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

Persistence and Efficacy of Ustekinumab in Crohn's Disease After Anti-TNF Failure: An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Anti-TNF treatment failure in Crohn's disease is common, and the literature on the selection of subsequent treatment is scant. Ustekinumab may be associated with high persistence rates and it appears to be effective in perianal disease.

AIMS

Primary objective: persistence, clinical, and biologic remission with ustekinumab.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES

Persistence of the first biologic therapy, reasons for change of treatment, need for dose optimization, surgery, hospitalizations, and adverse events with ustekinumab.

METHODS

Retrospective, observational, single-center study from a prospective database of Crohn's disease adult patients receiving ustekinumab after failure of anti-TNF or vedolizumab. A sub-analysis was performed to evaluate ustekinumab persistence after the approval of risankizumab and upadacitinib.

RESULTS

Mean duration with ustekinumab was 27.65 months (SD 18.27) and persistence was 86.76%. Clinical remission was 40.63% at week 4, 54.35% at week 8, 54.9% at year 1, 76.92% at year 4, and 100% at year 5. Persistence with ustekinumab was longer than with anti-TNF: year 1, 93.2 vs 72.06%; year 2, 89.4 vs 45.59%; and year 3, 86.1 vs 30.88%. Just over one-third (36.76%) of patients required dose optimization. Nine (13.24%) patients stopped treatment due to primary non-response [1 (1.47%)], loss of response [5(7.35%)], and adverse events [3 (4.41%)]. Eleven (16.18%) patients needed surgery and hospitalization. After the approval of upadacitinib and risankizumab, ustekinumab persistence was 80.88%. Seven (70%) of the patients with perianal disease achieved clinical remission and 4 (40%) completed fistula healing.

CONCLUSIONS

Ustekinumab may have better persistence as a second-line treatment compared to anti-TNF and may be effective in perianal disease.

Superior persistence of ustekinumab compared to anti-TNF in vedolizumab-experienced inflammatory bowel diseases patients: a real-world cohort study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The increasing use of biologic therapies for moderate to severe inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) highlights the importance of optimal treatment sequencing, particularly after vedolizumab (VDZ) exposure. Studies comparing the effectiveness of ustekinumab (UST) and antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents post-VDZ are limited.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed VDZ-experienced IBD patients treated with UST or anti-TNF (adalimumab and infliximab) from May 2019 to January 2024. We conducted a comparative analysis of the 52-week treatment persistence between UST and anti-TNF therapies, while also identifying independent predictors that influence 52-week persistence.

RESULTS

The study included 110 participants, with 40 diagnosed with ulcerative colitis (UC) and 70 with Crohn's disease (CD). Demographics were comparable across treatment groups. The primary discontinuation reason for VDZ was secondary non-response. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that UST demonstrated superior 52-week persistence in overall IBD, CD and UC patients, compared to anti-TNF. Cox regression analysis also showed UST's superiority in overall IBD (HR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.05-0.45, p < 0.001), CD (HR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01-0.68, p = 0.02), and UC (HR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.08-0.996, p = 0.049). The independent predictors for 52-week treatment persistence are Crohn's disease (Odds Ratio: 7.151, 95% CI: 1.763-28.995, p = 0.006) and UST treatment (Odds Ratio: 7.912, 95% CI: 1.789-34.992, p = 0.006). Notably, UST required more frequent dosing adjustments than anti-TNF, although both treatments exhibited comparable safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

UST demonstrated superior 52-week treatment persistence in IBD patients previously treated with VDZ compared to anti-TNF agents, albeit with a need for more frequent dose adjustments.

Short-term effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in elderly and non-elderly patients with Crohn's disease: a comparative study

Background

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) presents unique challenges in elderly patients due to comorbidities and treatment-related risks.

Objectives

This study evaluates ustekinumab (UST) and vedolizumab (VDZ) efficacy and safety in elderly Crohn's disease (CD) patients.

Design

A retrospective cohort study at a tertiary medical center.

Methods

CD patients aged ⩾60 years (elderly) treated with UST, compared to non-elderly (<60 years) patients treated with UST and elderly patients treated with VDZ. Clinical response was evaluated using the Harvey-Bradshaw index (HBI) and clinical biomarkers, alongside monitoring steroid use, hospitalization rates, treatment persistence, and surgical interventions.

