BACKGROUND: Biologic therapies are widely used in patients with ulcerative colitis. Head-to-head trials of these therapies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease are lacking.
METHODS: In a phase 3b, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trial conducted at 245 centers in 34 countries, we compared vedolizumab with adalimumab in adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis to determine whether vedolizumab was superior. Previous exposure to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor other than adalimumab was allowed in up to 25% of patients. The patients were assigned to receive infusions of 300 mg of vedolizumab on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, 14, 22, 30, 38, and 46 (plus injections of placebo) or subcutaneous injections of 40 mg of adalimumab, with a total dose of 160 mg at week 1, 80 mg at week 2, and 40 mg every 2 weeks thereafter until week 50 (plus infusions of placebo). Dose escalation was not permitted in either group. The primary outcome was clinical remission at week 52 (defined as a total score of ≤2 on the Mayo scale [range, 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating more severe disease] and no subscore >1 [range, 0 to 3] on any of the four Mayo scale components). To control for type I error, efficacy outcomes were analyzed with a hierarchical testing procedure, with the variables in the following order: clinical remission, endoscopic improvement (subscore of 0 to 1 on the Mayo endoscopic component), and corticosteroid-free remission at week 52.
RESULTS: A total of 769 patients underwent randomization and received at least one dose of vedolizumab (383 patients) or adalimumab (386 patients). At week 52, clinical remission was observed in a higher percentage of patients in the vedolizumab group than in the adalimumab group (31.3% vs. 22.5%; difference, 8.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5 to 15.0; P = 0.006), as was endoscopic improvement (39.7% vs. 27.7%; difference, 11.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.3 to 18.5; P<0.001). Corticosteroid-free clinical remission occurred in 12.6% of the patients in the vedolizumab group and in 21.8% in the adalimumab group (difference, -9.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -18.9 to 0.4). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates of infection were 23.4 and 34.6 events per 100 patient-years with vedolizumab and adalimumab, respectively, and the corresponding rates for serious infection were 1.6 and 2.2 events per 100 patient-years.
CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, vedolizumab was superior to adalimumab with respect to achievement of clinical remission and endoscopic improvement, but not corticosteroid-free clinical remission. (Funded by Takeda; VARSITY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02497469; EudraCT number, 2015-000939-33.).
BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is an oral, small molecule JAK inhibitor for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC).
AIM: To report incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in the tofacitinib UC programme.
METHODS: DVT and PE were evaluated from one phase 2 and two phase 3 induction studies, one phase 3 maintenance study and an ongoing, open-label, long-term extension (OLE) study (September 2018 datacut). Data were analysed in induction, maintenance and overall (patients receiving ≥ 1 dose of tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg b.d. in any phase 2, 3 or OLE study) cohorts.
RESULTS: 1157 patients (2404 patient-years' exposure; ≤ 6.1 years' tofacitinib treatment) were evaluated in the overall cohort. In induction, one placebo-treated patient had DVT and one had PE; no tofacitinib-treated patients had DVT/PE. In maintenance, one placebo-treated patient had DVT and one had PE; no tofacitinib-treated patients had DVT/PE. In the overall cohort, one patient had DVT (incidence rate [patients with events/100 patient-years; 95% CI]: 0.04 [0.00-0.23]); four had PE (0.16 [0.04-0.41]); all received predominant dose tofacitinib 10 mg b.d.; all had venous thromboembolism risk factors alongside UC.
CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis of patients with UC, during tofacitinib exposure, one patient had DVT and four had PE, all during the OLE study, on predominant dose 10 mg b.d. (83% of overall cohort patients received predominant dose 10 mg b.d.) with venous thromboembolism risk factors. This analysis is limited by small sample size and limited drug exposure; further studies are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00787202, NCT01465763, NCT01458951, NCT01458574, NCT01470612.
BACKGROUND: The global phase 3 studies of golimumab [PURSUIT-SC and PURSUIT-maintenance (M)], an anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNFα) antibody, have demonstrated clinical efficacy and safety as induction and maintenance therapies in patients with moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of golimumab as maintenance therapy in the Japanese population.
METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled, parallel group, randomized withdrawal study, 144 Japanese patients with moderately to severely active UC received golimumab doses of 200 mg (at week 0) and 100 mg (at week 2) subcutaneously during the 6-week open-label induction phase. Patients who responded to golimumab induction therapy entered the DB maintenance (M) phase and were randomized (1:1) to receive 100 mg of golimumab subcutaneous injection (SC) or placebo every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical response through M-week 54; secondary endpoints included clinical remission and mucosal healing at M-week 30 and 54.
