Comparison of infliximab with adalimumab in 827 biologic-naïve patients with Crohn's disease: a population-based Danish cohort study

Clinical use of biologics for Crohn's disease in adults: lessons learned from real-world studies

INTRODUCTION

The therapeutic armamentarium for managing Crohn's disease (CD) has expanded significantly in recent decades. Several biologics with three different mechanisms of action [anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, anti-integrin α4β7, and anti-IL 12/23] are currently available to manage CD.

AREA COVERED

This narrative review aims to summarize the most significant efficacy and safety data on the use of infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA), vedolizumab (VDZ) and ustekinumab (UST) for the treatment of CD obtained from studies conducted in the real world (RW), compared to the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

EXPERT OPINION

RW studies reported that biologic agents included in this analysis have higher remission rates and lower adverse event rates than findings from RCTs for treating patients with CD. All biological agents have proven effective and safe in RW studies, even when using biosimilars or switching to subcutaneous administration of the molecules for which they are available. Finally, anti-TNF-α agents, particularly IFX, have a higher rate of adverse events (AEs) than VDZ and UST. Therefore, patients at higher risk of AEs may benefit from other biologics than anti-TNF-α. However, further long-term RW studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Roadmap to Sail the Seas of IBD Therapies

The drug pipeline for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has dramatically expanded over the last two decades, and it is expected to further grow in the upcoming years with the introduction of new agents with different mechanisms of action. However, such an increase of therapeutic options needs to be paralleled with an appropriate development of research to help physicians in the decision-making process when choosing which drug to prescribe. On the population level, comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to explore and identify relevant differences-in terms of both efficacy and safety outcomes-amongst different therapeutic regimens and/or strategies, in order to find the correct placement for each treatment in the therapeutic algorithm. CER revolves around three cornerstones: network meta-analyses, head-to-head trials and real-world studies, each of which has specific pros and cons, and can therefore offer answers to different questions. In this review, we aim to provide an overview on the methodological features specific to each of these research approaches, as well as to illustrate the main findings coming from CER on IBD target therapies (i.e., biologics and small molecules) and to discuss their appropriate interpretation.

Is There a Best First Line Biological/Small Molecule in IBD: Are We Ready for Sequencing?

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic, life-long inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal tract. Treatment strategy depends on the severity of the disease course. IBD physicians need to be aware of the life-long treatment options available. The goal is not only to achieve clinical remission but to halt or stabilize the chronic inflammation in the intestines to prevent further structural damage. Therefore, the use of early biologic therapy is recommended in moderate-to-severe IBD patients. However, in the last decade, use of therapeutic drug monitoring has increased considerably, opening an opportunity for sequencing. This review summarizes the available evidence on biologic and small molecules therapy in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in different clinical scenarios, including perianal CD, the elderly, extra intestinal manifestations, and pregnancy.

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.

Comparative Risk of Serious Infections With Tumor Necrosis Factor α Antagonists vs Vedolizumab in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the risk of serious infections between patients treated with tumor necrosis factor-a (TNFa) antagonists vs. vedolizumab in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD).

METHODS

Using an administrative claims database, we identified patients with IBD who were new-users of either TNFa antagonists or vedolizumab between 2014-2018 and had insurance coverage for at least 1y before and after treatment initiation. We compared the risk of serious infections (infections requiring hospitalization) between patients treated with vedolizumab or TNFa antagonists using marginal structural Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for baseline disease characteristics, healthcare utilization, comorbidities, and time-varying use of corticosteroids, immunomodulators and opiates.

RESULTS

We included 4881 patients treated with TNFa antagonists (age, 41 ± 15y, 60% with Crohn's disease [CD]) of whom 434 developed serious infections over 5786 person-year [PY] follow-up, and 1106 patients treated with vedolizumab (age, 44 ± 16y, 39% with CD) of whom 86 developed serious infections over 1040-PY follow-up. Vedolizumab was associated with 46% lower risk of serious infections as compared with TNFa antagonists in patients with ulcerative colitis (HR,0.54 [95% CI,0.35-0.83), but no significant differences were observed in patients with CD (HR,1.30 [0.80-2.11]). Vedolizumab was associated with lower risk of extra-intestinal serious infections in patients with UC, but higher risk of gastrointestinal serious infections in patients with CD.

