Real-World Effectiveness of Vedolizumab vs Anti-TNF in Biologic-naïve Crohn's Disease Patients: A 2-year Propensity-score-adjusted Analysis from the VEDOIBD-Study.

Crohn’s disease RWE comparison anti-TNF real-world evidence vedolizumab

Journal

Inflammatory bowel diseases
ISSN: 1536-4844
Titre abrégé: Inflamm Bowel Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9508162

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
31 Jul 2023
Historique:
received: 23 01 2023
medline: 31 7 2023
pubmed: 31 7 2023
entrez: 31 7 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The aim of this observational, real-world evidence, modified intention-to-treat (mITT) study based on prospectively collected data from the VEDOIBD registry was to compare the effectiveness of vedolizumab (VEDO) vs antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) in biologic-naïve Crohn's disease (CD) patients. Between 2017 and 2020, 557 CD patients starting therapy with VEDO or anti-TNF were consecutively enrolled in 45 IBD centers across Germany. Per study protocol, the analysis excluded biologic-experienced patients and those with a missing Harvey-Bradshaw Index score, resulting in a final sample of 327 biologic-naïve CD patients. Clinical remission was measured using the Harvey-Bradshaw Index at the end of induction therapy and after 1 and 2 years. Switching to a different therapy was considered an outcome failure. Propensity score adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to correct for confounding. The effectiveness of both VEDO (n = 86) and anti-TNF (n = 241) was remarkably high for induction treatment, but VEDO performed significantly less well than anti-TNF (clinical remission: 56.3% vs 73.9%, P < .05). In contrast, clinical remission after 2 years was significantly better for VEDO compared with anti-TNF (74.2% vs 44.7%; P < .05; odds ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.94). Remarkably, only 17% of patients switched from VEDO to another biologic vs 44% who received anti-TNF. The results of this prospective, 2-year, real-world evidence study suggest that the choice of VEDO led to higher remission rates after 2 years compared with anti-TNF. This could support the role of VEDO as a first-line biologic therapy in CD.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The aim of this observational, real-world evidence, modified intention-to-treat (mITT) study based on prospectively collected data from the VEDOIBD registry was to compare the effectiveness of vedolizumab (VEDO) vs antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) in biologic-naïve Crohn's disease (CD) patients.
METHODS METHODS
Between 2017 and 2020, 557 CD patients starting therapy with VEDO or anti-TNF were consecutively enrolled in 45 IBD centers across Germany. Per study protocol, the analysis excluded biologic-experienced patients and those with a missing Harvey-Bradshaw Index score, resulting in a final sample of 327 biologic-naïve CD patients. Clinical remission was measured using the Harvey-Bradshaw Index at the end of induction therapy and after 1 and 2 years. Switching to a different therapy was considered an outcome failure. Propensity score adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to correct for confounding.
RESULTS RESULTS
The effectiveness of both VEDO (n = 86) and anti-TNF (n = 241) was remarkably high for induction treatment, but VEDO performed significantly less well than anti-TNF (clinical remission: 56.3% vs 73.9%, P < .05). In contrast, clinical remission after 2 years was significantly better for VEDO compared with anti-TNF (74.2% vs 44.7%; P < .05; odds ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.94). Remarkably, only 17% of patients switched from VEDO to another biologic vs 44% who received anti-TNF.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The results of this prospective, 2-year, real-world evidence study suggest that the choice of VEDO led to higher remission rates after 2 years compared with anti-TNF. This could support the role of VEDO as a first-line biologic therapy in CD.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37523666
pii: 7234224
doi: 10.1093/ibd/izad138
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Subventions

Organisme : Takeda GmbH Berlin, Germany
ID : IISR-2015-101474

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Auteurs

Bernd Bokemeyer (B)

Competence Network IBD, Kiel, Germany.
Interdisciplinary Crohn Colitis Centre, Minden, Germany.
Clinic of General Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.

Sandra Plachta-Danielzik (S)

Competence Network IBD, Kiel, Germany.

Romina di Giuseppe (R)

Competence Network IBD, Kiel, Germany.

Philipp Efken (P)

Gastroenterology Practice, Minden, Germany.

Wolfgang Mohl (W)

Center for Gastroenterology Saar MVZ, Saarbruecken, Germany.

Martin Hoffstadt (M)

Gastroenterology Practice, Iserlohn, Germany.

Thomas Krause (T)

Gastroenterology Practice, Kassel, Germany.

Axel Schweitzer (A)

Gastroenterology Practice at Germania-Campus, Muenster, Germany.

Elisabeth Schnoy (E)

III. Medical Clinic, University Hospital of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.

Raja Atreya (R)

Medical Clinic 1, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Niels Teich (N)

Gastroenterology Practice Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

Leo Trentmann (L)

Gastroenterology Practice, Bremen, Germany.

Robert Ehehalt (R)

Gastroenterology Practice, Heidelberg, Germany.

Petra Hartmann (P)

Gastroenterology Practice, Minden, Germany.

Stefan Schreiber (S)

Clinic of General Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.

Classifications MeSH