Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of Vedolizumab Versus Ustekinumab After Anti-TNF Failure in Crohn's Disease (Versus-CD): Data from the ENEIDA Registry

Ustekinumab or Vedolizumab after Failure of Anti-TNF Agents in Crohn's Disease: A Review of Comparative Effectiveness Studies

Background: Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents are effective in Crohn's disease (CD), but some patients lose responsiveness and require alternative biologic therapy. Until recently, ustekinumab and vedolizumab were the only other biological agents approved for use in CD. There are no randomised trials which compare the efficacy of these two agents in patients with anti-TNF refractory disease, but several retrospective cohort studies have compared their effectiveness in this setting. Aim: To review the effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in anti-TNF refractory patients with CD. Methods: We included studies that compared the effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in treating patients with anti-TNF refractory CD. We recorded the sample size, primary and secondary outcome measures and whether the studies employed adjustments for appropriate confounders. Results: Fourteen studies were included with a total sample size of 5651, of whom 2181 (38.6%) were treated with vedolizumab and the rest were treated with ustekinumab (61.4%). Of the fourteen studies included, eight found ustekinumab to be more effective in achieving clinical remission/steroid-free remission in the induction phase or during maintenance therapy (at least 1-year post-treatment) or that treatment persistence rates with ustekinumab were higher than with vedolizumab. Only one study reported vedolizumab to be superior during the maintenance phase in terms of clinical remission or treatment persistence rates. Biochemical outcomes were reported in five studies, two of which showed superiority for ustekinumab at 14 weeks and the other at 52 weeks. Only two studies reported endoscopic and/or radiologic outcomes; of these, one study showed ustekinumab to be significantly better at achieving endoscopic and radiologic responses. Adverse outcomes were broadly comparable, barring a single study which reported a lower hospitalisation rate for severe infection with ustekinumab. Conclusions: Most studies found ustekinumab to be more effective or non-inferior to vedolizumab in treating patients with anti-TNF refractory CD. Although many studies adjusted appropriately for confounders, the possibility of residual confounding remains and further data from prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings. Further studies are required to compare these two therapies to other emerging therapies, such as Janus-kinase inhibitors.

Simulated cost-effectiveness of a novel precision-guided dosing strategy in adult patients with Crohn's disease initiating infliximab maintenance therapy

BACKGROUND

Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) who lose response to biologics experience reduced quality of life (QoL) and costly hospitalizations. Precision-guided dosing (PGD) provides a comprehensive pharmacokinetic (PK) profile that allows for biologic dosing to be personalized. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of infliximab (IFX) PGD relative to two other dose intensification strategies (DIS).

METHODS

We developed a hybrid (Markov and decision tree) model of patients with CD who had a clinical response to IFX induction. The analysis had a US payer perspective, a base case time horizon of 5 years, and a 4-week cycle length. There were three IFX dosing comparators: PGD; dose intensification based on symptoms, inflammatory markers, and trough IFX concentration (DIS1); and dose intensification based on symptoms alone (DIS2). Patients that failed IFX initiated ustekinumab, followed by vedolizumab, and conventional therapy. Transition probabilities for IFX were estimated from real-world clinical PK data and interventional clinical trial patient-level data. All other transition probabilities were derived from published randomized clinical trials and cost-effectiveness analyses. Utility values were sourced from previous health technology assessments. Direct costs included biologic acquisition and infusion, surgeries and procedures, conventional therapy, and lab testing. The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The robustness of results was assessed via one-way sensitivity, scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

RESULTS

PGD was the cost-effective IFX dosing strategy with an ICER of 122,932 $ per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) relative to DIS1 and dominating DIS2. PGD had the lowest percentage (1.1%) of patients requiring a new biologic through 5 years (8.9% and 74.4% for DIS1 and DIS2, respectively). One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness of PGD was most sensitive to the time between IFX doses. PSA demonstrated that joint parameter uncertainty had moderate impact on some results.

CONCLUSIONS

PGD provides clinical and QoL benefits by maintaining remission and avoiding IFX failure; it is the most cost-effective under conservative assumptions.

Controversies in the management of anti-TNF therapy in patients with Crohn's disease: a Delphi consensus

BACKGROUND

Despite research, there are still controversial areas in the management of Crohn's disease (CD).

OBJECTIVE

To establish practical recommendations on using anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs in patients with moderate-to-severe CD.

METHODS

Clinical controversies in the management of CD using anti-TNF therapies were identified. A comprehensive literature review was performed, and a national survey was launched to examine current clinical practices when using anti-TNF therapies. Their results were discussed by expert gastroenterologists within a nominal group meeting, and a set of statements was proposed and tested in a Delphi process.

RESULTS

Qualitative study. The survey and Delphi process were sent to 244 CD-treating physicians (response rate: 58%). A total of 14 statements were generated. All but two achieved agreement. These statements cover: (1) use of first-line non-anti-TNF biological therapy; (2) role of HLA-DQA1*05 in daily practice; (3) attitudes in primary non-response and loss of response to anti-TNF therapy due to immunogenicity; (4) use of ustekinumab or vedolizumab if a change in action mechanism is warranted; (5) anti-TNF drug level monitoring; (6) combined therapy with an immunomodulator.

CONCLUSION

This document sought to pull together the best evidence, experts' opinions, and treating physicians' attitudes when using anti-TNF therapies in patients with CD.