Results

The study included 166 CD patients: 32 elderly and 65 non-elderly patients treated with UST, and 69 elderly patients treated with VDZ. The mean duration of follow-up was 10.8 ± 2.8 months in the non-elderly group, 9.97 ± 3.28 months in the elderly UST group, and 10.0 ± 3.29 months in the VDZ group. Elderly UST patients were more likely to receive corticosteroids at initiation than non-elderly UST patients (44% vs 14%, p = 0.001). At 12 months, clinical response rates did not significantly differ between elderly and non-elderly UST groups, respectively (48% vs 40%, p = 0.5). However, elderly UST patients exhibited higher hospitalization rates over time compared to non-elderly UST patients (6-month: 19% vs 6.2%, p = 0.077; 12-month: 19% vs 4.6%, p = 0.055; log-rank p = 0.004). No significant differences were observed in clinical response and remission rates between elderly UST and elderly VDZ patients at 6 and 12 months. At 6 months, a higher hospitalization rate was observed in the UST group (19% vs 4.3% p = 0.027), but this difference did not persist over time.

Conclusion

UST and VDZ are effective and safe treatments for elderly CD patients, despite higher hospitalization rates compared to non-elderly patients, likely due to age-related complications.

Comparative real-world outcomes between ustekinumab, infliximab, and adalimumab in bio-naïve and bio-experienced Crohn's disease patients: a retrospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have compared the efficacy of ustekinumab (UST) and anti-TNF agents [infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab(ADA)] in moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD) patients. This study aims to compare the efficacy of UST, IFX, and ADA while differentiating between bio-naïve and bio-experienced patients, which is an underexplored aspect, particularly in Asia.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective multi-center study from 2012 to 2023, categorizing patients into bio-naïve and bio-experienced groups. We evaluated clinical remission rates after induction therapy and clinical outcomes, including CD-related hospitalization, intestinal resection, and drug discontinuation during maintenance therapy.

RESULTS

Among the 214 bio-naïve CD patients, 60 received UST, 108 received IFX, and 46 received ADA. After 1:1 propensity score matching between UST and anti-TNF agents groups, 59 patients were analyzed in each group (45 in the IFX group and 14 in the ADA group). We found no significant differences in clinical remission rates (P = 0.071), CD-related hospitalization (P = 0.800), intestinal resection (P = 0.390), or drug discontinuation (P = 0.052) between the UST, IFX, and ADA groups in bio-naïve CD patients. In bio-experienced CD patients, with 35 in the UST group and 13 in the anti-TNF agents group, the UST group showed a lower risk of drug discontinuation (P = 0.004) than the anti-TNF agents group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that UST, IFX, and ADA are equally effective in bio-naïve CD patients, while in bio-experienced patients, mostly with previous exposure to anti-TNF agents, UST may offer superior drug durability.

Vedolizumab versus ustekinumab in Crohn's disease with prior anti-tumor necrosis factor failure: an updated meta-analysis

Ustekinumab and vedolizumab are key treatment options for Crohn's disease patients who fail anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. This updated meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of these two drugs. We performed a systematic review in PubMed, Embase , and Cochrane databases searching for randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing vedolizumab versus ustekinumab in patients with Crohn's disease with previous anti-TNF failure or intolerance. The primary outcome was steroid-free clinical remission (SFR) at the pos-induction (12-16 weeks) and maintenance period (48-52 weeks). The odds ratio (OR) was used for binary outcomes with their respective 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. This meta-analysis included 11 studies and 2724 patients. There was a significant difference favoring ustekinumab in SFR at pos-induction (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.88; P  = 0.006; I2  = 27%) and maintenance periods (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.23-2.82; P  = 0.003; I2  = 80%), in clinical remission at pos-induction period (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.63; P  < 0.001; I2  = 3%), and in treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.16-0.60; P  < 0.001; I2  = 0%). In patients with Crohn's disease with prior anti-TNF failure, ustekinumab showed higher SFR during both the pos-induction and maintenance period and a lower rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events.