CONCLUSIONS

In an observational study of patients with IBD, vedolizumab was associated with lower risk of serious infections as compared with TNFa antagonists, in patients with UC, but not in patients with CD.

Predictors of drug survival: A cohort study comparing anti-tumour necrosis factor agents using the Swedish inflammatory bowel disease quality register

BACKGROUND

Whether long-term effectiveness differs between anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents is unknown.

AIMS

To examine drug survival of first-line anti-TNF agents and identify predictors of discontinuation. To reduce channelling bias, we also compared drug survival of the second anti-TNF.

METHODS

Biologic-naïve patients (N = 955) recorded in the Swedish IBD Quality Register (SWIBREG) were examined. We used propensity score matching, comparing drug survival over up to three years of follow-up. Cox regression estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

In Crohn's disease, discontinuation because of lack/loss of response was 32% [95%CI = 26%-38%] for infliximab versus 16% [95%CI = 11%-21%] for adalimumab. Infliximab [vs adalimumab; aHR = 1.96; 95%CI = 1.20-3.21] and colonic disease (L2) [vs no L2; aHR = 2.17; 95% CI = 1.26-3.75] were associated with higher discontinuation rates, whereas normalised CRP at three months [aHR = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.19-0.81] with a lower rate. Consistently, patients who switched from adalimumab to infliximab (vs infliximab to adalimumab) had earlier discontinuation (P = 0.04). Concomitant use of immunomodulators was associated with a lower adverse drug reaction-mediated discontinuation rate [aHR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.28-0.77], in part explained by fewer infusion reactions [aHR = 0.27; 95% CI = 0.08-0.89]. In ulcerative colitis, the probability of discontinuation because of lack/loss of response was 40% [95% CI = 33%-47%] for infliximab versus 37% [95% CI = 21%-53%] for adalimumab. Disease duration ≥10 years [aHR = 0.25; 95% CI = 0.10-0.58] and normalised CRP after three months [aHR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.18-0.84] were associated with lower discontinuation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical characterisation of patients may aid decision-making on anti-TNF treatment. The consistently shorter drug survival for infliximab (vs adalimumab) in Crohn's disease, suggests a potential difference between the two drugs.

Positioning biologics in the management of moderate to severe Crohn's disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Since there is a lack of head-to-head randomized controlled trials, little direction is provided from guidelines on the positioning of biologics for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD). This review utilizes comparative effectiveness and safety results from real-world data and network meta-analyses to inform clinical practice for positioning of biological therapies in the treatment of moderate-to-severe CD.

RECENT FINDINGS

We summarize the results of studies pertaining to the identification of predictors for response to biologics in CD. Recently published studies about the management of moderate-to-severe CD are discussed and a positioning algorithm is proposed for the therapeutic approach of these patients.

SUMMARY

Different classes of biologics are comparable with regards to safety and almost similar in effectiveness in the management of CD. There are certain clinical scenarios in which one biologic is more effective than another. For instance, patients with a more aggressive disease phenotype such as fistulizing disease would benefit from infliximab over other biologics, whereas in older patients at a higher risk for infectious complications, it may be more appropriate to use ustekinumab or vedolizumab over the anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents. More data pertaining to identifying predictors of response to the different available therapies and head-to-head comparison trials are needed to personalize our therapeutic approach of CD patients.

AGA Technical Review on the Medical Management of Moderate to Severe Luminal and Perianal Fistulizing Crohn's Disease

