Comparison of short- and long-term effectiveness between ustekinumab and vedolizumab in patients with Crohn's disease refractory to anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy

Trends in Targeted Therapy Usage in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: TRENDY Study of ENEIDA

Markers that allow for the selection of tailored treatments for individual patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are yet to be identified. Our aim was to describe trends in real-life treatment usage. For this purpose, patients from the ENEIDA registry who received their first targeted IBD treatment (biologics or tofacitinib) between 2015 and 2021 were included. A subsequent analysis with Machine Learning models was performed. The study included 10,009 patients [71% with Crohn's disease (CD) and 29% with ulcerative colitis (UC)]. In CD, anti-TNF (predominantly adalimumab) were the main agents in the 1st line of treatment (LoT), although their use declined over time. In UC, anti-TNF (mainly infliximab) use was predominant in 1st LoT, remaining stable over time. Ustekinumab and vedolizumab were the most prescribed drugs in 2nd and 3rd LoT in CD and UC, respectively. Overall, the use of biosimilars increased over time. Machine Learning failed to identify a model capable of predicting treatment patterns. In conclusion, drug positioning is different in CD and UC. Anti-TNF were the most used drugs in IBD 1st LoT, being adalimumab predominant in CD and infliximab in UC. Ustekinumab and vedolizumab have gained importance in CD and UC, respectively. The approval of biosimilars had a significant impact on treatment.

Real-world clinical outcomes and healthcare costs in patients with Crohn's disease treated with vedolizumab versus ustekinumab in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To compare real-world treatment persistence, dose escalation, rates of opportunistic or serious infections, and healthcare costs in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) receiving vedolizumab (VDZ) vs ustekinumab (UST) in the United States.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study in adults with CD initiated on VDZ or UST on/after 26 September 2016, was performed using the IBM Truven Health MarketScan databases (1 January 2009-30 September 2018). Rates of treatment persistence, dose escalation, opportunistic or serious infection-related encounters, and healthcare costs per patient per month (PPPM) were evaluated. Entropy balancing was used to balance patient characteristics between cohorts. Event rates were assessed using weighted Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared between cohorts using log-rank tests. Healthcare costs were compared between cohorts using weighted 2-part models.

RESULTS

589 VDZ and 599 UST patients were included (172 [29.2%] and 117 [19.5%] were bio-naïve, respectively). After weighting, baseline characteristics were comparable between cohorts. No significant difference in rates of treatment persistence (12-month: VDZ, 76.5%; UST, 82.1%; p = .17), dose escalation (12-month: VDZ, 29.3%; UST, 32.7%; p = .97), or opportunistic or serious infection-related encounters were observed between VDZ and UST. Total mean healthcare costs were significantly lower for patients treated with VDZ vs UST (mean cost difference = -$5051 PPPM; p < .01). Findings were consistent in bio-naïve patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world study, similar treatment persistence, dose escalation, and rates of opportunistic or serious infections were observed with VDZ- and UST-treated patients with CD. However, VDZ was associated with a significantly lower cost outlay for healthcare systems.

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.

Are the New Biologics Effective in the Management of Postoperative Crohn's Disease?

BACKGROUND

Despite the growing therapeutic armamentarium, at least half of the patients with Crohn's disease will require surgery during their lifetime. Current evidence for the prevention and treatment of postoperative Crohn's disease supports the use of anti-tumor necrosis factor agents with limited data about the use of the newer biologics, vedolizumab and ustekinumab.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of available data to determine the efficacy of the newer biologics in the management of postoperative Crohn's disease. We included noncomparative and comparative studies. The main outcomes of interest were clinical and endoscopic postoperative recurrence rates.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 1231 citations, with 32 eligible for review. Several studies showed that the postoperative Crohn's disease recurrence rates with the use of the newer biologics were comparable to previously published results with the use of anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, while other studies failed to show their efficacy. It is important to note that the studies were heterogeneous and included a relatively small sample size, making it difficult to draw a definite conclusion about the efficacy of the newer biologics in the management of postoperative Crohn's disease.

CONCLUSION

The newer biologics do play a role in the management of postoperative Crohn's disease. After our review, we proposed an updated algorithm on the role of newer biologics in the approach to patients with postoperative Crohn's disease. Yet, until we have better-designed studies, their definite positioning remains to be determined.

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

BACKGROUND

Both vedolizumab and ustekinumab are approved for the management of Crohn's disease [CD]. Data on which one would be the most beneficial option when anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] agents fail are limited.

AIMS

To compare the durability, effectiveness, and safety of vedolizumab and ustekinumab after anti-TNF failure or intolerance in CD.

METHODS

CD patients from the ENEIDA registry who received vedolizumab or ustekinumab after anti-TNF failure or intolerance were included. Durability and effectiveness were evaluated in both the short and the long term. Effectiveness was defined according to the Harvey-Bradshaw index [HBI]. The safety profile was compared between the two treatments. The propensity score was calculated by the inverse probability weighting method to balance confounder factors.

