{"title":"维多珠单抗和英夫利昔单抗对生物无效溃疡性结肠炎患者的临床和内镜疗效比较:一项多中心真实世界研究。","authors":"Zhaopeng Huang, Jian Tang, Ruibin Wu, Shunhua Long, Wenke Chen, Tingna Lu, Qiuyue Xia, Yanhui Wu, Hongsheng Yang, Qingfan Yang, Zicheng Huang, Qin Guo, Miao Li, Xiang Gao, Kang Chao","doi":"10.1177/17562848241281218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>No head-to-head trial directly compares the effectiveness of vedolizumab (VDZ) and infliximab (IFX) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who were naïve to biologic therapy.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to compare the clinical and endoscopic effectiveness of VDZ and IFX in biologic-naïve patients with UC in real-world settings.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>It was a multicenter, observational, real-world cohort study conducted at five centers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients diagnosed with UC and treated with either IFX or VDZ as their first-line biologic therapy were retrospectively enrolled. Steroid-free remission, clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic healing at week 14 and week 52 were compared between the two groups after propensity score weighting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 199 patients (117 VDZ and 82 IFX) were included in the study. There were no significant differences in steroid-free remission (64.6% vs 56.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.224), clinical response (83.4% vs 73.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.086), or clinical remission (69.4% vs 60.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.174) at week 14. However, VDZ showed better results in steroid-free remission (67.5% vs 44.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.004), clinical response (69.7% vs 47.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.005), and clinical remission (67.5% vs 44.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.004) at week 52. In terms of endoscopic healing, VDZ was similar to IFX at week 14 (25.7% vs 17.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.185), but VDZ had a significantly higher rate at week 52 (29.5% vs 11.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.027). VDZ was found to be superior to IFX in therapeutic continuation (hazard ratio = 0.339, 95% CI: 0.187-0.614, <i>p</i> < 0.001). The rate of adverse events was similar between the two groups (6.8% vs 8.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.655).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>VDZ demonstrated similar clinical and endoscopic effectiveness to IFX at week 14 in biologic-naïve patients with UC, but appeared to be superior at week 52. The safety outcomes were comparable between the groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11483708/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of clinical and endoscopic efficacy between vedolizumab and infliximab in bio-naïve patients with ulcerative colitis: a multicenter, real-world study.\",\"authors\":\"Zhaopeng Huang, Jian Tang, Ruibin Wu, Shunhua Long, Wenke Chen, Tingna Lu, Qiuyue Xia, Yanhui Wu, Hongsheng Yang, Qingfan Yang, Zicheng Huang, Qin Guo, Miao Li, Xiang Gao, Kang Chao\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17562848241281218\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>No head-to-head trial directly compares the effectiveness of vedolizumab (VDZ) and infliximab (IFX) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who were naïve to biologic therapy.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to compare the clinical and endoscopic effectiveness of VDZ and IFX in biologic-naïve patients with UC in real-world settings.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>It was a multicenter, observational, real-world cohort study conducted at five centers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients diagnosed with UC and treated with either IFX or VDZ as their first-line biologic therapy were retrospectively enrolled. Steroid-free remission, clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic healing at week 14 and week 52 were compared between the two groups after propensity score weighting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 199 patients (117 VDZ and 82 IFX) were included in the study. There were no significant differences in steroid-free remission (64.6% vs 56.