Adalimumab versus ustekinumab as first-line biological in moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease: real-life cohort from a tertiary referral center.
Journal
European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology
ISSN: 1473-5687
Titre abrégé: Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9000874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2022
01 10 2022
Historique:
entrez:
5
9
2022
pubmed:
6
9
2022
medline:
9
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Therapeutic options for Crohn's disease are growing, making the choice of first-line therapy relevant. Both adalimumab and ustekinumab are effective in moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. The Safety and Efficacy of Adalimumab Versus Ustekinumab for One Year trial suggested no difference in clinical or endoscopic remission at week 52 in biological-naive Crohn's disease patients. We explored if results withstand in the real world. We included bio-naive Crohn's disease patients starting adalimumab or ustekinumab between 2017 and 2020. Patients had endoscopy-proven moderate-to-severe disease [Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's disease (SES-CD) ≥3]. Clinical remission was defined as Harvey Bradshaw Index (HBI) <5 or physician global assessment. Endoscopic remission (SES-CD <3) and improvement (≥50% reduction in SES-CD from baseline) were assessed at W26-52. Propensity score matching was used. A total of 68 biological-naive Crohn's disease patients were included (32 adalimumab and 32 ustekinumab) and followed for median of (IQR) 60 (33-104) weeks. Patients had significantly higher odds of achieving endoscopic remission with adalimumab than ustekinumab [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 2.73; confidence interval (CI), 1.12-7.36; P = 0.03]. Also, more adalimumab-treated patients achieved endoscopic response, clinical remission at week 26 and 52 (aOR, 2.24; CI, 0.94-5.71; P = 0.07; aOR, 1.26; CI, 0.36-4.51; P = 0.72; aOR, 1.58; CI, 0.54-4.88; P = 0.41, respectively). Treatment persistence was not different between groups (P = 0.44). The number of adverse events was similar. In a real-world cohort of biological-naive Crohn's disease patients, adalimumab was superior to ustekinumab in achieving endoscopic remission. No differences in clinical remission at W26-52 or treatment persistence were observed. Both adalimumab and ustekinumab remain good options as first-line biologicals in moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Therapeutic options for Crohn's disease are growing, making the choice of first-line therapy relevant. Both adalimumab and ustekinumab are effective in moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. The Safety and Efficacy of Adalimumab Versus Ustekinumab for One Year trial suggested no difference in clinical or endoscopic remission at week 52 in biological-naive Crohn's disease patients. We explored if results withstand in the real world.
METHODS
We included bio-naive Crohn's disease patients starting adalimumab or ustekinumab between 2017 and 2020. Patients had endoscopy-proven moderate-to-severe disease [Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's disease (SES-CD) ≥3]. Clinical remission was defined as Harvey Bradshaw Index (HBI) <5 or physician global assessment. Endoscopic remission (SES-CD <3) and improvement (≥50% reduction in SES-CD from baseline) were assessed at W26-52. Propensity score matching was used.
RESULTS
A total of 68 biological-naive Crohn's disease patients were included (32 adalimumab and 32 ustekinumab) and followed for median of (IQR) 60 (33-104) weeks. Patients had significantly higher odds of achieving endoscopic remission with adalimumab than ustekinumab [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 2.73; confidence interval (CI), 1.12-7.36; P = 0.03]. Also, more adalimumab-treated patients achieved endoscopic response, clinical remission at week 26 and 52 (aOR, 2.24; CI, 0.94-5.71; P = 0.07; aOR, 1.26; CI, 0.36-4.51; P = 0.72; aOR, 1.58; CI, 0.54-4.88; P = 0.41, respectively). Treatment persistence was not different between groups (P = 0.44). The number of adverse events was similar.
CONCLUSION
In a real-world cohort of biological-naive Crohn's disease patients, adalimumab was superior to ustekinumab in achieving endoscopic remission. No differences in clinical remission at W26-52 or treatment persistence were observed. Both adalimumab and ustekinumab remain good options as first-line biologicals in moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36062494
doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000002411
pii: 00042737-202210000-00005
doi:
Substances chimiques
Ustekinumab
FU77B4U5Z0
Adalimumab
FYS6T7F842
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1015-1020Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Sandborn WJ, Hanauer SB, Rutgeerts P, Fedorak RN, Lukas M, MacIntosh DG, et al. Adalimumab for maintenance treatment of Crohn’s disease: results of the CLASSIC II trial. Gut 2007; 56:1232–1239.
Hanauer SB, Sandborn WJ, Rutgeerts P, Fedorak RN, Lukas M, MacIntosh D, et al. Human anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody (adalimumab) in Crohn’s disease: the CLASSIC-I trial. Gastroenterology 2006; 130:323–333; quiz 591.
Sandborn WJ, Gasink C, Gao LL, Blank MA, Johanns J, Guzzo C, et al.; CERTIFI Study Group. Ustekinumab induction and maintenance therapy in refractory Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:1519–1528.
Lofland JH, Johnson PT, Ingham MP, Rosemas SC, White JC, Ellis L. Shared decision-making for biologic treatment of autoimmune disease: influence on adherence, persistence, satisfaction, and health care costs. Patient Prefer Adherence 2017; 11:947–958.
Singh S, Murad MH, Fumery M, Sedano R, Jairath V, Panaccione R, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of biologic therapies for moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 6:1002–1014.
Sands BE, Irving PM, Hoops T, Izanec JL, Gao LL, Gasink C, et al. Ustekinumab versus adalimumab for induction and maintenance therapy in biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3b trial. Lancet 2022; 399: 2200–2211.
Silverberg MS, Satsangi J, Ahmad T, Arnott ID, Bernstein CN, Brant SR, et al. Toward an integrated clinical, molecular and serological classification of inflammatory bowel disease: report of a Working Party of the 2005 Montreal World Congress of Gastroenterology. Can J Gastroenterol 2005; 19 (Suppl A):5A–36A.
Turner D, Ricciuto A, Lewis A, D’Amico F, Dhaliwal J, Griffiths AM, et al.; International Organization for the Study of IBD. STRIDE-II: an update on the selecting therapeutic targets in inflammatory bowel disease (STRIDE) initiative of the international organization for the study of IBD (IOIBD): determining therapeutic goals for treat-to-target strategies in IBD. Gastroenterology 2021; 160:1570–1583.
Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 2009; 28:3083–3107.
Rubin DB. Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: application to the tobacco litigation. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 2001; 2:169–188.
Ahmed Z, Venkata K, Zhang N, Malik TA. Comparative effectiveness of ustekinumab versus adalimumab in induction of clinical response and remission in Crohn’s disease: experience of a real-world cohort at a tertiary care inflammatory bowel disease referral center. Gastroenterology Res 2019; 12:245–251.