intention-to-treat population. Patients with no deterioration were censored at the last QoL assessment date. Results TTD was significantly longer in the 177Lu-Dotatate arm (n = 117) versus the control arm (n = 114) for the following domains: global health status (hazard ratio [HR], 0.406), physical functioning (HR, 0.518), role functioning (HR, 0.580), fatigue (HR, 0.621), pain (HR, 0.566), diarrhea (HR, 0.473), disease-related worries (HR, 0.572), and body image (HR, 0.425). Differences in median TTD were clinically significant in several domains: 28.8 months versus 6.1 months for global health status, and 25.2 months versus 11.5 months for physical functioning. Conclusion This analysis from the NETTER-1 phase III study demonstrates that, in addition to improving progression-free survival, 177Lu-Dotatate provides a significant QoL benefit for patients with progressive midgut NETs compared with high-dose octreotide.

scholarly journals TROG 18.01 phase III randomised clinical trial of the Novel Integration of New prostate radiation schedules with adJuvant Androgen deprivation: NINJA study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e030731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarad Martin ◽  
Paul Keall ◽  
Shankar Siva ◽  
Peter Greer ◽  
David Christie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Initial Portion ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionStereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a non-invasive alternative to surgery for the treatment of non-metastatic prostate cancer (PC). The objectives of the Novel Integration ofNew prostate radiation schedules with adJuvant Androgen deprivation (NINJA) clinical trial are to compare two emerging SBRT regimens for efficacy with technical substudies focussing on MRI only planning and the use of knowledge-based planning (KBP) to assess radiotherapy plan quality.Methods and analysisEligible patients must have biopsy-proven unfavourable intermediate or favourable high-risk PC, have an Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1 and provide written informed consent. All patients will receive 6 months in total of androgen deprivation therapy. Patients will be randomised to one of two SBRT regimens. The first will be 40 Gy in five fractions given on alternating days (SBRT monotherapy). The second will be 20 Gy in two fractions given 1 week apart followed 2 weeks later by 36 Gy in 12 fractions given five times per week (virtual high-dose rate boost (HDRB)). The primary efficacy outcome will be biochemical clinical control at 5 years. Secondary endpoints for the initial portion of NINJA look at the transition of centres towards MRI only planning and the impact of KBP on real-time (RT) plan assessment. The first 150 men will demonstrate accrual feasibility as well as addressing the KBP and MRI planning aims, prior to proceeding with total accrual to 472 patients as a phase III randomised controlled trial.Ethics and disseminationNINJA is a multicentre cooperative clinical trial comparing two SBRT regimens for men with PC. It builds on promising results from several single-armed studies, and explores radiation dose escalation in the Virtual HDRB arm. The initial component includes novel technical elements, and will form an important platform set for a definitive phase III study.Trial registration numberANZCTN 12615000223538.

scholarly journals LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations versus LAMA monotherapy in the prevention of COPD exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175346662093719
Author(s):  
Ching-Yi Chen ◽  
Wang-Chun Chen ◽  
Chi-Hsien Huang ◽  
Yi-Ping Hsiang ◽  
Chau-Chyun Sheu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Copd Exacerbations ◽  
Copd Patients ◽  
History Of ◽  
Long Acting

Background: Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy is recommended for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with high risk of exacerbations. It is unclear whether long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/LAMA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) are more effective than LAMAs alone in preventing exacerbations. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to investigate whether LABA/LAMA FDCs are more effective than LAMA monotherapy in preventing exacerbations. Methods: We searched several databases and manufacturers’ websites to identify relevant randomized clinical trials comparing LABA/LAMA FDC treatment with LAMAs alone ⩾24 weeks. Outcomes of interest were time to first exacerbation and rates of moderate to severe, severe and all exacerbations. Results: We included 10 trials in 9 articles from 2013 to 2018 with a total of 19,369 patients for analysis in this study. Compared with LAMA monotherapy, LABA/LAMA FDCs demonstrated similar efficacy in terms of time to first exacerbation [hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79–1.18; p = 0.71], moderate to severe exacerbations [risk ratio (RR), 0.96; 95% CI 0.90–1.03; p = 0.28], severe exacerbations (RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.81–1.03; p = 0.15), and a marginal superiority in terms of all exacerbations (RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.86–1.00; p = 0.04). The incidence of all exacerbation events was lower in the LABA/LAMA FDC group for the COPD patients with a history of previous exacerbations and those with a longer treatment period (52–64 weeks). Conclusion: This study provides evidence that LABA/LAMA FDCs are marginally superior in the prevention of all exacerbations compared with LAMA monotherapy in patients with COPD. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

scholarly journals Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Optimal Salvage Therapy in Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (7) ◽  
pp. 1169-1186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew C Choy ◽  
Dean Seah ◽  
David M Faleck ◽  
Shailja C Shah ◽  
Che-Yung Chao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Single Dose ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Optimal Dose ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Severe Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
The Impact

AbstractBackgroundInfliximab is an effective salvage therapy in acute severe ulcerative colitis; however, the optimal dosing strategy is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the impact of infliximab dosage and intensification on colectomy-free survival in acute severe ulcerative colitis.MethodsStudies reporting outcomes of hospitalized steroid-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis treated with infliximab salvage were identified. Infliximab use was categorized by dose, dose number, and schedule. The primary outcome was colectomy-free survival at 3 months. Pooled proportions and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were reported.ResultsForty-one cohorts (n = 2158 cases) were included. Overall colectomy-free survival with infliximab salvage was 79.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.48% to 83.6%) at 3 months and 69.8% (95% CI, 65.7% to 73.7%) at 12 months. Colectomy-free survival at 3 months was superior with 5-mg/kg multiple (≥2) doses compared with single-dose induction (odds ratio [OR], 4.24; 95% CI, 2.44 to 7.36; P < 0.001). However, dose intensification with either high-dose or accelerated strategies was not significantly different to 5-mg/kg standard induction at 3 months (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.27; P = 0.24) despite being utilized in patients with a significantly higher mean C-reactive protein and lower albumin levels.ConclusionsIn acute severe ulcerative colitis, multiple 5-mg/kg infliximab doses are superior to single-dose salvage. Dose-intensified induction outcomes were not significantly different compared to standard induction and were more often used in patients with increased disease severity, which may have confounded the results. This meta-analysis highlights the marked variability in the management of infliximab salvage therapy and the need for further studies to determine the optimal dose strategy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document