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.224), clinical response (83.4% vs 73.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.086), or clinical remission (69.4% vs 60.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.174) at week 14. However, VDZ showed better results in steroid-free remission (67.5% vs 44.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.004), clinical response (69.7% vs 47.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.005), and clinical remission (67.5% vs 44.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.004) at week 52. In terms of endoscopic healing, VDZ was similar to IFX at week 14 (25.7% vs 17.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.185), but VDZ had a significantly higher rate at week 52 (29.5% vs 11.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.027). VDZ was found to be superior to IFX in therapeutic continuation (hazard ratio = 0.339, 95% CI: 0.187-0.614, <i>p</i> < 0.001). The rate of adverse events was similar between the two groups (6.8% vs 8.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.655).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>VDZ demonstrated similar clinical and endoscopic effectiveness to IFX at week 14 in biologic-naïve patients with UC, but appeared to be superior at week 52. The safety outcomes were comparable between the groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11483708/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848241281218\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848241281218","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:目前还没有头对头试验直接比较维多珠单抗(VDZ)和英夫利昔单抗(IFX)对接受过生物治疗的溃疡性结肠炎(UC)患者的疗效:我们旨在比较VDZ和IFX在现实世界中对生物制剂治疗无效的UC患者的临床和内镜疗效:这是一项多中心、观察性、真实世界队列研究,在五个中心进行:方法:回顾性纳入被诊断为UC并接受IFX或VDZ作为一线生物治疗的患者。经过倾向得分加权后,比较了两组患者在第14周和第52周的无类固醇缓解、临床反应、临床缓解和内镜愈合情况:研究共纳入199名患者(117名VDZ患者和82名IFX患者)。第14周时,无类固醇缓解率(64.6% vs 56.1%,P = 0.224)、临床反应率(83.4% vs 73.4%,P = 0.086)或临床缓解率(69.4% vs 60.1%,P = 0.174)均无明显差异。然而,在第52周时,VDZ在无类固醇缓解(67.5% vs 44.4%,p = 0.004)、临床反应(69.7% vs 47.1%,p = 0.005)和临床缓解(67.5% vs 44.4%,p = 0.004)方面显示出更好的效果。在内镜愈合方面,第14周时VDZ与IFX相似(25.7% vs 17.4%,p = 0.185),但第52周时VDZ的愈合率明显更高(29.5% vs 11.8%,p = 0.027)。VDZ在继续治疗方面优于IFX(危险比=0.339,95% CI:0.187-0.614,P=0.655):结论:在第14周时,VDZ对生物制剂无效的UC患者的临床和内镜疗效与IFX相似,但在第52周时似乎更胜一筹。两组的安全性结果相当。
Comparison of clinical and endoscopic efficacy between vedolizumab and infliximab in bio-naïve patients with ulcerative colitis: a multicenter, real-world study.
Background: No head-to-head trial directly compares the effectiveness of vedolizumab (VDZ) and infliximab (IFX) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who were naïve to biologic therapy.
Objectives: We aimed to compare the clinical and endoscopic effectiveness of VDZ and IFX in biologic-naïve patients with UC in real-world settings.
Design: It was a multicenter, observational, real-world cohort study conducted at five centers.
Methods: Patients diagnosed with UC and treated with either IFX or VDZ as their first-line biologic therapy were retrospectively enrolled. Steroid-free remission, clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic healing at week 14 and week 52 were compared between the two groups after propensity score weighting.
Results: A total of 199 patients (117 VDZ and 82 IFX) were included in the study. There were no significant differences in steroid-free remission (64.6% vs 56.1%, p = 0.224), clinical response (83.4% vs 73.4%, p = 0.086), or clinical remission (69.4% vs 60.1%, p = 0.174) at week 14. However, VDZ showed better results in steroid-free remission (67.5% vs 44.4%, p = 0.004), clinical response (69.7% vs 47.1%, p = 0.005), and clinical remission (67.5% vs 44.4%, p = 0.004) at week 52. In terms of endoscopic healing, VDZ was similar to IFX at week 14 (25.7% vs 17.4%, p = 0.185), but VDZ had a significantly higher rate at week 52 (29.5% vs 11.8%, p = 0.027). VDZ was found to be superior to IFX in therapeutic continuation (hazard ratio = 0.339, 95% CI: 0.187-0.614, p < 0.001). The rate of adverse events was similar between the two groups (6.8% vs 8.5%, p = 0.655).
Conclusion: VDZ demonstrated similar clinical and endoscopic effectiveness to IFX at week 14 in biologic-naïve patients with UC, but appeared to be superior at week 52. The safety outcomes were comparable between the groups.