RESULTS: Among induction responders, more patients on golimumab treatment (56.3%) maintained clinical response through M-week 54 versus the placebo group (19.4%). At both M-week 30 and 54, 50% golimumab-treated patients achieved clinical remission versus the placebo group (6.5%) and a higher proportion of patients on golimumab (59.4%) experienced mucosal healing than the placebo group (16.1%). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 96.9% in the golimumab group and 71% in the placebo group. Overall, the efficacy and safety results in this study were comparable with those observed in global studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Golimumab SC treatment maintained clinical efficacy through week 54 among induction responders, and no new safety signals were observed in the patients with moderate to severely active UC.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01863771.
BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib, an oral, small-molecule Janus kinase inhibitor, was shown to have potential efficacy as induction therapy for ulcerative colitis in a phase 2 trial. We further evaluated the efficacy of tofacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy.
METHODS: We conducted three phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of tofacitinib therapy in adults with ulcerative colitis. In the OCTAVE Induction 1 and 2 trials, 598 and 541 patients, respectively, who had moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis despite previous conventional therapy or therapy with a tumor necrosis factor antagonist were randomly assigned to receive induction therapy with tofacitinib (10 mg twice daily) or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary end point was remission at 8 weeks. In the OCTAVE Sustain trial, 593 patients who had a clinical response to induction therapy were randomly assigned to receive maintenance therapy with tofacitinib (either 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily) or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary end point was remission at 52 weeks.
RESULTS: In the OCTAVE Induction 1 trial, remission at 8 weeks occurred in 18.5% of the patients in the tofacitinib group versus 8.2% in the placebo group (P=0.007); in the OCTAVE Induction 2 trial, remission occurred in 16.6% versus 3.6% (P<0.001). In the OCTAVE Sustain trial, remission at 52 weeks occurred in 34.3% of the patients in the 5-mg tofacitinib group and 40.6% in the 10-mg tofacitinib group versus 11.1% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). In the OCTAVE Induction 1 and 2 trials, the rates of overall infection and serious infection were higher with tofacitinib than with placebo. In the OCTAVE Sustain trial, the rate of serious infection was similar across the three treatment groups, and the rates of overall infection and herpes zoster infection were higher with tofacitinib than with placebo. Across all three trials, adjudicated nonmelanoma skin cancer occurred in five patients who received tofacitinib and in one who received placebo, and adjudicated cardiovascular events occurred in five who received tofacitinib and in none who received placebo; as compared with placebo, tofacitinib was associated with increased lipid levels.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib was more effective as induction and maintenance therapy than placebo. (Funded by Pfizer; OCTAVE Induction 1, OCTAVE Induction 2, and OCTAVE Sustain ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01465763 , NCT01458951 , and NCT01458574 , respectively.).
Ulcerative colitis is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting the colon, and its incidence is rising worldwide. The pathogenesis is multifactorial, involving genetic predisposition, epithelial barrier defects, dysregulated immune responses, and environmental factors. Patients with ulcerative colitis have mucosal inflammation starting in the rectum that can extend continuously to proximal segments of the colon. Ulcerative colitis usually presents with bloody diarrhoea and is diagnosed by colonoscopy and histological findings. The aim of management is to induce and then maintain remission, defined as resolution of symptoms and endoscopic healing. Treatments for ulcerative colitis include 5-aminosalicylic acid drugs, steroids, and immunosuppressants. Some patients can require colectomy for medically refractory disease or to treat colonic neoplasia. The therapeutic armamentarium for ulcerative colitis is expanding, and the number of drugs with new targets will rapidly increase in coming years.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of infliximab with standard care (e.g., azathioprine, prednisolone, mesalazine, and 6-mercaptopurine) versus standard care alone for induction and maintenance treatment of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) in Poland.
DESIGN: Cost-utility decision analytic model.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A Markov model was used to estimate the expected costs and effects of infliximab/standard care and standard care alone. For each treatment option, costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated to estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio. The target population consisted of a hypothetical cohort of adult patients with moderately to severely active UC who had an inadequate response to standard treatment, including corticosteroids and 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine, or who were intolerant to or had medical contraindications to such therapies. The analysis was performed from the perspective of the Polish public payer over a 30-year time horizon. The clinical parameters were derived mainly from the Active Ulcerative Colitis Trial (ACT) 1 and ACT 2 and from the Ulcerative Colitis Long-term Remission and Maintenance with Adalimumab (ULTRA) 2 clinical trial. Different costs and utility values were assigned to the various health states in the model; utility values were derived from a previously published study. Treatment of patients who received infliximab/standard care instead of standard care alone resulted in 0.174 additional QALYs. Treatment with infliximab/standard care was found to be more expensive than treatment with standard care alone from the Polish National Health Fund perspective. The incremental cost-utility ratio of infliximab/standard care compared with standard care alone was estimated to be 402,420 Polish zlotys (PLN)/QALY gained (95% confidence interval [CI] 253,936-531,450 PLN/QALY gained), which is equivalent to $106,743 (U.S. dollars)/QALY gained (95% CI $67,357-140,968 [U.S. dollars]/QALY gained).
