Purpose: Previous reviews produced weak evidence regarding the responsiveness of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ-32) to changes in ulcerative colitis (UC) health indicators. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide an updated synthesis on IBDQ-32 responsiveness. Methods: A systematic literature review identified 11 articles reporting IBDQ-32 responder analyses in randomized control trials, which were included in a random effects meta-analysis, and 15 articles linking IBDQ-32 change to change in UC health indicators, which were summarized narratively. Meta-analysis compared differences between IBDQ-32 responder proportions in efficacious and nonefficacious treatment arms relative to placebo. Linear meta-regression examined the association of treatment efficacy and proportions of IBDQ-32 responders in active treatment compared with placebo. Results: Meta-analysis showed larger differences in IBDQ-32 response proportions between active treatment and placebo for efficacious treatments (pooled OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.83-2.63) than nonefficacious treatments (pooled OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.84-1.74; Cochran’s Q[df = 1] = 8.26, P = .004). Meta-regression showed that the magnitude of treatment efficacy positively predicted IBDQ-32 response in active treatments relative to placebo (β = 0.21, P < .001). Moderate to strong correlations were found between change in IBDQ-32 and change in health indicators (eg, patient-reported measures, disease activity, endoscopic indices; correlations, 0.37-0.64 in absolute values). Patients achieving clinical response or remission showed greater change in IBDQ-32 total scores (range, 22.3-50.1 points) and more frequently met clinically meaningful thresholds on the IBDQ-32 than those not achieving clinical response or remission (all P < .05). Conclusions: The IBDQ-32 is responsive to changes in UC health indicators and disease activity, including in response to efficacious treatment (relative to placebo).
BACKGROUND: Starting biologic treatment early in the course of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may associate with higher efficacy, especially in Crohn's disease (CD).
METHODS: A systematic review and individual-patient-data meta-analysis of all placebo-controlled trials of biologics approved for IBD at study inception (Oct 2015), using Vivli data-sharing platform. The primary outcome was the proportional biologic/placebo treatment effect on induction-of-remission in patients with short-duration (≤18months) versus long-duration disease (>18months) analyzed separately for CD and ulcerative colitis (UC). We used meta-regression to examine the impact of patients' characteristics on the primary outcome. Study PROSPERO registration: CRD42018041961.
RESULTS: We included 25 trials, testing infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, natalizumab or vedolizumab (6,168 CD, 3,227 UC patients). In CD, induction-of-remission rates were higher in pooled placebo and active arms' patients with short-disease duration≤18 months (41.4%, 244/589) compared with disease-duration>18months (29.8%, 852/2857, meta-analytically estimated OR=1.33, 95%CI:1.09-1.64). The primary outcome, proportional biologic/placebo treatment effect on induction-of-remission, was not different in short-duration disease ≤18 months (n= 589, OR 1.47, 95%CI:1.01-2.15) compared with longer disease-duration (n=2857, OR 1.43, 95%CI:1.19-1.72). In UC trials, both the proportional biologic/placebo remission-induction effect and the pooled biologic-placebo effect were stable regardless of disease duration. Primary outcome results remained unchanged when tested using alternative temporal cut-offs and when modelled for individual-patients' co-variates, including prior anti-TNFs exposure.
CONCLUSION: There are higher rates of induction-of-remission with biologics and with placebo in early CD, resulting in a treatment-to-placebo effect ratio which is similar across disease durations. No such relationships between disease-duration and outcomes is found in UC.
BACKGROUND: There is a growing armamentarium for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. We aimed to compare the relative efficacy and safety of biologics and small molecule drugs for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.
METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials without language restrictions for articles published between Jan 1, 1990, and July 1, 2021. Major congresses' databases from Jan 1, 2018, to July 3, 2021, were reviewed manually. Phase 3, placebo-controlled or head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of biologics or small molecule drugs as induction or maintenance therapies for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis were included. Phase 2 RCTs were excluded because of their small sample sizes and inclusion of doses not further explored in phase 3 RCTs. Summary data from intention-to-treat analyses were extracted from included reports by JSL and PAO. The primary outcome was the induction of clinical remission. A network meta-analysis was done under the frequentist framework, obtaining pairwise odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was used to rank the included agents for each outcome. Higher SUCRA scores correlate with better efficacy, whereas lower SUCRA scores correlate with better safety. Maintenance data on efficacy for treat-straight-through and randomised responder trials are also presented. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021225329.
