Comparative Effectiveness of Dual Biologic Therapy and Biologic Small-Molecule Therapy for Refractory Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Retrospective Single-Center Study

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Fan Yin, Xiaolei Liu, Dongdong He, Songbo Li, Xin Feng, Yongquan Shi, Min Chen
{"title":"Comparative Effectiveness of Dual Biologic Therapy and Biologic Small-Molecule Therapy for Refractory Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Retrospective Single-Center Study","authors":"Fan Yin,&nbsp;Xiaolei Liu,&nbsp;Dongdong He,&nbsp;Songbo Li,&nbsp;Xin Feng,&nbsp;Yongquan Shi,&nbsp;Min Chen","doi":"10.1111/cts.70198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Patients with refractory inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) face difficulty in the treatment strategy. Combined advanced targeted therapies may obtain higher therapeutic efficacy. However, few studies compare the efficacy and safety of dual biologic therapy (DBT) with biologic small-molecule therapy (BMT) for refractory IBD. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of DBT with BMT. We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with refractory IBD treated with DBT (<i>n</i> = 22) or BMT (<i>n</i> = 21). The primary outcome was the clinical remission rate at week 12. Secondary outcomes included the clinical response rate, endoscopic response rate, endoscopic remission rate, colectomy rate, and rate of adverse events (AEs) at week 12. At week 12, the clinical remission rates in the DBT group and BMT group were 22.7% and 28.6%, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups (<i>p</i> = 0.661). There were also no statistically significant differences between the DBT group and BMT group in the clinical response rate (68.2% vs. 71.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.817), endoscopic response rate (66.7% vs. 68.8%, <i>p</i> = 1.000), endoscopic remission rate (4.8% vs. 18.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.296) and colectomy rate (4.5% vs. 23.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.167). Two patients (9.5%) in the BMT group and no patients in the DBT group experienced AEs. However, the difference was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.233). In conclusion, this study revealed that there may be similar effectiveness and safety of DBT and BMT for patients with refractory IBD. Further multi-center, prospective randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm this conclusion.</p>","PeriodicalId":50610,"journal":{"name":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"18 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cts.70198","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cts.70198","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Patients with refractory inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) face difficulty in the treatment strategy. Combined advanced targeted therapies may obtain higher therapeutic efficacy. However, few studies compare the efficacy and safety of dual biologic therapy (DBT) with biologic small-molecule therapy (BMT) for refractory IBD. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of DBT with BMT. We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with refractory IBD treated with DBT (n = 22) or BMT (n = 21). The primary outcome was the clinical remission rate at week 12. Secondary outcomes included the clinical response rate, endoscopic response rate, endoscopic remission rate, colectomy rate, and rate of adverse events (AEs) at week 12. At week 12, the clinical remission rates in the DBT group and BMT group were 22.7% and 28.6%, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups (p = 0.661). There were also no statistically significant differences between the DBT group and BMT group in the clinical response rate (68.2% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.817), endoscopic response rate (66.7% vs. 68.8%, p = 1.000), endoscopic remission rate (4.8% vs. 18.8%, p = 0.296) and colectomy rate (4.5% vs. 23.8%, p = 0.167). Two patients (9.5%) in the BMT group and no patients in the DBT group experienced AEs. However, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.233). In conclusion, this study revealed that there may be similar effectiveness and safety of DBT and BMT for patients with refractory IBD. Further multi-center, prospective randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm this conclusion.

Abstract Image

难治性炎症性肠病(IBD)患者在治疗策略上面临困难。联合先进的靶向治疗可获得更高的治疗效果。然而,很少有研究比较双生物疗法(DBT)与生物小分子疗法(BMT)治疗难治性IBD的疗效和安全性。我们的目的是比较DBT和BMT的有效性。我们回顾性分析了接受DBT (n = 22)或BMT (n = 21)治疗的难治性IBD患者的资料。主要终点是第12周的临床缓解率。次要结局包括第12周的临床缓解率、内镜下缓解率、结肠切除术率和不良事件率(ae)。第12周,DBT组和BMT组的临床缓解率分别为22.7%和28.6%。两组间差异无统计学意义(p = 0.661)。DBT组与BMT组在临床缓解率(68.2% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.817)、内镜下缓解率(66.7% vs. 68.8%, p = 1.000)、内镜下缓解率(4.8% vs. 18.8%, p = 0.296)、结肠切除术率(4.5% vs. 23.8%, p = 0.167)方面也无统计学差异。BMT组2例(9.5%)患者发生ae, DBT组无患者发生ae。但差异无统计学意义(p = 0.233)。总之,本研究表明,DBT和BMT治疗难治性IBD的有效性和安全性可能相似。需要进一步的多中心前瞻性随机对照试验来证实这一结论。
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
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
234
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Science (CTS), an official journal of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, highlights original translational medicine research that helps bridge laboratory discoveries with the diagnosis and treatment of human disease. Translational medicine is a multi-faceted discipline with a focus on translational therapeutics. In a broad sense, translational medicine bridges across the discovery, development, regulation, and utilization spectrum. Research may appear as Full Articles, Brief Reports, Commentaries, Phase Forwards (clinical trials), Reviews, or Tutorials. CTS also includes invited didactic content that covers the connections between clinical pharmacology and translational medicine. Best-in-class methodologies and best practices are also welcomed as Tutorials. These additional features provide context for research articles and facilitate understanding for a wide array of individuals interested in clinical and translational science. CTS welcomes high quality, scientifically sound, original manuscripts focused on clinical pharmacology and translational science, including animal, in vitro, in silico, and clinical studies supporting the breadth of drug discovery, development, regulation and clinical use of both traditional drugs and innovative modalities.
×
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