Should we use anti-tumor necrosis factor agents or vedolizumab as first-line biological therapy in ulcerative colitis?

Early Clinical Remission Is a Predictor of Long-Term Remission with the Use of Vedolizumab for Ulcerative Colitis

Vedolizumab (VDZ) is an α4β7 integrin-antibody used to manage refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). This retrospective multicenter study aimed to identify predictors of efficacy or the time points when evaluation of VDZ therapy for UC would be most useful. We compiled data on 87 patients with moderate to severe active UC that was treated with VDZ. Overall clinical remission (CR) rates at 6 weeks and 52 weeks after VDZ administration were 44.4% (bio-naïve 44.2%, bio-failure 44.8%) and 52.8% (bio-naïve 53.5%, bio-failure 51.7%) respectively. Also, 83.3% (bio-naïve 81.3%, bio-failure 85.7%) of patients achieved mucosal healing at week 52. Among patients with a CR at week 52, 73.3% had a CR at week 6. In contrast, of patients who discontinued VDZ, 82.4% had not reached a CR at week 6. Our study demonstrated that VDZ was effective in a large percentage of UC patients, with a high mucosal healing rate even after prior biological exposures. This suggests that VDZ can be a treatment option even in bio-failure cases. Additionally, it was considered that early CR can predict long-term remission and that week 6 can be a helpful evaluation point for treatment decisions when using VDZ for UC.

Comparative effectiveness of a second-line biologic in patients with ulcerative colitis: vedolizumab followed by an anti-TNF versus anti-TNF followed by vedolizumab

BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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.

Network pharmacology dissection of multiscale mechanisms for jiaoqi powder in treating ulcerative colitis

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

The incidence of ulcerative colitis (UC) is increasing worldwide, making it a serious public health challenge. Currently, there are no accepted curative treatments for UC. As such, the exploration of new therapeutic strategies for UC treatment is of considerable clinical importance. Jiaoqi powder (JQP) is a classic Chinese medicinal formula commonly used as a complementary and alternative medicine for treating gastrointestinal bleeding. JQP is thus a potential alternative medicine for UC treatment. However, the protective mechanism underlying the action of JQP has not been elucidated, thereby, necessitating further studies to decipher the mechanisms involved in the complex interplay among its components.

AIM OF THE STUDY

To explore the protective effect of JQP against UC and to further investigate its mechanism in silico and in vivo using a systems pharmacology approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systems pharmacology approach was used to predict the active components of JQP. Putative targets and the potential mechanism of JQP on UC were obtained through target fishing, network construction, and enrichment analyses. An animal-based model of dextran sodium sulfate (DSS)-induced colitis in C57BL/6 mice was further used to validate the treatment mechanisms of JQP. The underlying pharmacological mechanisms of JQP in UC were determined using polymerase chain reaction tests, histological staining, immunohistochemistry, enzyme-linked immunoassays, and flow cytometry analysis.

RESULTS

In this study, 17 effective components and 941 potential targets of JQP were identified. Similarly, 2104 UC-related targets were also identified. Construction of PPI networks led to the identification of 184 putative therapeutic targets of JQP. Sixty-nine core targets among these 184 were further screened based on their DC values. Gene ontology (GO) functional and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analyses revealed that the core targets were primarily enriched in immune response and inflammatory signalling pathways. Subsequent animal-based in vivo experiments revealed that JQP ameliorated symptoms and histological changes in DSS colitis by significantly impairing DSS's ability to induce high expression levels of NF-κB/p65, IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α. JQP also reduced the levels of COX-2, CCL2, CXCL2, HIF-1α, MMP3 and MMP9 and regulated the Th17/Treg cell balance in DSS-induced mice.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that JQP could treat UC by improving the mucosal inflammatory response, repairing the intestinal barrier, and modulating the Th17/Treg immune balance. The results of this study provide new insights into UC treatment and further elucidate the theoretical and practical implications of the pharmaceutical development of TCMs.

Factors influencing the outcome of vedolizumab treatment: Real-life data with objective outcome measurements

Background

Vedolizumab (VDZ), a humanised monoclonal antibody against a4ß7‐integrin, has shown efficacy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It is of importance to assess the mid‐to long‐term efficacy of VDZ using real‐life data.

Objective

Our study aimed to determine the efficacy of VDZ in patients with IBD with and without prior exposure to anti‐tumour necrosis factor (TNF) treatments in a real‐life setting. Furthermore, we investigated confounding factors influencing the remission to VDZ.

Methods

Patients participating in the Swiss IBD Cohort Study were included in this study. Remission was defined as calprotectin less than 200 mg/kg stool and/or mucosal healing determined by endoscopy. End points were determined between Months 4 and 8 (T1) and between Months 12 and 16 (T2) after VDZ induction.

Results

Remission was reported in 50.5% (110/218) of patients in T1 (48.7% Crohn's disease [CD] and 52.5% ulcerative colitis [UC]) and 46.8% (102/218) in T2 (47% CD and 46.5% UC). In UC patients, a significantly higher remission rate was achieved in T2 among anti‐TNF‐naive patients (57.7%) compared to anti‐TNF‐experienced patients (34.7%; p = 0.02; odds ratio = 0.39, 95% confidence interval: 0.17–0.87). In patients with CD, no difference could be seen in either evaluation interval. Multivariable analysis showed that disease duration significantly influenced remission rates among UC patients. A late response to VDZ therapy with an achievement of remission in T2 was seen in a fifth of all patients (CD: 21.7%, UC: 20.8%). VDZ treatment was stopped in a third of all patients (31.8%) due to nonresponse, adverse events or aggravation of extra‐intestinal manifestations.