FINDINGS: Our search yielded 5904 results, from which 29 studies (four being head-to-head RCTs) fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were included. Of these, 23 studies assessed induction therapy with either a biologic or small molecule drug, comprising 10 061 patients with ulcerative colitis. A risk of bias assessment showed a low risk of bias for most of the included studies. Upadacitinib was significantly superior to all other interventions for the induction of clinical remission (infliximab [OR 2·70, 95% CI 1·18-6·20], adalimumab [4·64, 2·47-8·71], golimumab [3·00, 1·32-6·82], vedolizumab [3·56, 1·84-6·91], ustekinumab [2·92, 1·31-6·51], etrolizumab [4·91, 2·59-9·31], tofacitinib [2·84, 1·28-6·31], filgotinib 100 mg [6·15, 2·98-12·72], filgotinib 200 mg [4·49, 2·18-9·24], and ozanimod (2·70, 1·18-6·20), and ranked highest for the induction of clinical remission (SUCRA 0·996). No differences between active interventions were observed when assessing adverse events and serious adverse events. Vedolizumab ranked lowest for both adverse events (SUCRA 0·184) and serious adverse events (0·139), whereas upadacitinib ranked highest for adverse events (0·843) and ozanimod ranked highest for serious adverse events (0·831).
INTERPRETATION: Upadacitinib was the best performing agent for the induction of clinical remission (the primary outcome) but the worst performing agent in terms of adverse events in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Vedolizumab was the best performing agent for safety outcomes. With the paucity of direct comparisons in the published literature, our results might help clinicians to position drugs in treatment algorithms.
FUNDING: None.
BACKGROUND: The objective of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib in the treatment of moderate-severe ulcerative colitis (UC).
METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central to identify articles and abstracts reporting efficacy or safety data on tofacitinib use in UC. Primary outcome assessed was remission. Secondary outcomes included clinical response, steroid free remission, and adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS: A total of 26 studies were included. The rates of remission were 29.81% [95% confidence interval (CI): 22.37%-37.25%, I2: 90%] at week 8, 32.27% (95% CI: 27.67%-36.88%, I2: 42%) at 6 months and 38.03% (95% CI: 33.59%-42.48%, I2: 0%) at 1-year. Clinical response rates were 59.41% (95% CI: 55.03%-63.94%, I2: 61%) at week 8, 48.99% (95% CI: 36.92%-61.06%, I2: 91%) at 6 months and 50.87% (95% CI: 42.16%-59.58%, I2: 67%) at 1-year. Odds ratio of clinical response at week 8 in biologic naive versus biologic experienced patients was 1.59 (95% CI: 0.54-4.63). Pooled incidence rate for serious infections, major adverse cardiovascular events, and nonmelanotic squamous cell malignancies across all doses was 4.41 per 100-patient years (PYs) (95% CI: 2.32-8.38 per 100-PY, I2: 78%), 0.91 per 100-PY (95% CI: 0.43-1.93 per 100-PY, I2: 37%) and 0.91 per 100-PY (95% CI: 0.61-1.34 per 100-PY, I2: 0%), respectively. Higher dose was associated with an increased frequency of AEs.
CONCLUSIONS: While the overall efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in moderate-severe UC is consistent with clinical trial data, the dose dependent increase in AEs highlights the significance of early dose de-escalation. Rate of clinical response after tofacitinb induction was similar in biologic naive and biologic experienced patients.
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, the objective of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to indirectly compare the relative efficacy and safety of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for ulcerative colitis (UC).
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library from the database inception until 13 August 2021. No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared these interventions were identified. Therefore, a fixed-effects Bayesian NMA was conducted by identifying a connected (via comparison to placebo) network of RCTs. Ranking was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Seven RCTs including 3190 patients met the inclusion criteria. Filgotinib 100 mg was ranked highest for induction of endoscopic remission (SUCRA, 0.67) whereas peficitinib 75 mg BID was ranked highest for induction of clinical response (SUCRA, 0.72). Peficitinib 75 mg was ranked highest for induction of mucosal healing (SUCRA, 0.71), whereas peficitinib 150 mg was ranked highest for clinical remission (SUCRA, 0.74). Tofacitinib 3 mg had the highest probability of being the best treatment in terms of change from baseline in Mayo score (SUCRA, 0.78). Adverse events (AEs) and treatment discontinuations or withdrawals from the study due to AEs did not differ between JAK inhibitors and placebo groups.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Based on indirect comparisons, peficitinib 75 mg/75 mg BID/150 mg, tofacitinib 3 mg and filgotinib 100mg were the most efficacious JAK inhibitor interventions in patients with UC. However, head-to-head trials are warranted to inform clinical decision-making with greater confidence.