The incidence and prevalence of Crohn's disease (CD) is rising globally. Patients with moderate to severe CD are at high risk for needing surgery and hospitalization and for developing disease-related complications, corticosteroid dependence, and serious infections. Optimal management of outpatients with moderate to severe luminal and/or fistulizing (including perianal) CD often requires the use of immunomodulator (thiopurines, methotrexate) and/or biologic therapies, including tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists, vedolizumab, or ustekinumab, either as monotherapy or in combination (with immunomodulators) to mitigate these risks. Decisions about optimal drug therapy in moderate to severe CD are complex, with limited guidance on comparative efficacy and safety of different treatments, leading to considerable practice variability. Since the last iteration of these guidelines published in 2013, significant advances have been made in the field, including the regulatory approval of 2 new biologic agents, vedolizumab and ustekinumab. Therefore, the American Gastroenterological Association prioritized updating clinical guidelines on this topic. To inform the clinical guidelines, this technical review was completed in accordance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. The review addressed the following focused questions (in adult outpatients with moderate to severe luminal CD): overall and comparative efficacy of different medications for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with or without prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists, comparative efficacy and safety of biologic monotherapy vs combination therapy with immunomodulators, comparative efficacy of a top-down (upfront use of biologics and/or immunomodulator therapy) vs step-up treatment strategy (acceleration to biologic and/or immunomodulator therapy only after failure of mesalamine), and the role of corticosteroids and mesalamine for induction and/or maintenance of remission. Finally, in adult outpatients with moderate to severe fistulizing CD, this review addressed the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions for achieving fistula and the role of adjunctive antibiotics without clear evidence of active infection.

Head-to-head comparison of biological drugs for inflammatory bowel disease: from randomized controlled trials to real-world experience

During past years, the increasing knowledge of molecular mechanisms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have led to the development of several targeted biological therapies. This great expansion of available medical options has prompted the need for comparative data between drugs. For years, given that most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were performed only versus placebo, this demand has clashed with the absence of head-to-head trials comparing two or more treatments. The quality of evidence coming from real-world experience was low overall, so it was extremely difficult to clarify the correct positioning of the biologicals inside the therapeutic algorithms for IBD. Fortunately, times are changing: head-to-head comparative RCTs have been conducted or are ongoing, and the methodological quality of real-world studies is gradually increasing, mainly thanks to a higher rate of application of statistical methods capable of reducing the selection bias, such as the propensity score. In this evolving scenario, the increasing number of comparative RCTs is providing high-quality data for a correct drug positioning in IBD. In parallel, real-world observational studies are supporting the data coming from RCTs, and covering those comparisons not performed in the RCT setting. We believe that there is moderate evidence already available to support clinicians in the correct choice between different biologicals, and data will certainly be more robust in the near future.

Comparison of Long-term Outcomes of Infliximab versus Adalimumab in 1,488 Biologic-Naive Korean Patients with Crohn's Disease

Background/Aims

Data on the comparative effectiveness of infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab (ADA) in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) are rare, particularly for Asian patients. We compared the key clinical outcomes (surgery, hospitalization, and corticosteroid use) of use of these two drugs in biologic-naive Korean patients with CD.

Methods

Using National Health Insurance claims, we collected data on patients who were diagnosed with CD and exposed to IFX or ADA between 2010 and 2016.

Results

We included 1,488 new users of biologics (1,000 IFX users and 488 ADA users). Over a median follow-up period of 2.1 years after starting biological therapy, no significant differences were found between IFX and ADA users in the risks for surgery (ADA vs IFX adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.84), hospitalization (aHR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.28), and corticosteroid use (aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.19). These results were unchanged even when only patients who used biologics for over 6 months were analyzed (aHR [95% CI] surgery, 1.31 [0.82 to 2.11]; hospitalization, 1.02 [0.80 to 1.30]; corticosteroid use, 0.80 [0.54 to 1.18]). Additionally, these results were unchanged in patients treated with biologics as monotherapy or in combination with immunomodulators.

Conclusions

In this nationwide population-based study, no significant difference was found in the long-term effectiveness of IFX and ADA in the real-world setting of biologic-naive Korean patients with CD. In the absence of trials to directly compare IFX and ADA, our study indicates that the selection of one of these two biologics can be determined by patient and/or physician preference.

A propensity score weighted comparison of vedolizumab and adalimumab in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There are no head-to-head randomized controlled trials between biologics in Crohn's disease (CD). We aimed to perform a multicenter, real-life comparison of the effectiveness of vedolizumab (VDZ) and adalimumab (ADA) in CD.

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients with CD treated with VDZ and ADA from January 2016 to April 2019 were extracted from the cohort of the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. The effectiveness was evaluated at 12, 52 weeks, and as failure-free survival at the end of follow up. Propensity score analysis was performed using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method.