IBD Patients with Primary or Secondary Nonresponse to Ustekinumab Benefit from Dose Escalation or Reinduction

Ustekinumab is a monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of IBD. This drug has a well-established efficacy; however, patients may not respond or lose response. The availability of other biological therapies prompts the need for comparative data between different agents to suggest first- or second-line strategies. Aim of this review is to compare the effectiveness of ustekinumab to other biologics in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, as well as report the available data on dose escalation and reinduction. A systematic electronic search of the English literature was performed up to November 2023, using Medline (PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Conference proceedings were also screened. Out of 659 citations, 80 relevant articles were selected and included in the present narrative review. Head-to-head comparisons of different biological drugs are relatively scarce, mostly deriving from indirect comparison or retrospective studies. Overall available data indicate similar effectiveness in the treatment of IBD patients. Dose escalation and reinduction strategies are well documented, but the optimal treatment schedule is still to be defined. Response and remission rates vary in different studies, and a proportion of patients fail to achieve clinical and endoscopic outcomes. However, both approaches are effective and safe in nonresponders and secondary loss of response. IBD patients may benefit from dose escalation or reinduction. Both strategies prove effective in regaining response in a proportion of patients, avoiding unnecessary early switch. Head-to-head trials are still needed to determine the exact placement of this drug compared to other biologics.

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.

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.

Effectiveness of vedolizumab and ustekinumab as second biologic agent in achieving target outcomes in tumor necrosis factor antagonists experienced patients with inflammatory bowel disease (enroll-ex study)

Background: About a third of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) do not respond to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy. In our study, we evaluated the effectiveness of vedolizumab and ustekinumab in achieving clinical and endoscopic outcomes in anti-TNF-experienced patients with IBD. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Electronic medical records of patients with moderate to severe IBD, who were previously received anti-TNF therapies, were reviewed and evaluated retrospectively in a gastroenterology center. Outcomes of patients treated with ustekinumab or vedolizumab after failing one anti-TNF agent were evaluated. The primary outcomes were the percentage of hospitalization, surgery, mucosal healing and steroid-free remission. Mucosal healing was defined as a Mayo endoscopic score of 0 or 1 in ulcerative colitis (UC) and an SES-CD score of less than 3 in Crohn's disease (CD). Outcomes were quantified using descriptive analysis. Results: A total of 207 (130 CD: 77 UC) patients with IBD who had previously received one anti-TNF agent were included in the study. Of the total cohort, 62 (30.0%) patients were receiving vedolizumab, and 145 (70.0%) patients were on ustekinumab. 101 (77.6%) patients with CD who failed one anti-TNF therapy were on ustekinumab. Of these patients, 26 (19.7%) patients were hospitalized, and 12 (11.9%) patients had IBD-related surgery. 16 (16.1%) patients had at least one corticosteroid course. 60 (59.0%) patients with CD on ustekinumab achieved mucosal healing. 29 (22.3%) patients with CD who failed one anti-TNF therapy were receiving vedolizumab. Of those, 7 (25%) patients were hospitalized, and 11 (37.9%) patients had IBD-related surgery. 15 (51.0%) patients achieved mucosal healing. 44 (57.1%) patients with UC who failed one anti-TNF therapy were on ustekinumab. Of these 6 (14.1%) patients were hospitalized, 3 (7.0%) patients had IBD-related surgery and 13 (30%) patients had at least 1 corticosteroid course. 25 (57.0%) patients achieved mucosal healing. 33 (42.8%) patients with UC who failed one anti-TNF therapy were receiving vedolizumab. Of those, 6 (18.6%) patients were hospitalized, and 16 (49.6%) patients had at least 1 corticosteroid course. 17 (53.2%) patients achieved mucosal healing. Conclusion: Ustekinumab and vedolizumab were both effective in achieving clinical outcomes in patients with IBD after failing an anti-TNF agent. However, patients receiving ustekinumab had numerically higher percentages of reaching target outcomes than patients receiving vedolizumab. A prospective head-to-head trial is warranted to confirm these findings.

The importance of predicting patient responses to monoclonal antibodies for Crohn's disease

INTRODUCTION

Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory bowel disease that results in relapsing and remitting symptoms but progressive transmural bowel damage leading to significant morbidity. CD results from dysregulation of the immune system related to genetic and environmental factors. While the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting cytokines and adhesion molecules has been shown to improve outcomes in CD patients, their widespread use has been limited due to high costs as well as variable access. Here, we summarize the factors that have been shown to correlate with responsiveness to biologic agents for use in practice.

AREAS COVERED

We summarize the current literature regarding factors that have been shown to influence patient response to various biologic agents including: patient-related factors (e.g. age, gender, weight smoking history); disease-specific factors (e.g. disease duration, location/extension, behavior/phenotype, severity); genetic markers; transcription factors, and the gut microbiome. Finally, we review the utility of prediction models and present data supporting the use of recently developed decision support tools.

EXPERT OPINION

Clinical decision support tools developed by machine learning are currently available for the selection of biologic agents in CD patients. We expect these models to become an integral tool for clinicians in the treatment of CD in the coming years.