Second-line strategies after anti-TNF failure in chronically active, moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: a retrospective, multicentre cohort study.

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Bernadett Farkas, Jimmy K Limdi, Péter Bacsur, Edoardo Vincenzo Savarino, Luisa Bertin, Karishma Sethi-Arora, Pál Miheller, Fruzsina Vilmos, Fabiana Castiglione, Livio Bonacci, Milan Lukas, Nitsan Maharshak, Galia Berman, Željko Krznaric, Panu Wetwittayakhlang, Peter L Lakatos, Jakob Benedict Seidelin, Mohamed Attauabi, George Michalopoulos, Davide Giuseppe Ribaldone, Anna Kagramanova, Elena Chashkova, Patrícia Sarlós, Simone Saibeni, Ariella Bar-Gil Shitrit, Mariann Borsos, Tamás Resál, Zoltán Szepes, Tamás Molnár, Klaudia Farkas
{"title":"Second-line strategies after anti-TNF failure in chronically active, moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: a retrospective, multicentre cohort study.","authors":"Bernadett Farkas, Jimmy K Limdi, Péter Bacsur, Edoardo Vincenzo Savarino, Luisa Bertin, Karishma Sethi-Arora, Pál Miheller, Fruzsina Vilmos, Fabiana Castiglione, Livio Bonacci, Milan Lukas, Nitsan Maharshak, Galia Berman, Željko Krznaric, Panu Wetwittayakhlang, Peter L Lakatos, Jakob Benedict Seidelin, Mohamed Attauabi, George Michalopoulos, Davide Giuseppe Ribaldone, Anna Kagramanova, Elena Chashkova, Patrícia Sarlós, Simone Saibeni, Ariella Bar-Gil Shitrit, Mariann Borsos, Tamás Resál, Zoltán Szepes, Tamás Molnár, Klaudia Farkas","doi":"10.1080/14712598.2025.2500962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many ulcerative colitis (UC) patients require the use of second-line agents after the failure of anti-TNF therapy.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study including 683 chronically active, moderate-to-severe UC patients who failed first-line anti-TNFs. The rate of treatment persistence and colectomy-free survival was assessed up to 3 years after the initiation of second-line therapy. Predictors for colectomy and persistence were investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After the failure of the first-line anti-TNF, ustekinumab had superior persistence and colectomy-free survival rates compared to tofacitinib (<i>p</i> = 0.05; <i>p</i> = 0.001) and vedolizumab (<i>p</i> = 0.02; <i>p</i> = 0.05), but significant difference was only found in persistence rates in comparison with anti-TNFs (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Regardless of the number of prior anti-TNFs, significantly higher persistence (<i>p</i> = 0.05) and colectomy-free survival rates (<i>p</i> = 0.01) were observed over 2 years with ustekinumab than with vedolizumab or tofacitinib, whereas ustekinumab's superiority over tofacitinib seemed to disappear by the third year. Hypoalbuminaemia (<i>p</i> = 0.002) and shorter disease duration at second-line initiation (<i>p</i> = 0.03) increased, while concomitant immunomodulators (<i>p</i> = 0.05) reduced the risk for colectomy. Shorter disease duration (<i>p</i> = 0.01) and primary non-response to the previously used anti-TNF (<i>p</i> < 0.001) negatively influenced persistence with second-line non-TNF-targeted agents.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>After first-line anti-TNF failure, switching to a non-anti-TNF agent is worth considering in moderate-to-severe UC.</p>","PeriodicalId":12084,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2025.2500962","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Many ulcerative colitis (UC) patients require the use of second-line agents after the failure of anti-TNF therapy.

Research design and methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study including 683 chronically active, moderate-to-severe UC patients who failed first-line anti-TNFs. The rate of treatment persistence and colectomy-free survival was assessed up to 3 years after the initiation of second-line therapy. Predictors for colectomy and persistence were investigated.

Results: After the failure of the first-line anti-TNF, ustekinumab had superior persistence and colectomy-free survival rates compared to tofacitinib (p = 0.05; p = 0.001) and vedolizumab (p = 0.02; p = 0.05), but significant difference was only found in persistence rates in comparison with anti-TNFs (p < 0.001). Regardless of the number of prior anti-TNFs, significantly higher persistence (p = 0.05) and colectomy-free survival rates (p = 0.01) were observed over 2 years with ustekinumab than with vedolizumab or tofacitinib, whereas ustekinumab's superiority over tofacitinib seemed to disappear by the third year. Hypoalbuminaemia (p = 0.002) and shorter disease duration at second-line initiation (p = 0.03) increased, while concomitant immunomodulators (p = 0.05) reduced the risk for colectomy. Shorter disease duration (p = 0.01) and primary non-response to the previously used anti-TNF (p < 0.001) negatively influenced persistence with second-line non-TNF-targeted agents.

Conclusion: After first-line anti-TNF failure, switching to a non-anti-TNF agent is worth considering in moderate-to-severe UC.

慢性活动性、中重度溃疡性结肠炎抗tnf失败后的二线策略:一项回顾性、多中心队列研究
背景:许多溃疡性结肠炎(UC)患者在抗肿瘤坏死因子治疗失败后需要使用二线药物。研究设计和方法:我们进行了一项多中心、回顾性研究,包括683名慢性活动、中重度UC患者,这些患者在一线抗tnf治疗失败。治疗持续率和无结肠切除术生存率在二线治疗开始后的3年内进行评估。研究了结肠切除术和持续性的预测因素。结果:一线抗tnf失败后,与托法替尼相比,ustekinumab具有更高的持久性和无结肠切除术生存率(p = 0.05;P = 0.001)和vedolizumab (P = 0.02;p = 0.05),但乌斯特金单抗与维多珠单抗或托法替尼相比,仅在2年的持续率(p = 0.05)和无结肠切除术生存率(p = 0.01)方面存在显著差异,而乌斯特金单抗与托法替尼的优势似乎在第三年消失。低白蛋白血症(p = 0.002)和较短的二线起始病程(p = 0.03)增加,而伴随的免疫调节剂(p = 0.05)降低了结肠切除术的风险。结论:在一线抗肿瘤坏死因子治疗失败后,中重度UC患者应考虑改用非抗肿瘤坏死因子治疗。
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
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 医学-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
96
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy (1471-2598; 1744-7682) is a MEDLINE-indexed, international journal publishing peer-reviewed research across all aspects of biological therapy. Each article is structured to incorporate the author’s own expert opinion on the impact of the topic on research and clinical practice and the scope for future development. The audience consists of scientists and managers in the healthcare and biopharmaceutical industries and others closely involved in the development and application of biological therapies for the treatment of human disease. The journal welcomes: Reviews covering therapeutic antibodies and vaccines, peptides and proteins, gene therapies and gene transfer technologies, cell-based therapies and regenerative medicine Drug evaluations reviewing the clinical data on a particular biological agent Original research papers reporting the results of clinical investigations on biological agents and biotherapeutic-based studies with a strong link to clinical practice Comprehensive coverage in each review is complemented by the unique Expert Collection format and includes the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results; Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
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