RESULTS

A total of 835 patients from 30 centres were included, 207 treated with vedolizumab and 628 with ustekinumab. Dose intensification was performed in 295 patients. Vedolizumab [vs ustekinumab] was associated with a higher risk of treatment discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR] 2.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.02-3.21), adjusted by corticosteroids at baseline [HR 1.27; 95% CI: 1.00-1.62], moderate-severe activity in HBI [HR 1.79; 95% CI: 1.20-2.48], and high levels of C-reactive protein at baseline [HR 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02-1.10]. The inverse probability weighting method confirmed these results. Clinical response, remission, and corticosteroid-free clinical remission were higher with ustekinumab than with vedolizumab. Both drugs had a low risk of adverse events with no differences between them.

CONCLUSION

In CD patients who have failed anti-TNF agents, ustekinumab seems to be superior to vedolizumab in terms of durability and effectiveness in clinical practice. The safety profile is good and similar for both treatments.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Vedolizumab and Ustekinumab in Crohn's Disease Patients Who Failed Anti-tumor Necrosis Factor-α Treatment in Japan: An Observational Study Utilizing Claims Database

This study aimed to investigate whether the approved sequence of vedolizumab and ustekinumab impacts the results of previous observational studies conducted in the European Union (EU), comparing the effectiveness of these drugs in Crohn's disease (CD) patients who failed anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα) treatment. We conducted this study in Japan, where the approved sequence of drugs is different from that of the EU. We extracted 256 patients diagnosed with CD, who had a history of anti-TNFα treatment and were prescribed either vedolizumab or ustekinumab, from JMDC claims database. The patients' backgrounds were adjusted by inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity score. The primary outcome was treatment persistence. Secondary outcomes were a steroid-free period, time to hospitalization, and time to CD-related surgery. The hazard ratios (HR) for survival times were estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model. The treatment persistence (primary endpoint) was significantly longer for ustekinumab than vedolizumab (HR, 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.15-0.72). The results of the secondary endpoints were as follows: steroid-free period (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.10-1.48), time to hospitalization (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.60-1.91), or time to CD-related surgery (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.11-0.97). There were no outcomes indicating the superiority of vedolizumab. Our findings suggest that ustekinumab is a more effective treatment option than vedolizumab for CD patients who failed to anti-TNFα treatment, and this finding remains consistent across both Japan and the EU.

Second-Line Biologic Therapy Following Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonist Failure: A Real-World Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis

BACKGROUND& AIMS

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists often are used as first-line medications to treat moderate to severe inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but many patients do not achieve or maintain response. Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of second-line treatments (ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or a second TNF antagonist) after TNF antagonist exposure in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) from 2 electronic health records-based cohorts.

METHODS

We identified patients with prior TNF antagonist exposure who switched to a different biologic in the Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) electronic health records (CD, n = 527; UC, n = 165) and the Study of a Prospective Adult Research Cohort (SPARC) from the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Plexus Program of the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation (CD, n = 412; UC, n = 129). Treatment failure was defined as the composite of any IBD-related surgery, IBD-related hospitalization, new prescription of oral/intravenous corticosteroids, or need to switch to a third biologic agent. Time-to-event analysis was conducted with inverse probability of treatment-weighted data.

RESULTS

Overall, treatment failure occurred in 85% of MSHS and 72% of SPARC CD patients. In SPARC, the likelihood of treatment failure was significantly lower with ustekinumab compared with vedolizumab as second-line treatment (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.82; P < .001), a trend confirmed in MSHS (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.04; P = .15). In both cohorts, the superiority of ustekinumab compared with vedolizumab was shown when considering treatment failure as prescription of steroids or a third biologic agent. In UC, no differences between second-line treatment groups were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2 independent real-world cohort settings, second-line therapy in CD with ustekinumab after TNF antagonist treatment failure was associated with a lower likelihood of treatment failure than second-line vedolizumab.

Effectiveness and Safety of Vedolizumab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis of Observational Studies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Many observational studies on the use of vedolizumab [VDZ] in patients with Crohn's disease [CD] and ulcerative colitis [UC] have been published in the past few years. We aimed to comprehensively summarise its effectiveness and safety by pooling data only from observational studies.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline and Embase were systematically searched for observational studies on patients with CD and UC treated with VDZ through December 2021. The rates of clinical remission and overall adverse events were the primary outcomes. The rates of steroid-free clinical remission, clinical response, mucosal healing, C-reactive protein normalisation, loss of response, VDZ dose escalation, colectomy, serious adverse events, infections, and malignancies were considered as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

In all, 88 studies comprising 25 678 patients [13 663 with CD and 12 015 with UC] met the inclusion criteria. In patients with CD, the pooled estimate rates of clinical remission were 36% at induction and 39% at maintenance. In patients with UC, the pooled estimate rates of clinical remission were 40% at induction and 45% at maintenance. The pooled estimate of incidence rate of adverse events was 34.6 per 100 person-years. At multivariable meta-regression analysis, studies with increased male proportion were independently associated with higher rates of clinical remission and steroid-free clinical remission at both induction and maintenance, and clinical response at maintenance in patients with CD. Studies with increased disease duration were independently associated with higher mucosal healing rates at maintenance in patients with UC.

CONCLUSIONS

Observational studies demonstrated extensively the effectiveness of VDZ, with a reassuring safety profile.

Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Biologic Therapy for Crohn's Disease: A CA-IBD Cohort Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We compared the safety and effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) antagonists vs vedolizumab vs ustekinumab in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) in a multicenter cohort (CA-IBD).

METHODS

We created an electronic health record-based cohort of adult patients with CD who were initiating a new biologic agent (TNF-α antagonists, ustekinumab, vedolizumab) from 5 health systems in California between 2010 and 2017. We compared the risk of serious infections (safety) and all-cause hospitalization and inflammatory bowel disease-related surgery (effectiveness) between different biologic classes using propensity score (PS) matching.

RESULTS

As compared with TNF-α antagonists (n = 1030), 2:1 PS-matched, ustekinumab-treated patients with CD (n = 515) experienced a lower risk of serious infections (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20-0.64), without any difference in the risk of hospitalization (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.21) or surgery (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.69-1.70). Compared with vedolizumab (n = 221), 1:1 PS-matched, ustekinumab-treated patients with CD (n = 221) experienced a lower risk of serious infections (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.60), without significant differences in risk of hospitalization (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54-1.07) or surgery (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.54-3.72). Compared with TNF-α antagonists (n = 442), 2:1 PS-matched, vedolizumab-treated patients with CD (n = 221) had a similar risk of serious infections (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.84-2.78), hospitalization (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.98-1.77), and surgery (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.27-1.47). High comorbidity burden, concomitant opiate use, and prior hospitalization were associated with serious infections and hospitalization in biologic-treated patients with CD.

CONCLUSION

In a multicenter cohort of biologic-treated patients with CD, ustekinumab was associated with a lower risk of serious infections compared with TNF-α antagonists and vedolizumab, without any differences in risk of hospitalization or surgery. The risk of serious infections was similar for TNF-α antagonists vs vedolizumab.

Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Anti-TNF-Experienced Patients with Crohn's Disease Initiating Vedolizumab Versus Ustekinumab

BACKGROUND

Primary and secondary non-response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy is common in patients with Crohn's disease (CD), yet limited research has compared the effectiveness of subsequent biological therapy.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the effectiveness of vedolizumab and ustekinumab in anti-TNF-experienced patients with CD, focusing on patient-prioritized patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, internet-based cohort study nested within IBD Partners. We identified anti-TNF-experienced patients initiating with CD vedolizumab or ustekinumab and analyzed PROs reported approximately 6 months later (minimum 4 months, maximum 10 months). Co-primary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains of Fatigue and Pain Interference. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported short Crohn's disease activity index (sCDAI), treatment persistence, and corticosteroid use. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to control for a number of potential confounders and incorporated into linear and logistic regression models for continuous and categorical outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

Overall, 141 vedolizumab and 219 ustekinumab initiators were included in our analysis. After adjustment, we found no differences between treatment groups in our primary outcomes of Pain Interference or Fatigue or the secondary outcome of sCDAI. However, vedolizumab was associated with lower treatment persistence (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.6) and higher corticosteroid use at follow-up assessment (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.6).

DISCUSSION

Among anti-TNF experienced patients with CD, Pain Interference or Fatigue was not significantly different 4-10 months after starting ustekinumab or vedolizumab. However, reduced steroid use and increased persistence suggest superiority of ustekinumab for non-PRO outcomes.

Real-world comparison of effectiveness between tofacitinib and vedolizumab in patients with ulcerative colitis exposed to at least one anti-TNF agent

BACKGROUND

Data comparing tofacitinib and vedolizumab in ulcerative colitis (UC) are lacking.

AIMS

To compare the effectiveness of tofacitinib and vedolizumab in patients with UC who had prior exposure to anti-TNF therapy METHODS: In this multicentre study, we included consecutive patients with UC ≥18 years old with partial Mayo score >2 and prior anti-TNF exposure, who started tofacitinib or vedolizumab between January 2019 and June 2021. Comparisons were performed using propensity score analyses (inverse probability of treatment weighting).

RESULTS

Overall, 126 and 178 patients received tofacitinib and vedolizumab, respectively. Intensified induction (vedolizumab infusion at week 10 or tofacitinib 10 mg b.d until week 16) was performed in 28.5% and 41.5% of patients, respectively. After propensity-score analysis, corticosteroid-free clinical remission (partial Mayo score ≤2) was achieved at week 16 in 45.1% and 40.2% of patients receiving tofacitinib and vedolizumab, respectively (aOR = 0.82 [0.35-1.91], p = 0.64). Endoscopic improvement (corticosteroid-free clinical remission and endoscopic Mayo score ≤1) (aOR = 0.23[0.08-0.65], p = 0.0032) and histological healing (endoscopic improvement + Nancy histological index ≤1) (13.4% vs 3.2%, aOR = 0.21[0.05-0.91], p = 0.023) were higher at week 16 in patients treated with tofacitinib. No factor was predictive of tofacitinib effectiveness. At least one primary failure to a biologic (OR = 0.46[0.22-0.99], p = 0.049), partial Mayo score >6 (OR = 0.39[0.17-0.90], p = 0.029) and CRP level > 30 mg/L at baseline (OR = 0.08[0.01-0.85], p = 0.036) were associated with vedolizumab failure.

