[Emerging Therapies: What Are Promising in the Near Future?]

Comparison of Effectiveness and Safety of Ustekinumab and Adalimumab As Induction or Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Moderate to Severe Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis has been conducted to compare ustekinumab and adalimumab as induction or maintenance therapy in patients with moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD). The current meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Two investigators independently searched online databases including PubMed, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Library for relevant articles published up to April 2023. The initial search terms were "ustekinumab," "adalimumab," and "Crohn's disease". Three studies (with a total of 612 patients) were included in the present meta-analysis. We did not find any significant difference in clinical remission (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.68-2.52), clinical response (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 0.39-4.91), endoscopic remission (OR: 1.56, 95% CI: 0.66-3.64), and steroid-free remission (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.67-1.42) between patients who received ustekinumab and patients who received adalimumab. In conclusion, this meta-analysis provides valuable insights into the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab and adalimumab in the treatment of moderate to severe CD. Our findings indicate that both drugs have similar effectiveness in achieving clinical remission, clinical response, radiological remission and steroid-free remission.

Comparative Effectiveness of Ustekinumab Versus Adalimumab in Induction of Clinical Response and Remission in Crohn's Disease: Experience of a Real-World Cohort at a Tertiary Care Inflammatory Bowel Disease Referral Center

Background

There is paucity of head-to-head studies comparing the effectiveness of ustekinumab (UST) and adalimumab (ADA) in Crohn's disease (CD). Here we provide a real-world comparison of these two agents.

Methods

We conducted an ambidirectional cohort study. Each patient included had moderate to severe active CD. Clinical response and remission were assessed between 4 and 16 weeks after induction.

Results

Of a total of 163 patients, 97 were induced with ADA and 66 were induced with UST. Logistic regression model analysis adjusted based on effect size showed that ADA when compared to UST induced clinical response (73.2% vs. 50% (odds ratio (OR): 2.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14 - 5.07; P = 0.02)) and remission (44.3% vs. 27.7% (OR: 2.35; 95% CI: 1.07 - 5.16; P = 0.034) in a statistically significantly higher proportion of patients. Among tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-naive patients, when comparing ADA vs. UST, ADA was superior in inducing clinical response (69/89 (77.5%) vs. 4/10 (40%) (OR: 4.26; 95% CI: 1.08 - 16.84; P = 0.04)), but not remission (41/89 (46%) vs. 3/9 (33%) (OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 0.39 - 6.97; P = 0.503)). Among TNF-experienced patients, ADA was numerically inferior in inducing clinical response (2/8 (25%) vs. 29/56 (52%) (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.07 - 1.94; P = 0.24)) and remission (2/8 (25%) vs. 15/56 (27%) (OR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.22 - 6.81; P = 0.82)), but neither of these differences were statistically significant.

Conclusions

In a real-world setting, the rate of clinical response and remission was higher among patients with CD who received ADA compared to UST. Of note, however, despite the small sample sizes of TNF-experienced patients who received ADA and TNF-naive patients who received UST, the higher effectiveness of ADA in inducing clinical response and indeed remission among patients with CD with active disease appears to primarily be driven by those who are TNF-naive. Among TNF-experienced patients, UST may be superior in inducing clinical response and equally effective in inducing clinical remission when compared to ADA. Based on this study, one may infer that among TNF-experienced patients with CD with active disease, one could consider switching to an agent such as UST instead of a second approved TNF blocker. However, larger studies comparing the two agents are required.