Conclusion

In a real‐life national cohort setting, VDZ induced remission in more than half of IBD patients. Previous treatment with anti‐TNF agents was associated with a significant lower efficacy of VDZ in UC but not in CD patients.

Mechanism-Based Treatment Strategies for IBD: Cytokines, Cell Adhesion Molecules, JAK Inhibitors, Gut Flora, and More

BACKGROUND

Although TNF inhibitors revolutionized the therapy of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), we have been reaching a point where other therapies with different mechanisms of action are necessary. A rising number of elderly IBD patients with contraindications to established therapies and a growing group of patients losing response to anti-TNF therapy compel us to find safer, better-tolerated, and, ideally, personalized treatment options. However, in order to choose the right drug to fit a patient, it is indispensable to understand the pathomechanism involved in IBD.

SUMMARY

The aim of this review is to explain the inflammatory signaling pathways in IBD and how to inhibit them with current and future therapeutic approaches. Next to biologic agents targeting inflammatory cytokines (anti-TNF agents, anti-IL-12/-23 agents, and specific inhibitors of IL-23), biologics blocking leukocyte trafficking to the gut (anti-integrin antibodies) are available nowadays. More recently, small molecules inhibiting the JAK-STAT pathway (JAK inhibitors) or preventing lymphocyte trafficking (sphingosine-1-phosphate modulators) have been approved or are under investigation. Furthermore, modifying the microbiota has potential therapeutic effects on IBD, and autologous hematopoietic or mesenchymal stem cell transplantation may be considered for a highly selected group of IBD patients.

KEY MESSAGE

Physicians should understand the different mechanisms of action of the potential therapies for IBD to select the right drug for the right patient.

Three-year effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab therapy for inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective multi-centre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Cohort studies have described the short-term effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab in treating patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), but data beyond 1 year are lacking.

AIM

To assess the effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab after 162 weeks in patients with UC and CD.

METHODS

Between June and December 2014, 294 patients including 173 patients with CD and 121 with UC were treated with vedolizumab induction therapy. Among them, 149 continued to be treated with vedolizumab beyond week 54 (78 patients with CD and 71 with UC). Disease activity was assessed using the Harvey-Bradshaw Index for CD and the partial Mayo Clinic score for UC. The primary outcome was steroid-free clinical remission at week 162, computed for the whole population included at week 0.

RESULTS

Steroid-free clinical remission rates at week 162 were 19.9% and 36.1% in patients with CD and UC respectively. Vedolizumab dose optimisation to 300 mg every 4 weeks instead of 300 mg every 8 weeks was at investigator's discretion and occurred in 58.7% and 52.1% of patients with CD and UC respectively. The 1-, 2- and 3-year persistence rates of vedolizumab were 48.5%, 31.4% and 26.3% respectively, in patients with CD and 61.0%, 49.9% and 42.9% respectively, in patients with UC. No new safety signal was identified.

CONCLUSION

Vedolizumab is able to maintain steroid-free clinical remission in patients with UC and CD up to week 162. Loss of response resulting in discontinuation of vedolizumab occurred in 10% of patients per year.

Long-term efficacy and safety of vedolizumab in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: A real-life experience from a tertiary referral center

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of vedolizumab in a real-life cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases enrolled at a tertiary referral center.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively collected from August 2016 to November 2018. The primary outcomes were clinical response and remission at 14, 24, and 52 weeks, and steroid-free remission rate (SFRR) at 52 weeks. Endoscopic response and remission rates at 52 weeks were the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Altogether 49 patients (22 with ulcerating colitis [UC] and 27 with Crohn's Disease [CD]) were enrolled. The clinical response rate gradually dropped from 85% and 50% in CD and UC, respectively, at week 14 to 59% and 25% at week 52, with significantly a higher response in CD at week 14. The endoscopic response at week 52 was 55% in CD and 25% in UC (P = 0.21). CD group had a higher SFRR than UC group (41% vs 20%) at 52 weeks, although the difference was not statistically significant. Similar clinical and endoscopic rates were observed in biologic-naive and -experienced patients. We reported no discontinuation due to adverse drug reactions, and only mild to moderate events.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort the clinical response in the induction phase was similar to those of registered trials, despite surprising better results for CD. During the maintenance phase we observed an higher drop out than in the reported literatures. Of note, its good safety profile makes vedolizumab a reliable choice in patients with contraindications to anti-tumor necrosis factor agents.

Vedolizumab for the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases: from symptomatic control to mucosal healing

Anti-TNF-α have revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, but a significant proportion of patients do not respond or lose response over time after treatment with these drugs. Therefore, the development of drugs that act with a different mechanism of action is strongly needed. Vedolizumab is a selective blocker of intestinal integrin α4β7, which inhibits lymphocyte trafficking and blocks the inflammatory mechanism underlying the bowel damage of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Clinical trials have shown that vedolizumab is effective and safe for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and these data have led to the approval of vedolizumab. However, it remains unclear what therapeutic algorithm to use and which drug to choose as first-line option for patients with moderate-severe disease not responsive to conventional therapies.