Information on comparative drug efficacy is of great importance for drug development as well as clinical practice. Up to now, the relative efficacy of biologics and small targeted molecules for Crohn’s disease (CD) remains unclear. The objective of this study was to quantify the relative efficacy of investigational and approved biological treatments for CD measured in Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ), and C-reactive protein (CRP). The analysis dataset was composed of summary-level data from 46 trials, containing 12,846 patients, with treatment of 24 drugs. Six mathematical models with non-parametric placebo estimations were developed to describe the time course and dose–response of six efficacy measures. The effects of covariate were further evaluated. Time–response relationships were found in outcomes measured in CDAI. The patients’ age, disease duration, baseline CDAI, and CRP showed an impact on the efficacy. Model simulations were performed to compare the efficacies across different drugs. The most achievement in clinical remission (defined as CDAI less than 150) and clinical response (defined as the reduction in CDAI for 100 or 70) was observed in the simulation for PF-04236921 and infliximab, respectively. The most improvement in IBDQ was shown in tofacitinib. In general, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors were the most effective biologics, and the highest efficacy of small targeted molecules was observed in janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. These findings have important implications for clinical practice in CD.

What is known and objective The morbidity of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in children has significantly increased in recent years. The diagnosis and treatment of IBD in children are progressing rapidly. Probiotics have been extensively studied in a variety of gastrointestinal diseases. However, the effectiveness of probiotics for IBD is inconsistent. This study summarized the recommendations on using probiotics from high‐quality guidelines, and the recommendations may assist clinicians in the treatment of paediatric IBD. Methods Guidelines were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, three Chinese literature databases and websites of relevant institutions. Guidelines that addressed the treatments of paediatric IBD in Chinese and English were included and evaluated with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument to assess methodological quality. The levels of recommendation were also evaluated, and finally, the recommendations of probiotics application in IBD were summarized. Results and discussion A total of 14 guidelines that met inclusion criteria were identified and evaluated, and 12 of them were evidence‐based (EB) guidelines, and the other two guidelines were developed by consensus. The mean percentages for the AGREE II domain scores were as follows: “Scope and purpose” 97.22%, “Clarity of presentation” 93.78%, “Applicability” 55.85%, “Editorial independence” 59.92%, “Stakeholder involvement” 74.34%, and “Rigor of development” 71.58%. Three guidelines received the Grade A—“Strongly recommended,” the rest of the guidelines received a B grade—“Recommended with modifications” in the overall assessment. What is new and conclusion The overall quality of the guidelines on IBD management in children was high. Conversely, the fundamental recommendations on the application of probiotics in the treatment of IBD varied. For instance, the recommendations of probiotics on Crohn's disease (CD) were not available by any of the analysed guidelines, the recommendations of utilizing probiotics in treating ulcerative colitis (UC) were not uniform as several guidelines considered using VSL#3 or Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 for the treatment.

IntroductionBiologics is used for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (MSPP), which represent one of the foremost therapeutic advancements in disease of dermatology. Up to now, the relative efficacy and safety across approved andinvestigational biologics for MSPP is still unclear.MethodsThis study aimed to comparative effectiveness of various biological treatments for MSPP measured by PASI75, PASI90 and PASI100 (The ratio of patients whose Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI) decreased by ≥ 75%, 90% and 100% compared with baseline, respectively). In addition, random models were used together with a Bayesian method to compare direct and indirect Adverse Events (AEs) of biologics with placebo, to make probabilistic statements and predictions on their AEs. The analytic data set was made up of summarized data from 54 trials, including 27,808 patients, with treatment of 17 biologics. Three mathematic models with nonparametric placebo evaluations were established to characterize the longitudinal direction profile for the three efficacy measures as above mentioned.ResultsOur results showed significant differences among treatments. Bimekizumab, sonelokimab, and ixekizumab were found to be the most effective treatments among the biologics. The effects of covariate were further evaluated, patients’ age, body weight, duration of disease and percentage of patients previously treated with a biological therapy showed impact on the efficacy. In addition, we found that ixekizumab and risankizumab displayed relatively stable as for efficacy and safety.DiscussionOur findings provide valuable insights into the comparative effectiveness and safety of biologics for MSPP treatment. These results may aid in clinical decision-making and ultimately improve patient outcomes.