Ustekinumab is associated with superior treatment persistence but not with higher remission rates versus vedolizumab in patients with refractory Crohn's disease: results from a multicentre cohort study

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.

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.

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.