BACKGROUND: Biological agents are commonly used for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). As new treatments, tofacitinib, and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) have demonstrated efficacy in treating UC. This network meta-analysis aims to determine the efficacy and safety of biological agents, tofacitinib, and FMT.
METHODS: A network meta-analysis was conducted by systematically searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Libraries. According to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biological agents, tofacitinib, and FMT in UC. A random-effect model was chosen by the network meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis. Heterogeneity test and publication bias test were performed to determine the efficacy of treatments.
RESULTS: Data were extracted from 16 RCTs and we found that all treatments were more effective than the placebos. A total of 21 comparisons were made to determine efficiency. We found that infliximab, vedolizumab, and FMT performed better curative effect in terms of absolute effects and relative ranks. Furthermore, there was no statistical difference in the efficacy of biological agents, tofacitinib, and FMT. Moreover, no treatments were found to increase the occurrence of adverse events when compared with placebos, except infliximab. However, vedolizumab seemed to reduce the occurrence of adverse events compared with infliximab.
CONCLUSION: Of the biological agents, vedolizumab and infliximab were the most effective, suggesting that biological agents are still a better choice. Nevertheless, tofacitinib and FMT may be promising alternatives with high efficacies. However, more safety and maintenance studies need to be conducted in future for the acquisition of more accurate results.Abbreviations: FMT: Fecal microbiota transplantation; UC: Ulcerative colitis; RCTs: Randomized controlled trials; IBD: Inflammatory bowel disease; CD: Crohn's disease; IBS: Irritable bowel syndrome; CDI: Clostridium difficile infections; ITT: Intention-to-treat; RR: Relative risk; CI: Confidence interval; CrI: Credible intervals; IFX: Infliximab; ADA: Adalimumab; TFB: Tofacitinib; GLM: Golimumab; VDZ: Vedolizumab; PBO: Placebo; wk: week; F: Female; M: Male; AEs: Adverse events; SAEs: Serious adverse events; anti-TNF: Anti-tumor necrosis factors.
Objectives: Because only one head-to-head randomized trial of biologics for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) has been performed, indirect treatment comparisons remain important. This systematic review and network meta-analysis examined efficacy and safety of biologics and tofacitinib for moderate-to-severe UC, using values for vedolizumab as a reference. Methods: Relevant studies (N=19) of vedolizumab, adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, ustekinumab, and tofacitinib were identified. Study design differences were addressed by assessing efficacy outcomes conditional on response at maintenance initiation. Primary analysis used fixed-effect models to estimate odds ratios for efficacy and safety endpoints. Results: Compared with vedolizumab 300 mg, adalimumab 160/80 mg was associated with less clinical remission (odds ratio, 0.69 [95% credible interval, 0.54-0.88]), and infliximab 5 mg/kg was associated with more clinical remission (1.67 [1.16-2.42]) and response (1.63 [1.15-2.30]). Adalimumab 40 mg, golimumab 50 mg, and ustekinumab 90 mg Q12W had significantly lower clinical remission rates during maintenance (0.62 [0.45-0.86], 0.55 [0.32-0.95], and 0.59 [0.35-0.99]) versus vedolizumab 300 mg Q8W. Response results were similar. Tofacitinib 10 mg had the highest maintenance treatment efficacy estimates and highest infection risk. Conclusion: Network meta-analysis and novel integrated benefit-risk analysis suggest a potentially favorable efficacy-safety balance for vedolizumab compared with adalimumab and other advanced UC therapies.
