期刊
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 22, 页码 -出版社
MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11226717
关键词
Crohn's disease; ulcerative colitis; biologics; target therapy; head-to-head; meta-analysis; real-world
The drug pipeline for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease has expanded over the years, and comparative effectiveness research (CER) helps identify the differences in efficacy and safety outcomes among different therapeutic regimens. CER includes network meta-analyses, head-to-head trials, and real-world studies, each providing answers to different questions.
The drug pipeline for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has dramatically expanded over the last two decades, and it is expected to further grow in the upcoming years with the introduction of new agents with different mechanisms of action. However, such an increase of therapeutic options needs to be paralleled with an appropriate development of research to help physicians in the decision-making process when choosing which drug to prescribe. On the population level, comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to explore and identify relevant differences-in terms of both efficacy and safety outcomes-amongst different therapeutic regimens and/or strategies, in order to find the correct placement for each treatment in the therapeutic algorithm. CER revolves around three cornerstones: network meta-analyses, head-to-head trials and real-world studies, each of which has specific pros and cons, and can therefore offer answers to different questions. In this review, we aim to provide an overview on the methodological features specific to each of these research approaches, as well as to illustrate the main findings coming from CER on IBD target therapies (i.e., biologics and small molecules) and to discuss their appropriate interpretation.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据