Ji-Eun Na, Yong-Eun Park, Jong-Ha Park, Tae-Oh Kim, Jong-Yoon Lee, Jong-Hoon Lee, Su-Bum Park, Seung-Bum Lee, Seung-Min Hong
{"title":"抗肿瘤坏死因子治疗失败的中度至重度溃疡性结肠炎患者接受二线生物疗法的疗效:一项多中心研究。","authors":"Ji-Eun Na, Yong-Eun Park, Jong-Ha Park, Tae-Oh Kim, Jong-Yoon Lee, Jong-Hoon Lee, Su-Bum Park, Seung-Bum Lee, Seung-Min Hong","doi":"10.3390/jpm14101066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Few studies have compared the efficacy and safety of second-line biological therapies in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients with prior exposure to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety between ustekinumab, vedolizumab, and tofacitinib, a current option as second-line biological therapy with different mechanisms in those patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective multi-center study was conducted across five institutions from 2011 to 2022. We enrolled patients with moderate to severe UC who failed anti-TNF therapy and subsequently received ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib as second-line biological therapy. The outcomes were analyzed for clinical response/remission and endoscopic improvement/remission rates after induction therapy, drug persistency, and adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 70 UC patients were included and grouped into ustekinumab (11 patients), vedolizumab (40 patients), and tofacitinib (19 patients) treatments. The clinical response/remission rates after induction therapy were similar between ustekinumab (90.9/81.8%), vedolizumab (92.5/65.0%), and tofacitinib (94.7/73.7%). There were no significant differences in the endoscopic improvement/remission rates between the three groups: 90.9/18.2% for ustekinumab, 72.5/12.5% for vedolizumab, and 84.2/26.3% for tofacitinib. Drug persistence was similar across the three agents (<i>p</i> = 0.130). Three patients of the tofacitinib group experienced adverse events (herpes zoster and hypertriglyceridemia).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on real-world data, second-line biological therapy with ustekinumab, vedolizumab, and tofacitinib showed comparable efficacy in patients with moderate to severe UC with prior exposure to anti-TNF therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":16722,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Personalized Medicine","volume":"14 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11508867/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of Second-Line Biological Therapies in Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis Patients with Prior Failure of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy: A Multi-Center Study.\",\"authors\":\"Ji-Eun Na, Yong-Eun Park, Jong-Ha Park, Tae-Oh Kim, Jong-Yoon Lee, Jong-Hoon Lee, Su-Bum Park, Seung-Bum Lee, Seung-Min Hong\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/jpm14101066\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Few studies have compared the efficacy and safety of second-line biological therapies in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients with prior exposure to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety between ustekinumab, vedolizumab, and tofacitinib, a current option as second-line biological therapy with different mechanisms in those patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective multi-center study was conducted across five institutions from 2011 to 2022. We enrolled patients with moderate to severe UC who failed anti-TNF therapy and subsequently received ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib as second-line biological therapy. The outcomes were analyzed for clinical response/remission and endoscopic improvement/remission rates after induction therapy, drug persistency, and adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 70 UC patients were included and grouped into ustekinumab (11 patients), vedolizumab (40 patients), and tofacitinib (19 patients) treatments. The clinical response/remission rates after induction therapy were similar between ustekinumab (90.9/81.8%), vedolizumab (92.5/65.0%), and tofacitinib (94.7/73.7%). There were no significant differences in the endoscopic improvement/remission rates between the three groups: 90.9/18.2% for ustekinumab, 72.5/12.5% for vedolizumab, and 84.2/26.3% for tofacitinib. Drug persistence was similar across the three agents (<i>p</i> = 0.130). Three patients of the tofacitinib group experienced adverse events (herpes zoster and hypertriglyceridemia).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on real-world data, second-line biological therapy with ustekinumab, vedolizumab, and tofacitinib showed comparable efficacy in patients with moderate to severe UC with prior exposure to anti-TNF therapy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16722,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Personalized Medicine\",\"volume\":\"14 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11508867/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Personalized Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14101066\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Personalized Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14101066","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Efficacy of Second-Line Biological Therapies in Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis Patients with Prior Failure of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy: A Multi-Center Study.
Background: Few studies have compared the efficacy and safety of second-line biological therapies in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients with prior exposure to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety between ustekinumab, vedolizumab, and tofacitinib, a current option as second-line biological therapy with different mechanisms in those patients.
Methods: This retrospective multi-center study was conducted across five institutions from 2011 to 2022. We enrolled patients with moderate to severe UC who failed anti-TNF therapy and subsequently received ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib as second-line biological therapy. The outcomes were analyzed for clinical response/remission and endoscopic improvement/remission rates after induction therapy, drug persistency, and adverse events.
Results: A total of 70 UC patients were included and grouped into ustekinumab (11 patients), vedolizumab (40 patients), and tofacitinib (19 patients) treatments. The clinical response/remission rates after induction therapy were similar between ustekinumab (90.9/81.8%), vedolizumab (92.5/65.0%), and tofacitinib (94.7/73.7%). There were no significant differences in the endoscopic improvement/remission rates between the three groups: 90.9/18.2% for ustekinumab, 72.5/12.5% for vedolizumab, and 84.2/26.3% for tofacitinib. Drug persistence was similar across the three agents (p = 0.130). Three patients of the tofacitinib group experienced adverse events (herpes zoster and hypertriglyceridemia).
Conclusions: Based on real-world data, second-line biological therapy with ustekinumab, vedolizumab, and tofacitinib showed comparable efficacy in patients with moderate to severe UC with prior exposure to anti-TNF therapy.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Personalized Medicine (JPM; ISSN 2075-4426) is an international, open access journal aimed at bringing all aspects of personalized medicine to one platform. JPM publishes cutting edge, innovative preclinical and translational scientific research and technologies related to personalized medicine (e.g., pharmacogenomics/proteomics, systems biology). JPM recognizes that personalized medicine—the assessment of genetic, environmental and host factors that cause variability of individuals—is a challenging, transdisciplinary topic that requires discussions from a range of experts. For a comprehensive perspective of personalized medicine, JPM aims to integrate expertise from the molecular and translational sciences, therapeutics and diagnostics, as well as discussions of regulatory, social, ethical and policy aspects. We provide a forum to bring together academic and clinical researchers, biotechnology, diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies, health professionals, regulatory and ethical experts, and government and regulatory authorities.