Translating Results from VARSITY to Real World: Adalimumab vs Vedolizumab as First-line Biological in Moderate to Severe IBD

Meta-analysis: Persistence of advanced therapies in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

The expanding options in advanced therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) present challenges in treatment selection. Persistence analysis assesses drug durability in real-world settings, acting as a surrogate marker for medication efficacy and tolerance. Unlike traditional comparative studies, persistence analysis provides insights extending beyond the initial year of treatment.

AIM

To provide real-world evidence on treatment effectiveness, tolerability and preferences of physicians and patients regarding various advanced therapies for IBD.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of observational studies up to March 2023 assessing advanced therapies' persistence in UC and CD. Advanced therapies under examination included infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, golimumab, certolizumab and tofacitinib. We pooled the persistence of each agent and conducted a meta-analysis to compare the persistence of newer agents with traditional TNF inhibitors (TNFi)-specifically infliximab and adalimumab.

RESULTS

Among 63 observational studies, vedolizumab had the highest 1-year persistence in UC (73.8%, 95% CI: 70.0%-77.6%) and ustekinumab in CD (77.5%, 95% CI: 72.9%-82.1%). Compared to TNFi, vedolizumab demonstrated increased persistence with a relative risk (RR) of 1.30 (95% CI: 1.19-1.41) for UC and 1.14 (95% CI: 1.09-1.20) for CD at 1 year, while ustekinumab demonstrated a RR of 1.15 (95% CI: 1.07-1.23) for CD at 1 year. Vedolizumab exhibited sustained increased persistence in UC over 2 years compared to TNFi (RR: 1.33, 95% CI 1.14-1.54).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis highlights the superior persistence of ustekinumab and vedolizumab over TNFi, and offers valuable insights for clinicians navigating the challenging landscape of UC and CD therapeutic choices.

Biologic therapy for inflammatory bowel disease: Real-world comparative effectiveness and impact of drug sequencing in 13,222 patients within the UK IBD BioResource

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To compare effectiveness of different biologic therapies and sequences in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) using real-world data from a large cohort with long exposure.

METHODS

Demographic, disease, treatment and outcome data were retrieved for patients in the UK IBD BioResource. Effectiveness of treatment was based on persistence free of discontinuation or failure, analysed by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for differences between groups.

RESULTS

13,222 evaluable patients received at least one biologic. In ulcerative colitis (UC) first line vedolizumab (VDZ) demonstrated superior effectiveness over five years compared to anti-TNF agents (p=0.006). VDZ was superior to both infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADA) after ADA and IFX failure respectively (p<0.001 and p<0.001). Anti-TNF therapy showed similar effectiveness when used first-line, or after failure of VDZ. In Crohn's disease (CD) we found significant differences between first line treatments over ten years (p=0.045), with superior effectiveness of IFX compared to ADA in perianal CD. Non-anti-TNF biologics were superior to a second anti-TNF after first line anti-TNF failure in CD (p=0.035). Patients with UC or CD experiencing TNF-failure due to delayed loss of response or intolerance had superior outcomes when switching to a non-anti-TNF biologic, rather than a second anti-TNF.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide real-world evidence to guide biologic selection and sequencing in a range of common scenarios. Our findings challenge current guidelines regarding drug selection after loss of response to first anti-TNF.

Efficacy and safety of adalimumab biosimilar (HS016) in inflammatory bowel disease from the real-world study

Objective: Adalimumab (ADA) is an effective treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), both ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). The equal effect between the original ADA and biosimilars from Europe and the United States has been shown. However, the biosimilar of ADA is different in China. The effectiveness and safety data of ADA biosimilar (HS016) in China have yet to be discovered. Patients and methods: 91 patients (75 CD, 16 UC) received HS016 treatment and were enrolled in this study. Therapeutic response and safety profiles were analyzed. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) was also carried out among nonresponse patients. After being considered as "nonresponse" (after three or 6 months of treatment), 20 patients' serum TNFα concentrations were measured and correlated to their disease severity. Results: Among active CD patients (n = 61), 75.4% (46/61) at 12 w, 73.8% (45/61) at 26 w, 50.8% (31/61) at 52 w achieved the clinical response, respectively; 55.7% (34/61) at 12 w, 65.6% (40/61) at 26 w, and 45.9% (28/61) at 52 w achieved clinical remission. The maintained remission rates of CD (n = 14) in clinical remission were 100% (14/14) at 12 w, 78.6% (11/14) at 26 w, and 63.6% (7/11) at 52 w, respectively. Among active UC patients, 37.5% (6/16) at 12 w and 50% (8/16) at 26 w achieved clinical response. Total adverse event rates were 5.5% (5/91) during 52-week visits. Due to the inadequate serum drug concentration, 30.4% (7/23) of patients had poor clinical responses. Elevations of serum anti-drug antibodies occurred in one additional patient (4.3%). Conclusion: ADA biosimilar HS016 had good efficacy and safety in Chinese IBD patients.

Comparative Risk of Serious Infections With Biologic Agents and Oral Small Molecules in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Safety is a key consideration when choosing advanced therapies (biologic agents and oral small-molecule inhibitors/modulators) in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the risk of serious infections with advanced therapies in active comparator studies.

METHODS

Through a systematic search until February 28, 2022, we included 20 head-to-head studies comparing risk of serious infections with tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) antagonists, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, and ozanimod in patients with IBD. We performed random-effects meta-analysis comparing different advanced therapies.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in the risk of serious infections between vedolizumab vs TNFα antagonists in all patients with IBD (17 cohorts: odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-1.04), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 37%); on subgroup analysis, vedolizumab was associated with a lower risk of serious infections in patients with ulcerative colitis (11 cohorts: OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.83; I2 = 0%), but not in Crohn's disease (CD) (9 cohorts: OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.78-1.35; I2 = 42%). Age, sex, prior biologic exposure, and use of biologic monotherapy did not influence this association. In patients with CD, ustekinumab was associated with a lower risk of serious infections vs TNFα antagonists (3 cohorts: OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25-0.93; I2 = 16%) and vs vedolizumab (3 cohorts: OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.93; I2 = 67%). Few studies compared other advanced therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Vedolizumab may offer net benefit over TNFα antagonists in patients with ulcerative colitis, but not in CD. Ustekinumab may offer net benefit over TNFα antagonists and vedolizumab in patients with CD.

How to Choose the Biologic Therapy in a Bio-Naïve Patient with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The availability of biologic therapies in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasing significantly. This represents more options to treat patients, but also more difficulties in choosing the therapies, especially in the context of bio-naïve patients. Most evidence of safety and efficacy came from clinical trials comparing biologics with placebo, with a lack of head-to-head studies. Network meta-analysis of biologics and real-world studies have been developed to solve this problem. Despite the results of these studies, there are also other important factors to consider before choosing the biologic, such as patient preferences, comorbidities, genetics, and inflammatory markers. Given that resources are limited, another important aspect is the cost of biologic therapy, since biosimilars are widely available and have been demonstrated to be effective with a significant decrease in costs. In this review, we summarize the evidence comparing biologic therapy in both Crohn´s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in different clinical situations. We also briefly synthesize the evidence related to predictors of biologic response, as well as the biologic use in extraintestinal manifestations and the importance of the drug-related costs.