Systematic review with meta-analysis of the effectiveness of subcutaneous biologics versus intravenous biologics in inflammatory bowel diseases.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Alexander T Elford,Rishni Heldt,Shahed Kamal,Britt Christensen,Jonathan P Segal
{"title":"Systematic review with meta-analysis of the effectiveness of subcutaneous biologics versus intravenous biologics in inflammatory bowel diseases.","authors":"Alexander T Elford,Rishni Heldt,Shahed Kamal,Britt Christensen,Jonathan P Segal","doi":"10.1097/meg.0000000000002850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nBiologic therapies are commonly used for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Multiple biologic medicines can now be given both intravenously and subcutaneously. The different administration routes present provide different advantages regarding dose escalation, healthcare resource utilisation, pharmacokinetics, convenience and safety. Comparator effectiveness studies between intravenous and subcutaneous administration are lacking.\r\n\r\nAIM\r\nOur primary outcome was to compare the effectiveness between intravenous and subcutaneous biologics in rates of clinical remission.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to include all relevant articles from MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 January 2003 to 28 January 2024. Studies that compared intravenous and subcutaneous administration of the same biologic therapy in IBD patients and reported effectiveness outcomes were included. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023442675).\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nTwenty studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Nine vedolizumab cohort studies were meta-analysed for clinical remission and no difference was found in clinical remission rates between intravenous and subcutaneous administration (relative risk = 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.88, 1.11). Six infliximab cohort studies were meta-analysed for clinical remission and no difference was found in clinical remission rates between intravenous and subcutaneous administration (relative risk = 0.91; 95% confidence interval: 0.77, 1.08).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nOur findings in the first meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of intravenous and subcutaneous biologic therapies in IBD suggest there is no difference in the effectiveness between these two administration routes. However, further high-quality studies, particularly head-to-head studies are needed to confirm this finding.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/meg.0000000000002850","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Biologic therapies are commonly used for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Multiple biologic medicines can now be given both intravenously and subcutaneously. The different administration routes present provide different advantages regarding dose escalation, healthcare resource utilisation, pharmacokinetics, convenience and safety. Comparator effectiveness studies between intravenous and subcutaneous administration are lacking. AIM Our primary outcome was to compare the effectiveness between intravenous and subcutaneous biologics in rates of clinical remission. METHODS We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to include all relevant articles from MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 January 2003 to 28 January 2024. Studies that compared intravenous and subcutaneous administration of the same biologic therapy in IBD patients and reported effectiveness outcomes were included. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023442675). RESULTS Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Nine vedolizumab cohort studies were meta-analysed for clinical remission and no difference was found in clinical remission rates between intravenous and subcutaneous administration (relative risk = 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.88, 1.11). Six infliximab cohort studies were meta-analysed for clinical remission and no difference was found in clinical remission rates between intravenous and subcutaneous administration (relative risk = 0.91; 95% confidence interval: 0.77, 1.08). CONCLUSIONS Our findings in the first meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of intravenous and subcutaneous biologic therapies in IBD suggest there is no difference in the effectiveness between these two administration routes. However, further high-quality studies, particularly head-to-head studies are needed to confirm this finding.
皮下注射生物制剂与静脉注射生物制剂对炎症性肠病疗效的系统回顾与荟萃分析。
背景生物疗法是炎症性肠病(IBD)患者的常用疗法。目前,多种生物制剂既可静脉注射,也可皮下注射。不同的给药途径在剂量递增、医疗资源利用、药代动力学、便利性和安全性方面具有不同的优势。我们的主要研究结果是比较静脉注射和皮下注射生物制剂在临床缓解率方面的有效性。方法我们进行了系统性回顾和荟萃分析,纳入了 2003 年 1 月 1 日至 2024 年 1 月 28 日期间 MEDLINE (Ovid)、EMBASE、PubMed 和 Cochrane 对照试验中央注册中心的所有相关文章。本研究纳入了对 IBD 患者静脉注射和皮下注射同一种生物疗法进行比较并报告疗效的研究。本研究已在 PROSPERO(CRD42023442675)上注册。结果20项研究符合系统综述的纳入标准。对 9 项维多珠单抗队列研究的临床缓解率进行了荟萃分析,结果发现静脉注射和皮下注射的临床缓解率没有差异(相对风险 = 0.99;95% 置信区间:0.88, 1.11)。我们对六项英夫利西单抗队列研究的临床缓解率进行了荟萃分析,结果显示静脉注射和皮下注射的临床缓解率没有差异(相对风险=0.91;95% 置信区间:0.77, 1.08)。然而,还需要进一步的高质量研究,尤其是头对头研究来证实这一结论。
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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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