CONCLUSION

Tofacitinib and vedolizumab are effective in UC after failure of anti-TNF agents. However, tofacitinib seems more effective, especially in severe disease and primary failure to biologics.

Use of biologics for the management of Crohn's disease: IG-IBD clinical guidelines based on the GRADE methodology

A cure for Crohn's disease (CD), a chronic inflammatory disease of the gastrointestinal tract of unknown etiology, is not available, so patients require lifelong management to keep inflammation under control. The therapeutic armamentarium has expanded with approval of several biological drugs, including infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab and ustekinumab - monoclonal antibodies that target different inflammatory pathways - and darvadstrocel, a suspension of expanded human allogeneic, adipose-derived, mesenchymal stromal cells for the treatment of refractory complex perianal fistula. Notwithstanding existing practice guidelines on medical therapy for CD, the Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease felt the need to issue new guidelines focused on the use of biologics for managing the intestinal manifestations of CD and based on the GRADE methodology. This document presents recommendations regarding six clinical settings, from the induction to the maintenance of clinical remission, and from optimization and de-escalation of treatments to dealing with perianal CD and post-operative recurrence. The 19 evidence-based statements are supported by information on the quality of the evidence, agreement rate among panel members, and panel comments mainly based on evidence from real world studies.

Intra-abdominal abscesses in CD - When to treat with biologics?

Management of intra-abdominal abscesses complicating Crohn's disease (CD) is challenging. After initial drainage and antibiotherapy treatment, surgery with delayed intestinal resection is often recommended but new data suggests efficacy of biotherapies in this context. This review aims to summarize new data regarding efficacy and safety of anti-TNF in the management of intra-abdominal abscesses complicating CD. We performed a review of the literature on medical management of intra-abdominal abscesses complicating CD. After effective drainage of abscess, treatment with anti-TNF can allow resolving of abscess. In some patients and at a specific timing, the use of biotherapies could avoid delayed surgery and long-term abscess recurrence.

Efficacy of ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or a second anti-TNF agent after the failure of a first anti-TNF agent in patients with Crohn's disease: a multicentre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

No study has performed a face-to-face comparison of biologics after the failure of the first anti-TNF agent in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of biologics in this setting.

METHODS

Patients with CD who were refractory to a first anti-TNF agent, and treated with ustekinumab (UST), vedolizumab (VDZ), or a second anti-TNF drug as a second-line biological agent at 10 French tertiary centres from 2013 to 2019 were retrospectively included in this study.

RESULTS

Among the 203 patients included, 90 (44%) received UST, 42 (21%) received VDZ and 71 (35%) received a second anti-TNF agent. The first anti-TNF agent was discontinued due to a primary nonresponse in 42 (21%) patients. At weeks 14-24, the rates of steroid-free remission were similar between the UST, VDZ and second anti-TNF groups (29%, 38% and 44%, respectively, p = 0.15). With a mean follow-up of 118 weeks, drug survival was shorter for patients who received ustekinumab treatment (p = 0.001). In the case of trough level less than 5 µg/ml, patients treated with a second anti-TNF agent had a higher postinduction remission rate (p = 0.002), and drug survival (p = 0.0005). No other relevant factors were associated with treatment efficacy, including trough levels greater than 5 µg/ml.

CONCLUSIONS

VDZ, UST and a second anti-TNF agent exhibit similar efficacy in the short term, as second-biological line treatment in patients with CD who are refractory to a first anti-TNF agent, but shorter drug maintenance is observed for patients treated with UST.

Real-World Evidence Comparing Vedolizumab and Ustekinumab in Antitumor Necrosis Factor-Experienced Patients With Crohn's Disease

INTRODUCTION

Many patients with Crohn's disease (CD) lose response or become intolerant to antitumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy and subsequently switch out of class. We compared the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab to vedolizumab in a large, geographically diverse US population of TNF-experienced patients with CD.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using longitudinal claims data from a large US insurer (Anthem, Inc.). We identified patients with CD initiating vedolizumab or ustekinumab with anti-TNF treatment in the prior 6 months. Our primary outcome was treatment persistence for >52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included (i) all-cause hospitalization, (ii) hospitalization for CD with surgery, (iii) hospitalization for CD without surgery, and (iv) hospitalization for infection. Propensity score fine stratification was used to control for demographic and baseline clinical characteristics and prior treatments.

RESULTS

Among 885 new users of ustekinumab and 490 new users of vedolizumab, we observed no difference in treatment persistence (adjusted risk ratio 1.09 [95% confidence interval 0.95-1.25]). Ustekinumab was associated with a lower rate of all-cause hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio 0.73 [0.59-0.91]), nonsurgical CD hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio 0.58 [0.40-0.83]), and hospitalization for infection (adjusted hazard ratio 0.56 [0.34-0.92]).

DISCUSSION

This real-world comparative effectiveness study of anti-TNF-experienced patients with CD initiating vedolizumab or ustekinumab showed similar treatment persistence rates beyond 52 weeks, although secondary outcomes such as all-cause hospitalizations, nonsurgical CD hospitalizations, and hospitalizations for infection favored ustekinumab initiation. We, therefore, advocate for individualized decision making in this medically refractory population, considering patient preference and other factors such as cost and route of administration.

