Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastroenterol. May 28, 2015; 21(20): 6352-6360
Published online May 28, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i20.6352
Table 2 Clinical response and clinical remission rates of studies included in the meta-analysis
Ref.GroupDrugDefinition of clinical responseClinical response rateDefinition of clinical remissionClinical remission rate
Feagan et al[14]Intervention 1MLN-02An improvement of 3 points or more on the ulcerative colitis clinical score (modification of the Mayo Clinic Scoring system)66%59.3%1Ulcerative colitis clinical score of 0 or 1 and a modified Baron score of 0 or 1 with no evidence of rectal bleeding32.2%1
Intervention 253%
ControlPlacebo33%14.0%
Feagan et al[15]InterventionVedolizumabA reduction in the Mayo Clinic score of at least 3 points and a decrease of at least 30% from baseline, with an accompanying decrease in the rectal bleeding subscore of at least 1 point or an absolute rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 147.1%Mayo Clinic score of 2 or lower and no subscore higher than 1, and mucosal healing, defined as an endoscopic subscore of 0 or 116.9%
ControlPlacebo25.5%5.4%
Parikh et al[16]Intervention 1VedolizumabA decrease from baseline in the partial Mayo score (PMS) of ≥ 2 points and ≥ 25%, with an accompanying decrease in the subscore for rectal bleeding of ≥ 1 point or an absolute subscore for rectal bleeding of 0 or 1.50%56.8%1PMS of ≤ 2 with no individual subscore > 158%1
Intervention 263.3%
Intervention 353.3%
ControlPlacebo33.3%50%