RESULTS

Five hundred eighty-five treatments (VDZ: n = 277; ADA: n = 308) were included (median follow-up: 56.0 weeks). After 12 weeks, a clinical response was achieved in 64.3% patients treated with VDZ and in 83.1% patients treated with ADA (odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-1.10, P = 0.107), while at 52 weeks, a clinical response was observed in 54.0% patients treated with VDZ and in 69.1% patients treated with ADA (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45-1.31, P = 0.336). Cox survival analysis weighted for propensity score showed no significant difference in the probability of failure-free survival between the two drugs (hazard ratio = 1.20, 95% CI 0.83-1.74, P = 0.340). Post-treatment endoscopic response and mucosal healing rates were similar between the two groups (endoscopic response: 35.3% for VDZ and 25.5% for ADA, P = 0.15; mucosal healing: 31.8% for VDZ and 33.8% for ADA, P = 0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

In the first study comparing VDZ and ADA in CD via propensity score analysis, the drugs showed comparable effectiveness and a similar safety profile.

Positioning Therapies in the Management of Crohn's Disease

In the past decade, several new therapies with different mechanisms of action have been approved for the management of moderate to severe Crohn's disease. However, there is limited guidance on optimal positioning of agents as first- or second-line therapies because of the absence of head-to-head trials. Furthermore, given the lack of comparative studies, treatment guidelines have provided limited insight. In this review, we discuss data on key treatment attributes, comparative efficacy and safety, factors predictive of response to each agent, and propose an algorithm for positioning therapies for the management of patients with low-risk and high-risk Crohn's disease.

Comparative Risk of Serious Infections With Biologic and/or Immunosuppressive Therapy in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative risk of serious infections with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists, non-TNF targeted biologics, tofacitinib, and immunosuppressive agents in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs).

METHODS

In a systematic search of publications, through March 18, 2018, we identified 15 observational studies (>500 person-years) of patients with IBD treated with TNF antagonists, non-TNF targeted biologics, tofacitinib, and/or immunosuppressive agents (thiopurines, methotrexate) that reported risk of serious infections. Only studies with active comparators were included, to allow appropriate comparative synthesis. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and estimated relative risk (RR) and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Compared with anti-TNF monotherapy, risk of serious infection increased with the combination of anti-TNF and an immunosuppressive agent (in 6 cohorts: RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.37), with anti-TNF and a corticosteroid (in 4 cohorts: RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.33-2.03), or with all 3 drugs (in 2 cohorts: RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.04-1.77); there was minimal heterogeneity among studies. In contrast, monotherapy with an immunosuppressive agent was associated with a lower risk of serious infections than monotherapy with a TNF antagonist (7 cohorts: RR, 0.61; 95% CI 0.44-0.84) or a TNF antagonist with an immunosuppressive agent (2 cohorts: RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.81). Infliximab-based therapy was associated with a lower risk of serious infections compared with adalimumab-based therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis (4 cohorts: RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97), but not Crohn's disease (4 cohorts: RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.49-1.70). Few data were available on the comparative safety of biologic agents that do not inhibit TNF and tofacitinib.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapies for IBD that include TNF antagonists, especially with corticosteroids, are associated with a higher risk of serious infection, whereas monotherapy with an immunosuppressive agent is associated with a lower risk, compared with monotherapy with a TNF antagonist. Studies are needed to evaluate the comparative safety of non-TNF targeted biologics and small molecules for treatment of IBD.

In the absence of head-to-head trials, what do real world studies tell us about the comparative effectiveness of biologics in Crohn's disease

Head-to-head clinical trials are the highest quality of evidence to support comparative effectiveness. However, there are currently no head-to-head phase 3 clinical trials of biologics in Crohn's Disease. With a need for direct comparisons but lagging RCTs, Real World Data (RWD) can provide evidence on the comparative effectiveness of biologics for a diverse population that is more generalizable to routine practice. The majority of available real-world comparative analyses show no significant difference in effectiveness outcomes-primarily clinical remission and CD related complications. Real-world data is limited by its susceptibility to bias and clinicians must critically evaluate the methods and data sources utilized. Moving forward, it is important to note that comparisons including newer biologics may be limited by significant prior biologic exposure. Additionally, shared decision making incorporates efficacy, safety, and tolerability with patient preference and clinicians should use data from real-world comparative analyses as a part of this equation.

