Comparative effectiveness of a second-line biologic in patients with ulcerative colitis: vedolizumab followed by an anti-TNF versus anti-TNF followed by vedolizumab.
IBD clinical
inflammatory bowel disease
ulcerative colitis
Journal
Frontline gastroenterology
ISSN: 2041-4137
Titre abrégé: Frontline Gastroenterol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101528589
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
10
05
2021
accepted:
26
10
2021
entrez:
2
9
2022
pubmed:
3
9
2022
medline:
3
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Sequential drug treatment with biological agents in ulcerative colitis (UC) is becoming increasingly complex. There are few studies comparing head-to-head outcomes in second-line treatments. The study assesses whether using anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF)-α therapy following the α4β7 integrin blocker vedolizumab (VDZ) or VDZ after an anti-TNF has more favourable clinical outcomes in UC in a real-world outpatient setting. Patients with UC who were exposed to first-line anti-TNF (adalimumab or infliximab) or VDZ who subsequently switched to the alternate class between May 2013 and August 2020 were identified by reviewing patient databases at 10 hospitals. Data were collected retrospectively using patient records. Baseline demographics, disease activity indices, biochemical markers, endoscopic Mayo score, colectomy rates, treatment persistence and urgent hospital utilisation composite endpoint (UHUC) rates were examined over a 52-week period. Second-line week 52 treatment persistence was higher in the VDZ group (71/81, 89%) versus the anti-TNF group (15/34, 44%; p=0.0001), as were week 52 colectomy-free survival (VDZ: 77/80, 96%, vs anti-TNF: 26/32, 81%; p=0.009), week 52 UHUC survival (VDZ: 68/84, 81%, vs anti-TNF: 20/34, 59%; p=0.002) and week 52 corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CFCR) rates (VDZ: 22/34, 65%, vs anti-TNF: 4/20, 20%; p=0.001). Compared with second-line anti TNF usage, the VDZ second-line cohort had significantly higher 52-week treatment persistence, UHUC survival, higher colectomy-free survival rates and higher week 52 CFCR. These data suggest that VDZ is an effective biologic in UC as a second-line therapy after anti-TNF exposure. It highlights the effect of biological order on clinically important outcomes.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Sequential drug treatment with biological agents in ulcerative colitis (UC) is becoming increasingly complex. There are few studies comparing head-to-head outcomes in second-line treatments. The study assesses whether using anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF)-α therapy following the α4β7 integrin blocker vedolizumab (VDZ) or VDZ after an anti-TNF has more favourable clinical outcomes in UC in a real-world outpatient setting.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Patients with UC who were exposed to first-line anti-TNF (adalimumab or infliximab) or VDZ who subsequently switched to the alternate class between May 2013 and August 2020 were identified by reviewing patient databases at 10 hospitals. Data were collected retrospectively using patient records. Baseline demographics, disease activity indices, biochemical markers, endoscopic Mayo score, colectomy rates, treatment persistence and urgent hospital utilisation composite endpoint (UHUC) rates were examined over a 52-week period.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Second-line week 52 treatment persistence was higher in the VDZ group (71/81, 89%) versus the anti-TNF group (15/34, 44%; p=0.0001), as were week 52 colectomy-free survival (VDZ: 77/80, 96%, vs anti-TNF: 26/32, 81%; p=0.009), week 52 UHUC survival (VDZ: 68/84, 81%, vs anti-TNF: 20/34, 59%; p=0.002) and week 52 corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CFCR) rates (VDZ: 22/34, 65%, vs anti-TNF: 4/20, 20%; p=0.001).
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Compared with second-line anti TNF usage, the VDZ second-line cohort had significantly higher 52-week treatment persistence, UHUC survival, higher colectomy-free survival rates and higher week 52 CFCR. These data suggest that VDZ is an effective biologic in UC as a second-line therapy after anti-TNF exposure. It highlights the effect of biological order on clinically important outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36051959
doi: 10.1136/flgastro-2021-101906
pii: flgastro-2021-101906
pmc: PMC9380760
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
392-401Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: SB has acted as an advisor for Takeda, Johnson & Johnson, Sublimity Therapeutics, Tillotts and Janssen. MAS served as a speaker, a consultant and/or advisory board member for Janssen, Sandoz, Takeda, MSD, Falk, Samsung Bioepis, Galapagos and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Références
Am J Gastroenterol. 2012 Sep;107(9):1409-22
pubmed: 22890223
Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2018 Feb - Apr;32-33:17-25
pubmed: 30060934
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 May;4(5):341-353
pubmed: 30824404
Gut. 2017 May;66(5):839-851
pubmed: 26893500
N Engl J Med. 2013 Aug 22;369(8):699-710
pubmed: 23964932
Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Aug;108(8):1268-76
pubmed: 23649185
Eur J Health Econ. 2018 Mar;19(2):229-240
pubmed: 28271250
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016 May;43(10):1090-102
pubmed: 27038247
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 May;51(9):852-860
pubmed: 32201971
Frontline Gastroenterol. 2017 Jul;8(3):196-202
pubmed: 28839909
Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2020 Aug;16(8):420-422
pubmed: 34035748
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Jan;47(2):162-175
pubmed: 29205406
Gastroenterology Res. 2018 Feb;11(1):41-45
pubmed: 29511405
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Feb;15(2):229-239.e5
pubmed: 27639327
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017 Mar;23(3):404-408
pubmed: 28178003
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016 Dec;44(11-12):1199-1212
pubmed: 27714831
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2018 Oct 12;24(11):2442-2451
pubmed: 29788318
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2019 Oct 18;25(11):1805-1812
pubmed: 30931477
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015 Dec;21(12):2879-85
pubmed: 26288002
N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 26;381(13):1215-1226
pubmed: 31553834