Title: Comparative efficacy and safety of subcutaneous infliximab and vedolizumab in patients
with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis included in randomised controlled trials
Version: 2 Date: 01 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper by Peyrin-Biroulet et al compared indirectly the efficacy and safety of sc infliximab
vs i.v. vedolizumab in Crohn's and of sc infliximab vs iv/sc Vedolizumab in UC using former
RCTs.
It is not clear to me why RCTs with only iv VEDO were included (on page 11, line the authors
stated that IFX i.v. studies included in a meta-analysis published in BMC Gastro in 2022 did
not met the eligibility criteria, why? before 2010?); or better why was Visible 2 not included?
(it has been published on January 2022.
Crohn's analysis: 1 study with IFX s.c. and 2 studies with Vedo i.v
UC analysis: 1 study with IFX s.c., 2 studies with Vedo i.v., 1 study with vedo sc after iv
induction
Study characteristics: the authors refer to their previous paper BMC Gastro 2022
Title: should include that the comparison is carried out on RCTs  + data from the manufacturer
of CTP13 sc
I think that the paper is importantly hampered by the exclusion  of the Visible 2 study
In the previous paper (ref 9 BMC Gastro 2022) visible 1 and CTP13 s.c. were already included
Conclusions are similar to that in the previous paper; besides the inclusion of a minor number
of RCTs in the present paper, the differences should be better explained at least in Discussion
Title: Comparative efficacy and safety of subcutaneous infliximab and vedolizumab in patients
with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis included in randomised controlled trials
Version: 2 Date: 01 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper by Peyrin-Biroulet et al compared indirectly the efficacy and safety of sc infliximab
vs i.v. vedolizumab in Crohn's and of sc infliximab vs iv/sc Vedolizumab in UC using former
RCTs.
It is not clear to me why RCTs with only iv VEDO were included (on page 11, line the authors
stated that IFX i.v. studies included in a meta-analysis published in BMC Gastro in 2022 did
not met the eligibility criteria, why? before 2010?); or better why was Visible 2 not included?
(it has been published on January 2022.
Crohn's analysis: 1 study with IFX s.c. and 2 studies with Vedo i.v
UC analysis: 1 study with IFX s.c., 2 studies with Vedo i.v., 1 study with vedo sc after iv
induction
Study characteristics: the authors refer to their previous paper BMC Gastro 2022
Title: should include that the comparison is carried out on RCTs  + data from the manufacturer
of CTP13 sc
I think that the paper is importantly hampered by the exclusion  of the Visible 2 study
In the previous paper (ref 9 BMC Gastro 2022) visible 1 and CTP13 s.c. were already included
Conclusions are similar to that in the previous paper; besides the inclusion of a minor number
of RCTs in the present paper, the differences should be better explained at least in Discussion
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Comparative efficacy and safety of subcutaneous infliximab and vedolizumab in patients
with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis included in randomised controlled trials
Version: 2 Date: 01 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper by Peyrin-Biroulet et al compared indirectly the efficacy and safety of sc infliximab
vs i.v. vedolizumab in Crohn's and of sc infliximab vs iv/sc Vedolizumab in UC using former
RCTs.
It is not clear to me why RCTs with only iv VEDO were included (on page 11, line the authors
stated that IFX i.v. studies included in a meta-analysis published in BMC Gastro in 2022 did
not met the eligibility criteria, why? before 2010?); or better why was Visible 2 not included?
(it has been published on January 2022.
Crohn's analysis: 1 study with IFX s.c. and 2 studies with Vedo i.v
UC analysis: 1 study with IFX s.c., 2 studies with Vedo i.v., 1 study with vedo sc after iv
induction
Study characteristics: the authors refer to their previous paper BMC Gastro 2022
Title: should include that the comparison is carried out on RCTs  + data from the manufacturer
of CTP13 sc
I think that the paper is importantly hampered by the exclusion  of the Visible 2 study
In the previous paper (ref 9 BMC Gastro 2022) visible 1 and CTP13 s.c. were already included
Conclusions are similar to that in the previous paper; besides the inclusion of a minor number
of RCTs in the present paper, the differences should be better explained at least in Discussion
assistant