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.

Prevalence of anti-TNF contraindications in Crohn's disease: A cross-sectional survey from the GETAID

BACKGROUND

The exact rate of contraindications to anti-TNF therapy and physician perspectives on treatment choices facing to anti-TNF contraindication, are poorly reported.

METHODS

A two-week cross-sectional study was conducted in 31 centres. Physicians completed a questionnaire for a total of 1,314 consecutive outpatients with Crohn's disease, assessing each patient's potential contraindications to anti-TNF therapy, the choice of alternative therapy to anti-TNFs, and their preference in an unrestricted reimbursement setting.

RESULTS

Among the 1,293 responses to the first item, 148 (11.5%) reported 32 absolute contraindications (2.5%) and 116 relative contraindications (9.0%) to anti-TNF therapy. When asked about their preference of alternative therapies in those cases with contraindications to anti-TNF, physicians chose ustekinumab and vedolizumab, 75.6% and 23.9%, respectively. In multivariable analysis, the choice of vedolizumab was the preferred choice for patients aged > 60 years with the L2 phenotype and the absence of perianal lesions. In a hypothetical setting of unrestricted reimbursement, anti-TNFs remained physicians' preferred first-line biological therapy choice for 78.2%.

CONCLUSION

Anti-TNF contraindications occurred in up to 11.5% of patients with Crohn's disease. Physicians' choices for alternative therapy to anti-TNF relied on ustekinumab in 75.6% and vedolizumab in 23.9% of these cases. This choice was driven mainly by phenotypical criteria and age.

The effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab as third-line biologic therapy in patients with Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of Ustekinumab (UST) and Vedolizumab (VDZ) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) as third-line biologic therapies is unclear.

AIMS

We performed a multicentre, real-world assessment of the effectiveness of UST and VDZ among highly-refractory patients with CD.

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients with CD treated with UST and VDZ as third-line biologic therapy until December 2021 were extracted from the cohort of the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SN-IBD).

RESULTS

143 patients (UST: n = 113; VDZ: n = 30) were included. At the end of induction, the rates of clinical response (CR) were 61.9% for UST and 60.0% for VDZ (p = 1.00), with steroid-free clinical remission (SFCR) achieved in 38.1% of patients in the UST group and 43.3% of patients in the VDZ group (p = 0.75). After 52 weeks of observation, the rates of CR were 65.9% for UST and 71.4% for VDZ (p = 0.77), while the rates of SFCR were 51.8% for UST and 57.1% for VDZ (p = 0.78). At multiple Cox proportional hazard regression model, age (HR 0.98; p = 0.04) and need for systemic steroids at baseline (HR 3.29; p = 0.003) were found to be independent predictors of treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Both VDZ and UST showed high effectiveness as third-line biologic therapy in CD, without significant differences between them.

An Objective Comparison of Vedolizumab and Ustekinumab Effectiveness in Crohn's Disease Patients' Failure to TNF-Alpha Inhibitors

INTRODUCTION

The use of ustekinumab and vedolizumab as second-line therapies in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) in which tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (TNFi) failed is still debated. The aim of this study was to compare, in a large multicenter observational retrospective cohort, the effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab as second-line therapies, as assessed by clinical and objective outcomes including endoscopy and gastrointestinal imaging.

METHODS

Clinical response, remission, and steroid-free remission at weeks 26 and 52 were evaluated in a retrospective propensity score-weighted and propensity score-matched cohort of patients in which TNFi failed. Objective response and remission were evaluated by 1 or more techniques among endoscopy, magnetic resonance/computed tomography enteroclysis, and small bowel ultrasound.

RESULTS

A total of 470 patients with CD (239 treated with ustekinumab and 231 treated with vedolizumab) were included in the study. At week 26, clinical outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. At week 52, clinical remission (ustekinumab 42.5% vs vedolizumab 55.5%, P = 0.01) and steroid-free remission (ustekinumab 40.6% vs vedolizumab 51.1%, P = 0.038) rates were significantly higher in vedolizumab-treated patients. Three hundred two patients (hundred thirty-five treated with ustekinumab and hundred sixty-seven treated with vedolizumab) had an objective evaluation of disease activity at baseline and week 52. At week 52, objective response and remission rates were similar between the 2 groups. Clinical response at week 26 predicted steroid-free remission at week 52 in both ustekinumab-treated and vedolizumab-treated patients. Safety profiles were similar between the 2 groups.

DISCUSSION

In patients with CD in which TNFi failed, both ustekinumab and vedolizumab showed similar clinical effectiveness after 26 weeks of treatment. At 1 year, vedolizumab was associated with a higher rate of clinical remission when compared with ustekinumab. However, no difference was observed between the 2 groups when objective outcomes were investigated at this time point.