A Propensity Score-matched Comparison of Infliximab and Adalimumab in Tumour Necrosis Factor-α Inhibitor-naïve and Non-naïve Patients With Crohn's Disease: Real-Life Data From the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is an unmet need to better understand the effectiveness of different biologics in inflammatory bowel diseases. We aimed at performing a multicentre, real-life comparison of the effectiveness of infliximab [IFX] and adalimumab [ADA] in Crohn's disease [CD].

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients with CD treated with IFX and ADA from January 2013 to May 2017 were extracted from the cohort of the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. We used propensity score-matching accounting for the main baseline characteristics in TNF-α inhibitor-naïve and non-naïve patients.

RESULTS

A total of 632 patients [735 total treatments] were included. Among naïve patients, a clinical benefit [the sum of steroid-free remission plus clinical response] was achieved in 81.8% patients treated with ADA and in 77.6% patients treated with IFX (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.23, 95% CI 0.63-2-44, p = 0.547] at 12 weeks; after 1 year, a clinical benefit was achieved in 69.2% of patients treated with ADA and in 64.5% patients treated with IFX [adjusted OR: 1.10, 95% CI 0.61-1.96, p = 0.766]. Among non-naïve patients, a clinical benefit was achieved in 61.7% of patients treated with ADA and in 68.1% of patients treated with IFX [adjusted OR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.21-2.44, p = 0.600] at 12 weeks; after 1 year, a clinical benefit was achieved in 48.9% of patients treated with ADA and in 40.4% patients treated with IFX [adjusted OR: 1.23, 95% CI 0.54-2.86, p = 0.620].

CONCLUSIONS

In this propensity score-matched comparison of ADA and IFX in CD, both drugs showed high rates of clinical benefit, without significant differences between them.

Characteristics of biological therapy in pediatric patients with Crohn's disease

INTRODUCTION

At present, there is a significant amount of data related to biologics used in pediatric patients with Crohn's disease. This review characterizes the different biological drugs administered in this population.

AREAS COVERED

Biological therapy of CD, focusing on children, is summarized in this review. After mechanism of action and pharmacokinetics are described, mucosal healing on anti-TNF therapy, aspects of early therapy, long-term outcome and combination therapy are discussed. Moreover, loss of response and treatment optimization, as well as drug withdrawal are summarized. Subsequently, perianal disease and surgical aspects are discussed followed by safety issues. In addition, new drugs (vedolizumab, ustekinumab), cost-effectiveness and administration of biosimilars were also included.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

There are significant data to characterize biological drugs administered in pediatric patients with Crohn's disease. However, head-to-head comparative studies using different biologics are missing.

Influence of early adalimumab serum levels on immunogenicity and long-term outcome of anti-TNF naive Crohn's disease patients: the usefulness of rapid testing

BACKGROUND

Proactive testing of adalimumab serum levels is debated.

AIM

To study the association between adalimumab serum levels at week 4 and the development of anti-adalimumab drug antibodies and long-term outcome in anti-TNF naive Crohn's disease patients.

METHODS

Serum samples from 116 biologically naive Crohn's disease patients with active disease were prospectively collected at baseline, and weeks 4 and 12. Adalimumab serum levels were measured using the RIDA^® QUICK adalimumab lateral flow assay and anti-adalimumab drug antibodies were determined using a drug-resistant assay. Pharmacokinetic data were studied in relation to clinical outcome. Patients who stopped adalimumab by week 12 due to persisting symptoms were considered primary non-responders, whereas initial improvement with increasing symptoms after week 12 was considered loss of response. Adalimumab continuation until the end of follow-up was considered sustained clinical benefit.

RESULTS

Patients with low serum levels at week 4 (<8.3 μg/mL) were at significantly higher risk of being anti-adalimumab positive by week 12 (46.7% vs 13.0%, P = 0.009). After a median follow-up of 89 weeks, dose-escalation and sustained clinical benefit were observed in 37.1% and 48.3% of patients. The 21.4% of patients who were anti-adalimumab drug antibody positive by week 12, had a significantly higher need of dose escalation (P < 0.001), and experienced sustained clinical benefit less frequently due to primary non-response or secondary loss of response (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support early monitoring of adalimumab serum levels to guide dose optimisation, which may prevent immunogenicity and influence long-term outcome. We validated a novel lateral flow assay for quantitative determination of adalimumab levels, facilitating physicians to optimise therapy immediately at the outpatient clinic.