Background: Crohn disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects quality of life. There are several drugs available for the treatment of CD, but their relative efficacy is unknown due to a lack of high-quality head-to-head randomized controlled trials. Aim: To perform a mixed comparison of the efficacy and safety of biosimilars, biologics and JAK1 inhibitors for CD. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, embase and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to Dec. 28, 2020. Only RCTs that compared the efficacy or safety of biosimilars, biologics and JAK1 inhibitors with placebo or another active agent for CD were included in the comparative analysis. Efficacy outcomes were the induction of remission, maintenance of remission and steroid-free remission, and safety outcomes were serious adverse events (AEs) and infections. The Bayesian method was utilized to compare the treatments. The registration number is CRD42020187807. Results: Twenty-eight studies and 29 RCTs were identified in our systematic review. The network meta-analysis demonstrated that infliximab and adalimumab were superior to certolizumab pegol (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.35–4.97; OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.57–5.40, respectively) and tofacitinib (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.27–5.97; OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.47–6.52, respectively) and revealed the superiority of CT-P13 compared with placebo (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.31–7.59) for the induction of remission. Infliximab (OR 7.49, 95% CI 1.85–34.77), adalimumab (OR 10.76, 95% CI 2.61–52.35), certolizumab pegol (OR 4.41, 95% CI 1.10–21.08), vedolizumab (OR 4.99, 95% CI 1.19–25.54) and CT-P13 (OR 10.93, 95% CI 2.10–64.37) were superior to filgotinib for the maintenance of remission. Moreover, infliximab (OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.49–10.23), adalimumab (OR 4.86, 95% CI 1.43–16.95), vedolizumab (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.21–6.52) and CT-P13 (OR 5.15, 95% CI 1.05–27.58) were superior to placebo for steroid-free remission. Among all treatments, adalimumab ranked highest for the induction of remission, and CT-P13 ranked highest for the maintenance of remission and steroid-free remission. Conclusion: CT-P13 was more efficacious than numerous biological agents and JAK1 inhibitors and should be recommended for the treatment of CD. Further head-to-head RCTs are warranted to compare these drugs.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is debate over whether patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) treated with biologics that are not tumor necrosis factor antagonists (such as vedolizumab or ustekinumab) should receive concomitant treatment with immunomodulators. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of concomitant immunomodulator therapy vs vedolizumab or ustekinumab monotherapy.
METHODS: In a systematic search of publications, through July 31, 2019, we identified 33 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 27 cohort studies) of patients with IBD treated with vedolizumab or ustekinumab. The primary outcome was clinical benefit, including clinical remission, clinical response, or physician global assessment in patients who did vs did not receive combination therapy with an immunomodulator. Secondary outcomes were endoscopic improvement and safety. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and estimated odds ratio (OR) and 95% CIs.
RESULTS: Overall, combination therapy was not associated with better clinical outcomes in patients receiving vedolizumab (16 studies: OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-1.05; I2=13.9%; Q test P=.17) or ustekinumab (15 studies: OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.87-1.38; I2=11%; Q test P=.28). Results were consistent in subgroup analyses, with no difference in clinical remission or response in induction vs maintenance studies or in patients with Crohn's disease vs ulcerative colitis in studies of vedolizumab. Combination therapy was not associated with better endoscopic outcomes in patients receiving vedolizumab (3 studies: OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.48-2.68; I2=0; Q test P=.96) or ustekinumab (2 studies: OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.21-1.16; I2=47%; Q test P=.17). Combination therapy was not associated with an increase in adverse events during vedolizumab therapy (4 studies: OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.75-1.84; I2=0; Q test P=.110).
CONCLUSIONS: In a meta-analysis of data from studies of patients with IBD, we found that combining vedolizumab or ustekinumab with an immunomodulator is no more effective than monotherapy in induction or maintenance of remission.
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns about the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) and patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) taking immunosuppressants or biologics. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the risk of respiratory infections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with vedolizumab. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing vedolizumab to placebo in patients with IBD. Outcomes were the rate of respiratory tract infections (RTI), upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) and lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) among patients receiving vedolizumab as compared with placebo. Pooled rates were reported as Odds Ratios (OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI). Eight RCT involving 3,287 patients (1873 CD and 1415 UC) were analyzed; 2,493 patients received vedolizumab and 794 received placebo. The rates of RTI and URTI were statistically higher in vedolizumab-treated patients compared to placebo [OR = 1.63; 95% CI (1.07–2.49); OR = 1.64 95% CI (1.07–2.53) respectively]. UC patients, but not CD patients, receiving vedolizumab had a higher risk to develop RTI and URTI [OR = 1.98; 95% CI (1.41–2.77); OR = 2.02; 95% CI (1.42–2.87)] compared to placebo-treated patients. The number of LRTI was small in both treatment groups. Data confirm the good safety profile of vedolizumab even though RTI were more frequent in patients receiving vedolizumab and the risk of URTIs was significantly higher in patients with UC.
Background: Crohn disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects quality of life. There are several drugs available for the treatment of CD, but their relative efficacy is unknown due to a lack of high-quality head-to-head randomized controlled trials. Aim: To perform a mixed comparison of the efficacy and safety of biosimilars, biologics and JAK1 inhibitors for CD. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, embase and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to Dec. 28, 2020. Only RCTs that compared the efficacy or safety of biosimilars, biologics and JAK1 inhibitors with placebo or another active agent for CD were included in the comparative analysis. Efficacy outcomes were the induction of remission, maintenance of remission and steroid-free remission, and safety outcomes were serious adverse events (AEs) and infections. The Bayesian method was utilized to compare the treatments. The registration number is CRD42020187807. Results: Twenty-eight studies and 29 RCTs were identified in our systematic review. The network meta-analysis demonstrated that infliximab and adalimumab were superior to certolizumab pegol (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.35–4.97; OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.57–5.40, respectively) and tofacitinib (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.27–5.97; OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.47–6.52, respectively) and revealed the superiority of CT-P13 compared with placebo (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.31–7.59) for the induction of remission. Infliximab (OR 7.49, 95% CI 1.85–34.77), adalimumab (OR 10.76, 95% CI 2.61–52.35), certolizumab pegol (OR 4.41, 95% CI 1.10–21.08), vedolizumab (OR 4.99, 95% CI 1.19–25.54) and CT-P13 (OR 10.93, 95% CI 2.10–64.37) were superior to filgotinib for the maintenance of remission. Moreover, infliximab (OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.49–10.23), adalimumab (OR 4.86, 95% CI 1.43–16.95), vedolizumab (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.21–6.52) and CT-P13 (OR 5.15, 95% CI 1.05–27.58) were superior to placebo for steroid-free remission. Among all treatments, adalimumab ranked highest for the induction of remission, and CT-P13 ranked highest for the maintenance of remission and steroid-free remission. Conclusion: CT-P13 was more efficacious than numerous biological agents and JAK1 inhibitors and should be recommended for the treatment of CD. Further head-to-head RCTs are warranted to compare these drugs.