Real-World Evidence of the Effectiveness and Safety of Ustekinumab for the Treatment of Crohn’s Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

(1) Background: Evidence on the outcomes of ustekinumab treatment in real-world Crohn’s disease (CD) patients is needed. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in CD, reported by observational studies. (2) Methods: bibliographical searches were performed (PubMed, EMBASE). Selection: observational studies assessing the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in CD. Exclusion criteria: studies using ustekinumab as a prophylaxis for postoperative recurrence or perianal disease. Data synthesis: effectiveness by intention-to-treat (random-effects model). Data were stratified by study design, population included, administered dose, and prior biologic exposure. (3) Results: A total of 63 studies (8529 patients) were included. Response was achieved in 60% (95% CI, 54–67%) in the short term (8–14 weeks); 64% (57–71%) in the medium term (16–24 weeks); and 64% (52–74%) in the long term (48–52 weeks). Remission was achieved in 37% (28–46%) in the short term; 42% (36–49%) in the medium term; and 45% (37–53%) in the long term. The endoscopic remission rate was 33% (25–40%) in the long term. Eighteen percent of patients lost response during follow-up. Nearly one-third of the patients needed dose optimisation, and in 59% of them it was effective. Twenty-five percent of patients developed adverse events, leading to treatment withdrawal in seven percent of the cases. (4) Conclusions: Ustekinumab is an effective and safe therapy in real-world refractory CD patients. Dose optimisation is frequently required, being effective in a high percentage of cases.

Comparative Acceptability of Therapeutic Maintenance Regimens in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Results From the Nationwide ACCEPT2 Study

BACKGROUND

Owing to growing number of therapeutic options with similar efficacy and safety, we compared the acceptability of therapeutic maintenance regimens in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

From a nationwide study (24 public or private centers), IBD patients were consecutively included for 6 weeks. A dedicated questionnaire including acceptability numerical scales (ANS) ranging from 0 to 10 (highest acceptability) was administered to both patients and related physicians.

RESULTS

Among 1850 included patients (65.9% with Crohn's disease), the ANS were 8.68 ± 2.52 for oral route (first choice in 65.8%), 7.67 ± 2.94 for subcutaneous injections (first choice in 21.4%), and 6.79 ± 3.31 for intravenous infusions (first choice in 12.8%; P < .001 for each comparison). In biologic-naïve patients (n = 315), the most accepted maintenance regimens were oral intake once (ANS = 8.8 ± 2.2) or twice (ANS = 6.9 ± 3.4) daily and subcutaneous injections every 12 or 8 weeks (ANS = 7.9 ± 3.0 and ANS = 7.2 ± 3.2, respectively). Among 342 patients with prior exposure to subcutaneous biologics, the preferred regimens were subcutaneous injections (≥2 week-intervals; ANS between 9.1 ± 2.3 and 8.1 ± 2.7) and oral intake once daily (ANS = 7.7 ± 3.2); although it was subcutaneous injections every 12 or 8 weeks (ANS = 8.4 ± 3.0 and ANS = 8.1 ± 3.0, respectively) and oral intake once daily (ANS = 7.6 ± 3.1) in case of prior exposure to intravenous biologics (n = 1181). The impact of usual therapeutic escalation or de-escalation was mild (effect size <0.5). From patients' acceptability perspective, superiority and noninferiority cutoff values should be 15% and 5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although oral intake is overall preferred, acceptability is highly impacted by the rhythm of administration and prior medication exposures. However, SC treatment with long intervals between 2 injections (≥8 weeks) and oral intake once daily seems to be the most accepted modalities.

Ustekinumab versus adalimumab for induction and maintenance therapy in biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3b trial

BACKGROUND

Active-comparator trials are important to inform patient and physician choice. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with either ustekinumab or adalimumab in biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease.

METHODS

We conducted a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, active-comparator, phase 3b trial (SEAVUE) at 121 hospitals or private practices in 18 countries. We included biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease and a Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220-450, who had not responded to or were intolerant to conventional therapy (or were corticosteroid dependent) and had at least one ulcer of any size at baseline endoscopic evaluation. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1; via an interactive web response system) to receive ustekinumab (approximately 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 0, then 90 mg subcutaneously once every 8 weeks) or adalimumab (160 mg on day 0, 80 mg at 2 weeks, then 40 mg once every 2 weeks, subcutaneously) through week 56. Study treatments were administered as monotherapy and without dose modifications. Patients, investigators, and study site personnel were masked to treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were in clinical remission (CDAI score <150) at week 52 in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all patients who were randomly assigned to a treatment group). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03464136, and EudraCT, 2017-004209-41.

FINDINGS

Between June 28, 2018, and Dec 12, 2019, 633 patients were assessed for eligibility and 386 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ustekinumab (n=191) or adalimumab (n=195). 29 (15%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and 46 (24%) of 195 in the adalimumab group discontinued study treatment before week 52. There was no significant difference between the ustekinumab and adalimumab groups in the occurrence of the primary endpoint; at week 52, 124 (65%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group versus 119 (61%) of 195 in the adalimumab group were in clinical remission (between-group difference 4%, 95% CI -6 to 14; p=0·42). Safety for both groups was consistent with previous reports. Serious infections were reported in four (2%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and five (3%) of 195 in the adalimumab group. No deaths occurred through week 52 of the study.