Aim. Increasing evidence supports the role of the gut microbiota in the etiology of ulcerative colitis (UC). Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is a highly effective treatment against recurrent Clostridium difficile infection; however, its efficacy in UC is still controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FMT for treatment of active UC. Methods. We searched Cochrane, Medline, Web of Science, and Embase from inception to February 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with active UC, which compared FMT with controls, were eligible. The primary outcome was combined clinical remission with endoscopic remission/response. Secondary outcomes included clinical remission, endoscopic remission, and serious adverse events. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) is reported. Results. Five RCTs with 292 participants were eligible for inclusion. When data were pooled for all patients, FMT was associated with a higher combined clinical remission with endoscopic remission/response; the RR of combined outcome not achieving after FMT vs. control was 0.79 (95% CI 0.70-0.88). FMT delivered via lower gastrointestinal route was superior to upper gastrointestinal route with regard to combined clinical remission with endoscopic remission/response (RR=0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.89). FMT with pooled donor stool (RR=0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.85) and higher frequency of administration (RR=0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.93) may be more effective with regard to clinical remission. There was no statistically significant difference in serious adverse events with FMT compared with controls (RR=0.98, 95% CI 0.93-1.03). Conclusion. FMT shows a promising perspective with comparable safety and favorable clinical efficacy for the treatment of active UC in the short term. However, further larger, more rigorously conducted RCTs of FMT in UC are still needed in order to resolve the controversial questions.
OBJECTIVES: Review of efficacy and safety of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibition in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).
METHODS: A systematic literature research (SLR) of all publications on JAK inhibitors (JAKi) treatment published until March 2019 using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Efficacy and safety were assessed in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), integrating long-term extension periods additionally for safety evaluation.
RESULTS: 3454 abstracts were screened with 85 included in the final analysis (efficacy and RCT safety: n=72; safety only: n=13). Efficacy of RCTs investigating tofacitinib (TOFA, n=27), baricitinib (BARI, n=9), upadacitinib (UPA, n=14), filgotinib (FILGO, n=7), decernotinib (DEC, n=3) and peficitinib (PEF, n=7) was evaluated. Six head-to-head trials comparing JAKi with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were included. Efficacy of JAKi was shown in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for all agents, psoriatic arthritis (TOFA, FILGO), ankylosing spondylitis (TOFA, FILGO), systemic lupus erythematosus (BARI), chronic plaque psoriasis (TOFA, BARI, PEF), ulcerative colitis (TOFA, UPA), Crohn's disease (UPA, FILGO) and atopic dermatitis (TOFA, BARI, UPA). Safety analysis of 72 RCTs, one cohort study and 12 articles on long-term extension studies showed increased risks for infections, especially herpes zoster, serious infections and numerically higher rates of venous thromboembolic events. No increased malignancy rates or major adverse cardiac events were observed.
CONCLUSION: JAKi provide good efficacy compared to placebo (and to TNFi in RA and Pso) across various IMIDs with an acceptable safety profile. This SLR informed the task force on points to consider for the treatment of IMIDs with JAKi with the available evidence.
Purpose: Previous reviews produced weak evidence regarding the responsiveness of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ-32) to changes in ulcerative colitis (UC) health indicators. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide an updated synthesis on IBDQ-32 responsiveness. Methods: A systematic literature review identified 11 articles reporting IBDQ-32 responder analyses in randomized control trials, which were included in a random effects meta-analysis, and 15 articles linking IBDQ-32 change to change in UC health indicators, which were summarized narratively. Meta-analysis compared differences between IBDQ-32 responder proportions in efficacious and nonefficacious treatment arms relative to placebo. Linear meta-regression examined the association of treatment efficacy and proportions of IBDQ-32 responders in active treatment compared with placebo. Results: Meta-analysis showed larger differences in IBDQ-32 response proportions between active treatment and placebo for efficacious treatments (pooled OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.83-2.63) than nonefficacious treatments (pooled OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.84-1.74; Cochran’s Q[df = 1] = 8.26, P = .004). Meta-regression showed that the magnitude of treatment efficacy positively predicted IBDQ-32 response in active treatments relative to placebo (β = 0.21, P < .001). Moderate to strong correlations were found between change in IBDQ-32 and change in health indicators (eg, patient-reported measures, disease activity, endoscopic indices; correlations, 0.37-0.64 in absolute values). Patients achieving clinical response or remission showed greater change in IBDQ-32 total scores (range, 22.3-50.1 points) and more frequently met clinically meaningful thresholds on the IBDQ-32 than those not achieving clinical response or remission (all P < .05). Conclusions: The IBDQ-32 is responsive to changes in UC health indicators and disease activity, including in response to efficacious treatment (relative to placebo).