CONCLUSION: Treatment with infliximab/standard care instead of standard care alone resulted in additional QALYs but also additional costs. The incremental cost per QALY gained of infliximab/standard care compared with standard care alone exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold in Poland (equivalent to ~$33,400).
PURPOSE: Until recently, surgery was the only remaining choice for moderate to severe chronic ulcerative colitis patients who failed standard treatment or when it was not tolerated. Anti-TNFα treatment is a new, non-invasive option for the management of ulcerative colitis. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of induction and maintenance treatment up to 1 year of ulcerative colitis with adalimumab/standard care and standard care alone in Poland.
METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the expected costs and effects of adalimumab/standard care and a standard care alone. For each treatment option, the costs and quality adjusted life years were calculated to estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio. The analysis was performed from the perspective of the Polish public payer and society over a 30-year time horizon. Different direct and indirect costs and utility values were assigned to the various model health states.
RESULTS: The treatment of ulcerative colitis patients with adalimumab/standard care up to 1 year instead of a standard care alone resulted in 0.14 additional years of life with full health (QALYs). The incremental cost-utility ratio of adalimumab/standard care compared to the standard care alone is estimated to be 76,120 €/QALY gained from NHF perspective and 71,457 €/QALY gained from social perspective.
CONCLUSIONS: The biologic treatment of ulcerative colitis patients with adalimumab/standard care is more effective but also more costly compared with standard care alone.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of induction and maintenance treatment up to 1 year of ulcerative colitis with golimumab/standard care and standard care alone in Poland.
METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the expected costs and effects of golimumab/standard care and a standard care alone. For each treatment option the costs and quality adjusted life years were calculated to estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio. The analysis was performed from the perspective of the Polish public payer and society over a 30-years time horizon. The clinical parameters were derived mainly from the PURSUIT-SC and PURSUIT-M clinical trials. Different direct and indirect costs and utility values were assigned to the various model health states.
RESULTS: The treatment of ulcerative colitis patients with golimumab/standard care instead of a standard care alone resulted in 0.122 additional years of life with full health. The treatment with golimumab/standard care was found to be more expensive than treatment with the standard care alone from the public payer perspective and from social perspective. The incremental cost-utility ratio of golimumab/standard care compared to the standard care alone is estimated to be 391,252 PLN/QALY gained (93,155 €/QALYG) from public payer perspective and 374,377 PLN/QALY gained (89,137 €/QALYG) from social perspective.
CONCLUSIONS: The biologic treatment of ulcerative colitis patients with golimumab/standard care is more effective but also more costly compared with standard care alone.
Biologic therapies are widely used in patients with ulcerative colitis. Head-to-head trials of these therapies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease are lacking.
METHODS:
In a phase 3b, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trial conducted at 245 centers in 34 countries, we compared vedolizumab with adalimumab in adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis to determine whether vedolizumab was superior. Previous exposure to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor other than adalimumab was allowed in up to 25% of patients. The patients were assigned to receive infusions of 300 mg of vedolizumab on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, 14, 22, 30, 38, and 46 (plus injections of placebo) or subcutaneous injections of 40 mg of adalimumab, with a total dose of 160 mg at week 1, 80 mg at week 2, and 40 mg every 2 weeks thereafter until week 50 (plus infusions of placebo). Dose escalation was not permitted in either group. The primary outcome was clinical remission at week 52 (defined as a total score of ≤2 on the Mayo scale [range, 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating more severe disease] and no subscore >1 [range, 0 to 3] on any of the four Mayo scale components). To control for type I error, efficacy outcomes were analyzed with a hierarchical testing procedure, with the variables in the following order: clinical remission, endoscopic improvement (subscore of 0 to 1 on the Mayo endoscopic component), and corticosteroid-free remission at week 52.
RESULTS:
A total of 769 patients underwent randomization and received at least one dose of vedolizumab (383 patients) or adalimumab (386 patients). At week 52, clinical remission was observed in a higher percentage of patients in the vedolizumab group than in the adalimumab group (31.3% vs. 22.5%; difference, 8.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5 to 15.0; P = 0.006), as was endoscopic improvement (39.7% vs. 27.7%; difference, 11.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.3 to 18.5; P<0.001). Corticosteroid-free clinical remission occurred in 12.6% of the patients in the vedolizumab group and in 21.8% in the adalimumab group (difference, -9.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -18.9 to 0.4). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates of infection were 23.4 and 34.6 events per 100 patient-years with vedolizumab and adalimumab, respectively, and the corresponding rates for serious infection were 1.6 and 2.2 events per 100 patient-years.
CONCLUSIONS:
In this trial involving patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, vedolizumab was superior to adalimumab with respect to achievement of clinical remission and endoscopic improvement, but not corticosteroid-free clinical remission. (Funded by Takeda; VARSITY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02497469; EudraCT number, 2015-000939-33.).