INTERPRETATION

Both ustekinumab and adalimumab monotherapies were highly effective in this population of biologic-naive patients, with no difference in the primary outcome between the drugs.

FUNDING

Janssen Scientific Affairs.

Real-world Short-term Effectiveness of Ustekinumab in Crohn's Disease: Results from a Multicenter, Prospective Study in China

Ustekinumab effectively induced a clinical response and clinical remission, with remission rates superior to those in the UNITI-1 study. Ustekinumab is more effective in biologic-naive patients with Crohn’s disease than those who were not responsive to anti–tumor necrosis factor treatment.

Ustekinumab in Crohn's Disease: New Data for Positioning in Treatment Algorithm

The treatment of patients with moderate to severe Crohn's disease [CD] is still challenging. Therapeutic options include steroids, immunosuppressants, anti-TNFα agents, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab. Ustekinumab is a monoclonal antibody blocking the p40 subunit of IL-12 and IL-23. It showed to be effective and safe in randomised clinical trials and real-life studies and is currently approved for the management of CD patients who are naive to biologics and those who have already been treated with such medications. However, to date, a detailed and approved therapeutic algorithm is not available. The aim of this review is to report the most recent and updated data on the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe CD and to define the optimal management of these patients.

A propensity score-matched, real-world comparison of ustekinumab vs vedolizumab as a second-line treatment for Crohn's disease. The Cross Pennine study II

BACKGROUND

The optimal choice of biological agents after failure of anti-tumour-necrosis-factor-(TNF)α agent in Crohn's disease (CD) is yet to be defined.

AIMS

To assess the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab compared to vedolizumab as second-line treatment in CD patients who failed anti-TNFα therapy.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of clinical response and remission at 14 and 52 weeks to ustekinumab by physician global assessment (PGA). A propensity score-matched analysis with a cohort treated with vedolizumab was performed.

RESULTS

Of 282 patients (mean age 40 ± 15, F:M ratio 1.7:1) treated with ustekinumab, clinical response or remission was reached by 200/282 patients (70.9%) at 14 weeks, and 162/259 patients (62.5%) at 52 weeks. Overall, 74 adverse events occurred, of which 26 were labelled as serious (8.3 per 100 person-year). After exclusion of patients without prior anti-TNFα exposure and patients previously exposed to vedolizumab or ustekinumab, we analysed 275/282 patients (97.5%) on ustekinumab and 118/135 patients (87.4%) on vedolizumab. Propensity score analysis revealed that at 14 weeks, patients treated with ustekinumab were 38% (95% CI 25%-50%; P < 0.001) more likely to achieve clinical remission, while at 52 weeks, the difference of 9% (95% CI -15% to 33%; P = 0.462) was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Ustekinumab was effective and well tolerated in this real-world cohort. While ustekinumab proved more effective at 14-weeks, we found no statistically significant differences at 52 weeks compared to vedolizumab.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the effectiveness of either ustekinumab or vedolizumab in patients with Crohn's disease refractory to anti-tumour necrosis factor

BACKGROUND

Ustekinumab and vedolizumab are commonly used after anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) failure in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). No randomised controlled trial has compared these drugs.

AIMS

To compare the effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in CD patients refractory to anti-TNF.

METHODS

From PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, through March 27, 2021, we identified studies that compared ustekinumab and vedolizumab in patients with CD refractory to anti-TNF. The main outcomes were clinical remission and steroid-free clinical remission at weeks 14 and 52. Secondary outcomes were biological remission and treatment persistence. We computed pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 1513 reports. Among them, 38 studies were assessed for eligibility and five studies were included. All studies included were of high quality: four were retrospective and one was prospective. Among 1026 patients, 659 received ustekinumab and 367 received vedolizumab. At week 14, clinical remission (OR 1.36; 95%CI: 0.74-2.47; I²  = 50%), steroid-free clinical remission (OR 1.24; 95%CI: 0.79-1.92; I²  = 52%) and biological remission (OR 0.80; 95%CI: 0.50-1.28; I²  = 0%) rates were similar between the two treatments. At week 52, ustekinumab was associated with higher rates of clinical remission (OR 1.87; 95% CI: 1.18-2.98; I²  = 0%), steroid-free clinical remission (OR 1.56; 95% CI: 1.23-1.97; I²  = 0%), biological remission (OR 1.86; 95% CI: 1.03-3.37; I²  = 29%) and treatment persistence (OR 2.37; 95% CI: 1.56-3.62; I²  = 0%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with CD refractory to anti-TNF, ustekinumab and vedolizumab are similarly effective in induction, but as maintenance treatment, ustekinumab appears to be more effective than vedolizumab.

Ustekinumab is effective for perianal fistulising Crohn's disease: a real-world experience and systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Perianal Crohn's disease (pCD) is a debilitating complication affecting up to 30% of Crohn's disease (CD) population, leading to increased morbidity, mortality and decreased quality of life. Despite the growing armamentarium of medications for luminal CD, their efficacy in pCD remains poorly studied.

