BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Recent studies raise concern for increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) used to treat immune-mediated inflammatory disorders (IMIDs). We aimed to examine MACE risk with licensed biologics and small molecules used commonly between IMIDs: inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis.
METHODS: Data were obtained from systematic searches (from inception to May 31, 2022) in PubMed, Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Studies that assessed a pre-defined MACE (myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, unstable angina, cardiovascular death, or heart failure) risk in those ≥18 years with IMIDs treated with anti-interleukin (IL)-23 antibodies, anti-IL-12/23, anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha antibodies (anti-TNF-α) or JAKi were included in a network meta-analysis using a random-effects model with pooled odds ratios (ORs) reported with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) by drug class and disease state.
RESULTS: Among 3,528 studies identified, 40 (36 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 4 cohort studies) were included in the systematic review, comprising 126,961 patients with IMIDs. Based on network meta-analysis of RCTs, regardless of disease state, anti-TNF-α (OR, 2.49; CrI: 1.14-5.62), JAKi (OR, 2.64; CrI: 1.26-5.99), and anti-IL-12/23 (OR, 3.15; CrI: 1.01-13.35) were associated with increased MACE risk compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the MACE risk between classes or based on IMID type.
CONCLUSIONS: Anti-IL-12/23, JAKi, and anti-TNF-α were associated with higher risk of MACE compared with placebo. The magnitude of the increased MACE risk was not different by IMID type. These results require confirmation in larger prospective studies.
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: Crohn's disease (CD) is a disease with an impaired immune response characterized by chronic, relapsing-remitting, and progressive inflammation mainly affecting the gastrointestinal tract. Certolizumab pegol (CZP) is a biological agent that regulates the impaired immune response by controlling tumour necrosis factor-α (TNFα). However, the efficacy and safety of long-term administration of CZP for people with CD with inflammation under control are not well understood.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of CZP for maintenance of remission in people with CD.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and conference abstracts from inception to 23 March 2022. We contacted pharmaceutical companies involved with the production of CZP for further relevant information.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CZP with placebo in adults with CD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. The main outcomes were failure to maintain clinical remission at week 26, failure to maintain clinical response at week 26, and serious adverse events. We planned to perform meta-analyses including all available studies if similar enough for pooling to be appropriate and calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We analyzed the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) to indicate the magnitude of treatment effects. The same two review authors independently evaluated the risk of bias by using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified one study meeting our prespecified eligibility criteria. The included study enrolled 428 adults with CD who responded to induction therapy with CZP 400 mg at weeks 0, 2, and 4. The study evaluated long-term efficacy and safety of CZP administered subcutaneously every four weeks compared with placebo. The proportion of participants who failed to maintain clinical remission at week 26 was 52.3% (113/216) in the CZP group compared to 71.7% (152/212) in the placebo group. Treatment of CZP probably results in a large reduction in failure to maintain clinical remission at week 26 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.85). The NNTB was 5 (95% CI 4 to 9). We judged this outcome at low risk of bias. Using the GRADE assessment, we judged the certainty of evidence as moderate due to the low number of events occurred. The proportion of participants who failed to maintain clinical response at week 26 was 37.5% (81/216) in the CZP group compared to 64.2% (136/212) in the placebo group. Treatment of CZP probably results in a large reduction in failure to maintain clinical response at week 26 (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.71). The NNTB was 4 (95% CI 3 to 5). We judged this outcome at low risk of bias. Using the GRADE assessment, we judged the certainty of evidence as moderate due to the low number of events occurred. The proportion of participants who developed serious adverse events was 5.6% (12/216) in the CZP group compared to 6.6% (14/212) in the placebo group. Treatment of CZP may lead to no difference in serious adverse events compared to placebo when used as a remission maintenance treatment (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.78). The NNTB was 95 (95% CI NNTH 19 to NNTB 25). We evaluated the risk of bias for this outcome as low. We evaluated the certainty of evidence as low due to the low number of events occurred and the CIs were not sufficiently narrow.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CZP probably results in a large reduction in failure to maintain clinical remission and response at week 26 in people with CD. The evidence suggests that CZP may lead to no difference in serious adverse events compared to placebo when used as a remission maintenance treatment. However, the current studies are limited to 26 weeks of follow-up and only included adults. Therefore, these conclusions cannot be used to guide longer term treatment or for treatment in children at present.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is not clear whether concomitant therapy with corticosteroids and anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents is more effective at inducing remission in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) than anti-TNF monotherapy. We aimed to determine whether patients with active CD receiving corticosteroids during induction therapy with anti-TNF agents had higher rates of clinical improvement than patients not receiving corticosteroids during induction therapy.
METHODS: We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases, through January 20, 2016, for randomized trials of anti-TNF agents approved for treatment of CD and identified 14 trials (5 of adalimumab, 5 of certolizumab, and 4 of infliximab). We conducted a pooled meta-analysis of individual patient and aggregated data from these trials. We compared data from participants who continued oral corticosteroids during induction with anti-TNF therapy to those treated with anti-TNF agents alone. The endpoints were clinical remission (CD activity index [CDAI] scores <150) and clinical response (a decrease in CDAI of 100 points) at the end of induction (weeks 4-14 of treatment).
