Biologic Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Real-World Comparative Effectiveness and Impact of Drug Sequencing in 13 222 Patients within the UK IBD BioResource.

Christina Kapizioni, Rofaida Desoki, Danielle Lam, Karthiha Balendran, Eman Al-Sulais, Sreedhar Subramanian, Joanna E Rimmer, Juan De La Revilla Negro, Holly Pavey, Laetitia Pele, Johanne Brooks, Gordon W Moran, Peter M Irving, Jimmy K Limdi, Christopher A Lamb, Miles Parkes, Tim Raine
{"title":"Biologic Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Real-World Comparative Effectiveness and Impact of Drug Sequencing in 13 222 Patients within the UK IBD BioResource.","authors":"Christina Kapizioni, Rofaida Desoki, Danielle Lam, Karthiha Balendran, Eman Al-Sulais, Sreedhar Subramanian, Joanna E Rimmer, Juan De La Revilla Negro, Holly Pavey, Laetitia Pele, Johanne Brooks, Gordon W Moran, Peter M Irving, Jimmy K Limdi, Christopher A Lamb, Miles Parkes, Tim Raine","doi":"10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>This study compares the effectiveness of different biologic therapies and sequences in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] using real-world data from a large cohort with long exposure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Demographic, disease, treatment, and outcome data were retrieved for patients in the UK IBD BioResource. Effectiveness of treatment was based on persistence free of discontinuation or failure, analysed by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for differences between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 13 222 evaluable patients received at least one biologic. In ulcerative colitis [UC] first-line vedolizumab [VDZ] demonstrated superior effectiveness over 5 years compared to anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] agents [p = 0.006]. VDZ was superior to both infliximab [IFX] and adalimumab [ADA] after ADA and IFX failure respectively [p < 0.001 and p < 0.001]. Anti-TNF therapy showed similar effectiveness when used as first-line treatment, or after failure of VDZ. In Crohn's disease [CD] we found significant differences between first-line treatments over 10 years [p = 0.045], with superior effectiveness of IFX compared to ADA in perianal CD. Non-anti-TNF biologics were superior to a second anti-TNF after first-line anti-TNF failure in CD [p = 0.035]. Patients with UC or CD experiencing TNF failure due to delayed loss of response or intolerance had superior outcomes when switching to a non-anti-TNF biologic, rather than a second anti-TNF.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We provide real-world evidence to guide biologic selection and sequencing in a range of common scenarios. Our findings challenge current guidelines regarding drug selection after loss of response to first anti-TNF treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":94074,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Crohn's & colitis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11147798/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Crohn's & colitis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: This study compares the effectiveness of different biologic therapies and sequences in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] using real-world data from a large cohort with long exposure.

Methods: Demographic, disease, treatment, and outcome data were retrieved for patients in the UK IBD BioResource. Effectiveness of treatment was based on persistence free of discontinuation or failure, analysed by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for differences between groups.

Results: In total, 13 222 evaluable patients received at least one biologic. In ulcerative colitis [UC] first-line vedolizumab [VDZ] demonstrated superior effectiveness over 5 years compared to anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] agents [p = 0.006]. VDZ was superior to both infliximab [IFX] and adalimumab [ADA] after ADA and IFX failure respectively [p < 0.001 and p < 0.001]. Anti-TNF therapy showed similar effectiveness when used as first-line treatment, or after failure of VDZ. In Crohn's disease [CD] we found significant differences between first-line treatments over 10 years [p = 0.045], with superior effectiveness of IFX compared to ADA in perianal CD. Non-anti-TNF biologics were superior to a second anti-TNF after first-line anti-TNF failure in CD [p = 0.035]. Patients with UC or CD experiencing TNF failure due to delayed loss of response or intolerance had superior outcomes when switching to a non-anti-TNF biologic, rather than a second anti-TNF.

Conclusions: We provide real-world evidence to guide biologic selection and sequencing in a range of common scenarios. Our findings challenge current guidelines regarding drug selection after loss of response to first anti-TNF treatment.

炎症性肠病的生物治疗:在英国IBD BioResource的13222例患者中,真实世界的比较有效性和药物测序的影响
背景和目的:比较不同生物疗法和序列对炎症性肠病(IBD)患者的有效性,使用来自长期暴露的大型队列的真实世界数据。方法:从英国IBD BioResource检索患者的人口统计学、疾病、治疗和结局数据。治疗的有效性基于持续无中断或失败,通过Kaplan-Meier生存分析分析,采用治疗加权逆概率来调整组间差异。结果:13222例可评估患者接受了至少一种生物制剂治疗。在溃疡性结肠炎(UC)中,与抗肿瘤坏死因子(tnf)药物相比,一线韦多单抗(VDZ)在5年内显示出优越的疗效(p=0.006)。在ADA和IFX失败后,VDZ分别优于英夫利昔单抗(IFX)和阿达木单抗(ADA)(结论:我们为指导一系列常见情况下的生物选择和测序提供了现实证据。我们的研究结果挑战了目前关于首次抗肿瘤坏死因子反应丧失后药物选择的指导方针。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信