AIM

To determine the efficacy of ustekinumab, a biologic approved for luminal CD, in pCD through a retrospective cohort study and systematic review.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study on patients with CD with active perianal fistulae treated with ustekinumab from September 2013 to August 2019 was performed to determine perianal fistula response and remission at 6 and 12 months after ustekinumab induction. A systematic review was performed to further establish rates of fistula response and remission with ustekinumab.

RESULTS

At 6 months, 48.1% (13/27) patients achieved fistula response with none achieving fistula remission on provider exam, and 59.3% (16/27) achieved patient-reported symptomatic improvement with 3.7% (1/27) achieving symptomatic remission. At 1 year, on provider exam, 55.6% (5/9) had fistula response with none achieving fistula remission, and 100% (9/9) had symptomatic improvement with 22.2% (2/9) achieving symptomatic remission. There were no major safety signals during 1-year follow-up. The systematic review of 25 studies found 44% (92/209) of patients with active perianal fistulas had a clinical response within 6 months of follow-up, and 53.9% (85/152) of patients with 12 months of follow-up achieved clinical response.

CONCLUSION

Ustekinumab presents a safe and effective therapy for treatment of pCD. Prospective, randomised trials are needed to further elucidate long-term efficacy of ustekinumab for pCD.

Primary Failure to an Anti-TNF Agent in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Switch (to a Second Anti-TNF Agent) or Swap (for Another Mechanism of Action)?

Background: About a third of patients with inflammatory bowel disease do not respond to anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, which is challenging. Aim: To review the current data on the two main strategies when facing primary non-response to an anti-TNF agent in inflammatory bowel disease: changing to a second anti-TNF (switching) or to a drug with another mechanisms of action (swapping). Methods: We performed a bibliographic search to identify studies reporting on efficacy of any biologic treatment after primary anti-TNF non-response. Results: The efficacy of a second anti-TNF is lower when the reason to withdraw the first one is primary failure. Nevertheless, switching to another anti-TNF even after primary failure may still be effective in some patients. Both vedolizumab and ustekinumab have generally been shown to be less effective in anti-TNF exposed patients. However, despite primary anti-TNF failure, patients may respond to vedolizumab or ustekinumab in a limited but considerable number of cases. The cause for swapping (primary vs. secondary anti-TNF failure) seems to have limited effect on vedolizumab efficacy. Primary anti-TNF non-response seems to be a clearer predictor of treatment failure for ustekinumab. Unfortunately, the two main strategies to treat specifically a patient with primary non-response to an anti-TNF agent—switching to a second anti-TNF or swapping for vedolizumab/ustekinumab—have not been properly compared. Conclusion: The data reviewed in the present study clearly emphasise the imperative need to carry out head-to-head randomised trials in patients exposed to anti-TNF agents in general, and specifically in those with primary non-response to these agents.

Comparative efficacy and safety of biologic therapies for moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Data are needed to inform the positioning of biologic therapy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease, both first line and after previous biologic exposure. We aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of biologics in patients with Crohn's disease.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of phase 2 and phase 3 randomised controlled trials done in adults (≥18 years) with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease (Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI] 220-450) treated with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists, anti-integrin, anti-interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23p40, or anti-IL23p19 agents, either alone or in combination with immunosuppressants, as their first-line biologic or after previous biologic exposure, compared with placebo or an active comparator. The minimum duration of therapy was 14 days for trials reporting induction of remission in active disease and 22 weeks in trials reporting maintenance of remission. We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings, trial registries, and unpublished data from inception to June 3, 2021, without any language restrictions. Summary estimates of the primary and secondary outcomes were extracted from the published reports; individual patient-level data were not sought. The primary endpoint was induction of clinical remission in patients with active disease (CDAI <150) and maintenance of remission in patients with response to induction therapy, with data extracted from published reports. A network meta-analysis with multivariate consistency model random-effects meta-regression was done, with rankings based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.

FINDINGS

The search strategy yielded 18 382 citations, of which 31 trials were eligible for inclusion. On the basis of 15 randomised controlled trials including 2931 biologic-naive patients, infliximab monotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 4·53 [95% CI 1·49-13·79]), infliximab combined with azathioprine (7·49 [2·04-27·49]), adalimumab (3·01 [1·25-7·27]), and ustekinumab (2·63 [1·10-6·28]) were associated with significantly higher odds of inducing remission compared to certolizumab pegol (all moderate confidence); infliximab and azathioprine combination therapy was also associated with significantly higher odds of inducing remission than vedolizumab (3·76 [1·01-14·03]; low confidence). On the basis of ten randomised controlled trials including 2479 patients with previous biologic exposure, adalimumab after loss of response to infliximab (OR 2·82 [95% CI 1·20-6·62]; low confidence), and risankizumab (2·10 [1·12-3·92]; moderate confidence), were associated with higher odds of inducing remission than vedolizumab. No differences between active interventions were observed in maintenance trials. Most trials were at low or uncertain risk of bias.

INTERPRETATION

Although biologic treatment choices in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease must be individualised for each patient, this analysis suggests that either infliximab with azathioprine or adalimumab might be preferred as a first-line therapy, and adalimumab (after infliximab loss of response) or risankizumab might be preferred as a second-line therapy, for induction of clinical remission.

FUNDING

None.