RESULTS: We included 4354 patients who received induction therapy with anti-TNF agents, including 1653 [38.0%] who were receiving corticosteroids. The combination of corticosteroids and an anti-TNF agent induced clinical remission in 32.0% of patients, whereas anti-TNF monotherapy induced clinical remission in 35.5% of patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.74-1.17). The combination of corticosteroids and an anti-TNF agent induced a clinical response in 42.7% of patients, whereas anti-TNF monotherapy induced a clinical response in 46.8% (OR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.96). These findings did not change with adjustment for baseline CDAI scores and concurrent use of immunomodulators.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on a meta-analysis of data from randomized trials of anti-TNF therapies in patients with active CD, patients receiving corticosteroids during induction therapy with anti-TNF agents did not have higher rates of clinical improvement compared with patients not receiving corticosteroids during induction therapy. Given these findings and the risks of corticosteroid use, clinicians should consider early weaning of corticosteroids during induction therapy with anti-TNF agents for patients with corticosteroid-refractory CD.
GOALS AND BACKGROUND: Ustekinumab (UST) is a monoclonal antibody inhibitor of IL-12/IL-23 approved for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). We conducted a meta-analysis to compare rates of adverse events (AEs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of UST for all indications.
STUDY: A systematic search was performed of MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed databases through November 2019. Study inclusion included RCTs comparing UST to placebo or other biologics in patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of an autoimmune condition.
RESULTS: Thirty RCTs with 16,068 patients were included in our analysis. Nine thousand six hundred and twenty-six subjects were included in the UST vs placebo analysis. There was no significant difference in serious or mild/moderate AEs between UST and placebo with an OR of 0.83 (95% CI 0.66, 1.05) and 1.08 (95% CI 0.99, 1.18), respectively, over a median follow-up time of 16 weeks. In a sub-analysis of CD and UC trials, no difference in serious or mild/moderate AEs in UST versus placebo was seen.
CONCLUSIONS: UST was not associated with an increase in short-term risk of AEs.
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.
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.
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: Fatigue is a common and burdensome symptom experienced by individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The subjective, complex nature of fatigue can often hamper its’ management, and the effectiveness of treatments for fatigue in IBD remains unknown. The aim of this Cochrane review was to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for managing fatigue in IBD. Methods: A systematic search was conducted up to July 2018, and the search was rerun in October 2019. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in children or adults with IBD, where fatigue was assessed as a primary or secondary outcome were included. Data were extracted and study quality was independently assessed by two authors. Standard Cochrane methodological procedures were used. Results: Fourteen RCTs were included (3741 participants; all adults; 6 in Crohn’s disease (CD); 2 in ulcerative colitis (UC); 6 in both CD and UC), with five potentially relevant studies identified from the updated search (to be assessed for inclusion at the next update). The interventions varied widely and included nine pharmacological trials, four non-pharmacological trials, and one multimodular trial. Only four trials were designed specifically as interventions for managing fatigue and one meta-analysis was possible, due to the diversity and limited number of studies for each intervention. We found that adalimumab 40mg administered every other week (only for those known to respond to adalimumab induction therapy), self-directed stress management and physical activity advice may reduce fatigue but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence suggest ferric maltol results in a slight increase in fatigue and electroacupuncture may result in a large reduction in fatigue and increase in quality of life. There is no evidence of effect for adalimumab maintenance therapy, adalimumab administered 40mg weekly, agaricus blazei murill-based mushroom extract, omega 3, guided stress management or cognitive behavioural therapy that is likely to have a clinically meaningful improvement on fatigue. Reporting in some of the trials was insufficient to assess the efficacy and safety of some therapies, including vitamin D3 supplementation, ferumoxytol, vedolizumab, tight control customised management and solution focused therapy. Conclusions: The effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on fatigue in individuals with IBD are uncertain. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions, as there is insufficient quantity and quality of evidence available. Further RCTs with larger number of participants are required to assess the potential benefits and harms of therapies, particularly interventions specifically designed for fatigue management.
Recent studies raise concern for increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) used to treat immune-mediated inflammatory disorders (IMIDs). We aimed to examine MACE risk with licensed biologics and small molecules used commonly between IMIDs: inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis.
METHODS:
Data were obtained from systematic searches (from inception to May 31, 2022) in PubMed, Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Studies that assessed a pre-defined MACE (myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, unstable angina, cardiovascular death, or heart failure) risk in those ≥18 years with IMIDs treated with anti-interleukin (IL)-23 antibodies, anti-IL-12/23, anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha antibodies (anti-TNF-α) or JAKi were included in a network meta-analysis using a random-effects model with pooled odds ratios (ORs) reported with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) by drug class and disease state.
RESULTS:
Among 3,528 studies identified, 40 (36 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 4 cohort studies) were included in the systematic review, comprising 126,961 patients with IMIDs. Based on network meta-analysis of RCTs, regardless of disease state, anti-TNF-α (OR, 2.49; CrI: 1.14-5.62), JAKi (OR, 2.64; CrI: 1.26-5.99), and anti-IL-12/23 (OR, 3.15; CrI: 1.01-13.35) were associated with increased MACE risk compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the MACE risk between classes or based on IMID type.
CONCLUSIONS:
Anti-IL-12/23, JAKi, and anti-TNF-α were associated with higher risk of MACE compared with placebo. The magnitude of the increased MACE risk was not different by IMID type. These results require confirmation in larger prospective studies.
