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 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.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endpoints in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Crohn's disease (CD) are evolving. We performed a systematic review of efficacy and safety outcomes reported in placebo-controlled RCTs of patients with CD.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to March 1, 2017 for placebo-controlled RCTs of adult patients with CD treated with aminosalicylates, immunomodulators, corticosteroids, biologics, and oral small molecules. Efficacy and safety outcomes, definitions, and measurement tools were collected and stratified by decade of publication.
RESULTS: 116 RCTs (81 induction, 44 maintenance, 7 postoperative prevention trials, enrolling 27,263 patients) were included. Clinical efficacy endpoints were reported in all trials, most commonly measured using the Crohn's Disease Activity Index. Thirty-eight unique definitions of clinical response or remission and 32 definitions of loss of response were identified. Definitions of endoscopic response, remission, and endoscopic healing were also heterogeneous, evaluated using the Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity, Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease, ulcer resolution, and Rutgeerts' Score for post-operative endoscopic appearance. Histologic outcomes were reported in 11.1%, 2.3%, and 14.3% of induction, maintenance, and postoperative prevention trials, respectively. Biomarker outcomes were reported in 81.5%, 68.2%, and 42.9% of induction, maintenance, and postoperative prevention trials, respectively. Safety outcomes were reported in 93.8%, 97.7%, and 85.7% of induction, maintenance, and postoperative prevention trials, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, we highlight the heterogeneity in definitions of response and remission and the evolution of outcomes reported in placebo-controlled CD RCTs. Establishing a core outcome set to standardize efficacy and safety endpoint definitions is a research priority in this field.
Background and Aim. Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal tract with the potential to progress to a severe debilitating state. Treatment with biological agents is highly efficient, improving both short-term outcomes and long-term prognosis. Nonetheless, up to 60% of patients receiving biological therapy will exhibit nonresponse at some point. The optimal management of such patients is not clearly defined. Besides traditional anti-TNF agents (infliximab, adalimumab, and certolizumab), alternative biological therapies (natalizumab, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab) are currently available for the treatment of CD. Our aim was to analyze all available evidence regarding efficacy of a second biological in "biological-treatment-experienced" patients. Methods. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using specific criteria for selecting relevant randomized clinical trials evaluating response to administration of secondary biological therapy in "anti-TNF-experienced" CD patients. Data from these studies was used to perform (a) traditional meta-analysis to ascertain the effect of secondary treatment versus placebo and (b) network meta-analysis to compare indirectly the efficacy of available biological agents. Results. Out of initially 977 studies, only eight were included for analysis, providing a total of 1281 treated and 733 placebo-receiving CD patients. Treatment with a second biological was found to be superior to placebo for both induction of remission (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.7 to 3) and response (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.5), with global rates of 24% and 42%, respectively (placebo rate: 11% and 27%, p<0.0001 for both). Indirect comparisons performed with network meta-analysis suggest no specific agent is clearly superior to others, with relatively better results observed for adalimumab in inducing disease remission. Conclusion. In anti-TNF-experienced CD patients, secondary biological administration may be efficient, while no specific agent seems to outperform the others. Further research is needed to identify optimal management strategies for this challenging subset of patients.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We sought to analyze whether response to second-line biologic varies depending on reason for discontinuation of primary anti-TNF agent (primary non-response [PNR], secondary loss of response [LOR] after initial response, or intolerance), through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: Through a systematic search through May 31, 2017, we identified 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biologics in patients with IBD with prior exposure to anti-TNF agents, that stratified response to second-line therapy by reason for discontinuing primary anti-TNF therapy (PNR vs. LOR vs. intolerance). We estimated relative risk (RR) [and 95% confidence interval (CI)] of achieving clinical remission in patients with PNR as compared to patients with LOR, and intolerance, through random effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS: As compared to patients who discontinued prior anti-TNF due to intolerance, patients with prior PNR were 24% less likely to achieve remission with second-line biologics (RR,0.76 [0.61-0.96]). As compared to patients who discontinued prior anti-TNF due to LOR, patients with prior PNR were 27% less likely to achieve remission with induction therapy with second-line biologics (RR,0.73 [0.56-0.97]), particularly to ustekinumab (RR,0.64 [0.52-0.80]). There was no difference in response to vedolizumab in patients with prior PNR or LOR to anti-TNF agents (RR,1.16 [0.85-1.58]).
CONCLUSION: Patients with PNR to anti-TNF agents are less likely to respond to second-line non-TNF biologics, as compared to patients who discontinued therapy due to secondary LOR or intolerance. This may be attributed to underlying pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anti-TNF agents in patients with PNR.
AIM: An indirect comparison of ustekinumab versus vedolizumab in patients with active moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease who were nonresponsive or intolerant to previous TNF-antagonist therapy.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed in Medline via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, until 30 April 2017. Inclusion criteria were: randomized controlled trials, patients treated for Crohn's disease, ustekinumab or vedolizumab therapy. Included trials were critically appraised and afterward indirect comparison by Bucher was conducted; the manuscript was prepared in accordance to the PRISMA requirements.
RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials were included and assessed for homogeneity; they occurred eligible for indirect comparison referring to induction or maintenance phase of TNF-antagonist failure population treatment; no statistically significant differences in clinical response (relative benefit [RB]: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.65-1.99; p = 0.64) as well as in clinical remission (RB: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.54-2.48; p = 0.71) in induction phase of therapy were revealed; no significant disparity was presented in a maintenance phase in clinical remission (RB: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.30-1.68; p = 0.44). No significant differences were also revealed in primary and secondary nonresponders subpopulations in clinical response. Indirect comparison of the safety profile presented no statistically significant difference between the biologics (relative risk [RR]: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.81-1.08; p = 0.35).
CONCLUSION: No significant differences between vedolizumab and ustekinumab in clinical response and clinical remission for induction and remission in maintenance phase of TNF refractory patients therapy were revealed. In addition, no significant disparities in the risk of adverse events suggest a similar safety profile.
BACKGROUND: There are limited data to inform positioning of agents for treating moderate-severe Crohn's disease (CD).
AIM: We assessed comparative efficacy and safety of first-line (biologic-naïve) and second-line (prior exposure to anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF]-α) agents) biologic therapy for moderate-severe CD, through a systematic review and network meta-analysis, and appraised quality of evidence (QoE) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with moderate-severe CD treated with approved anti-TNF agents, anti-integrin agents and anti-IL12/23 agents, first-line or second-line, and compared with placebo or another active agent. Efficacy outcomes were induction and maintenance of clinical remission; safety outcomes were serious adverse events and infections. Network meta-analyses were performed, and ranking was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities.
RESULTS: No head-to-head trials were identified. In biologic-naïve patients, infliximab (SUCRA,0.93) and adalimumab (SUCRA,0.75) were ranked highest for induction of clinical remission (moderate QoE). In patients with prior anti-TNF exposure, adalimumab (SUCRA, 0.91; low QoE, in patients with prior response or intolerance to anti-TNF agents) and ustekinumab (SUCRA, 0.71) were ranked highest for induction of clinical remission. In patients with response to induction therapy, adalimumab (SUCRA, 0.97) and infliximab (SUCRA, 0.68) were ranked highest for maintenance of remission. Ustekinumab had lowest risk of serious adverse events (SUCRA, 0.72) and infection (SUCRA, 0.71; along with infliximab, SUCRA, 0.83) in maintenance trials.
CONCLUSION: Indirect comparisons suggest that infliximab or adalimumab may be preferred first-line agents, and ustekinumab a preferred second-line agent, for induction of remission in patients with moderate-severe CD. Head-to-head trials are warranted.
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.
