A real life comparison of the effectiveness of adalimumab and golimumab in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis, supported by propensity score analysis

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Loss of Response and Need for Dose Escalation of Infliximab and Adalimumab in Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

Loss of response to infliximab or adalimumab in ulcerative colitis occurs frequently, and dose escalation may aid in regaining clinical benefit. This study aimed to systematically assess the annual loss of response and dose escalation rates for infliximab and adalimumab in ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted from August 1999 to July 2021 for studies reporting loss of response and dose escalation during infliximab and/or adalimumab use in ulcerative colitis patients with primary response. Annual loss of response, dose escalation rates, and clinical benefit after dose escalation were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed for studies with 1-year follow-up or less.

RESULTS

We included 50 unique studies assessing loss of response (infliximab, n = 24; adalimumab, n = 21) or dose escalation (infliximab, n = 21; adalimumab, n = 16). The pooled annual loss of response for infliximab was 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1-14.3) and 13.6% (95% CI, 9.3-19.9) for studies with 1-year follow-up. The pooled annual loss of response for adalimumab was 13.4% (95% CI, 8.2-21.8) and 23.3% (95% CI, 15.4-35.1) for studies with 1-year follow-up. Annual pooled dose escalation rates were 13.8% (95% CI, 8.7-21.7) for infliximab and 21.3% (95% CI, 14.4-31.3) for adalimumab, regaining clinical benefit in 72.4% and 52.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Annual loss of response was 10% for infliximab and 13% for adalimumab, with higher rates during the first year. Annual dose escalation rates were 14% (infliximab) and 21% (adalimumab), with clinical benefit in 72% and 52%, respectively. Uniform definitions are needed to facilitate more robust evaluations.

The Efficacy of Currently Licensed Biologics for Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis: A Literature Review

Biologics have been emerging as promising therapies in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients who are refractory to conventional medical treatment. This literature review aims to appraise the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of NICE approved biological therapies, of which there are currently five licensed drugs, available for the treatment of UC in adults. An initial search was performed using National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines. A further literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Science Direct and Cochrane Library databases was done, resulting in a total of 62 studies being included in this review. Recent and seminal papers were included. Inclusion criteria for this review were adult participants and English papers only. In most studies, anti-tumour necrosis factor ɑ (TNFɑ) naïve patients were found to have improved clinical outcomes. Infliximab was found to be highly effective in inducing short-term clinical response, clinical remission as well as mucosal healing. However, loss of response was common and dose escalation was often required for achievement of long-term efficacy. Adalimumab was found to have both short-term and long-term efficacy which was also supported by real-world data. Golimumab was shown to have comparable efficacy and safety profiles to other biologics, although lack of therapeutic dose monitoring and loss of response is a barrier to optimising golimumab treatment efficacy. Vedolizumab was shown to have higher clinical remission rates when compared to adalimumab in a head-to-head trial, and the most cost-effective biologic when calculating quality-adjusted life years. Ustekinumab was found to significantly improve clinical remission rates in UC patients who were previously unresponsive to other biological treatments. However, as this is a newly licensed drug, there is limited literature currently available. Further, head-to-head studies are required to help determine the optimal treatment for patients with UC. With patents expiring, the development of biosimilars will help to reduce costs and increase the availability of these drugs to patients.

Continuous clinical remission with biologics in ulcerative colitis: the 'AURORA' comparison study

OBJECTIVES

Comparative trials among biological drugs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) provided conflicting results. After patent expire of infliximab originator, adalimumab, infliximab biosimilar, golimumab and vedolizumab have been approved in Italy.We compared the efficacy of these four biologics in UC according to the concept of continuous clinical remission (CCR).

METHODS

In a retrospective, multicentre study, all UC patients treated with adalimumab, infliximab biosimilar, golimumab or vedolizumab between 2014 and 2019 were included. All drugs were compared to each other according to the 1-year CCR rate, defined as Mayo partial score ≤2, with bleeding subscore = 0, without any relapse or optimization with dose escalation, topical treatments or steroid use after first clinical remission.

RESULTS

Four-hundred sixteen patients (adalimumab = 90, infliximab biosimilar = 105, golimumab = 79, vedolizumab = 142) were included. CCR was achieved in similar percentages among the groups (33%, 37%, 28%, 37%, respectively). All drugs were equivalent in biologic-naive patients, while vedolizumab was better than a second anti-TNFα in prior anti-TNFα agent failures. No differences were found according to type of adverse events or severe adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a strict definition of clinical remission, all biologics appear equally effective at 1 year. Changing to vedolizumab is more effective than switching to another anti-TNFα in TNFα failures.

Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Roadmap to Sail the Seas of IBD Therapies

The drug pipeline for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has dramatically expanded over the last two decades, and it is expected to further grow in the upcoming years with the introduction of new agents with different mechanisms of action. However, such an increase of therapeutic options needs to be paralleled with an appropriate development of research to help physicians in the decision-making process when choosing which drug to prescribe. On the population level, comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to explore and identify relevant differences-in terms of both efficacy and safety outcomes-amongst different therapeutic regimens and/or strategies, in order to find the correct placement for each treatment in the therapeutic algorithm. CER revolves around three cornerstones: network meta-analyses, head-to-head trials and real-world studies, each of which has specific pros and cons, and can therefore offer answers to different questions. In this review, we aim to provide an overview on the methodological features specific to each of these research approaches, as well as to illustrate the main findings coming from CER on IBD target therapies (i.e., biologics and small molecules) and to discuss their appropriate interpretation.

Incidence comparison of adverse events in patients with inflammatory bowel disease receiving different biologic agents: retrospective long-term evaluation

Background/Aims

Current literature is lacking in studies comparing the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) treated with adalimumab (ADA) or vedolizumab (VDZ) in a real-life scenario. Therefore, our primary aim was to compare the AEs occurring in patients taking ADA to those of patients taking VDZ.

Methods

In this single center study, data on AEs from IBD patients who underwent treatment with ADA and VDZ were retrospectively collected. AE rates per 100 person-years were calculated. A Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratios of the AEs between the 2 drugs.

Results

A total of 16 ADA patients (17.2%) and 11 VDZ patients (7.6%) had AEs causing drug interruption during the study period (P=0.02). Most of the AEs were noninfectious extraintestinal events (50% in ADA and 54.5% in VDZ) while infections accounted for 31.2% of the AEs in patients treated with ADA and 27.3% in those treated with VDZ. The incidence rate of AEs causing withdrawal of therapy was 13.2 per 100 person-years for ADA and 5.3 per 100 person-years for VDZ, corresponding to a 76% lower risk in patients in VDZ. Considering the first year of treatment, we observed 34 subjects treated with ADA (36.5%) having at least 1 AEs and 57 (39.3%) among those taking VDZ (P=0.67).

Conclusions

VDZ has a lower incidence rate of AEs causing withdrawal of treatment compared to ADA but a similar risk of AEs not causing drug interruption. Real-life head-to-head studies are still necessary to further explore the safety profile of these drugs.

A propensity score-weighted comparison between adalimumab originator and its biosimilars, ABP501 and SB5, in inflammatory bowel disease: a multicenter Italian study

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab is an effective and safe biological drug for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Nowadays, several biosimilar agents are available, but data regarding their efficacy and safety in patients with IBD are still lacking. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and tolerability between adalimumab originator, ABP501 and SB5 biosimilars in patients with IBD in the short term (after induction and after 6 months of treatment) through a propensity score-weighted multicenter cohort study.

METHODS

We included 156 patients with IBD, 69 patients with ulcerative colitis and 87 patients with Crohn's disease (CD) receiving ABP501 or SB5 biosimilars from January 2019 to April 2020 for moderate-to-severe disease. For comparison, a group of age- and sex-matched patients treated with adalimumab originator was used. We collected clinical and biochemical data after induction and at 6 months of treatment. Endoscopic data were recorded only at baseline.

RESULTS

Overall, clinical benefit was achieved by 86.4% and 85.3% after induction and at 6 months, respectively, without a statistically significant difference between the three treatment groups (p = 0.68 and p = 0.46). However, after induction, we found significant differences between the two types of the disease (ulcerative colitis or CD, p = 0.004), with a greater clinical benefit achieved by patients with CD. Also, the therapeutic optimization rate between the three drugs was not statistically significant different (p = 0.30). All treatments showed a good safety profile, with only 10 patients who needed to stop therapy because of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab biosimilars seem to be as effective and safe as the originator in patients with IBD. Surely, they represent a great opportunity to reduce the costs of biological therapies, however larger and longer real-life studies are necessary.

Infliximab Originator, Infliximab Biosimilar, and Adalimumab Are More Effective in Crohn's Disease Than Ulcerative Colitis: A Real-Life Cohort Study

There are no real-life studies comparing the efficacy and safety of the different antitumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α drugs available in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). To verify the effectiveness and tolerability of different anti–TNF-α agents (infliximab [IFX] originator, biosimilar CTP13, and adalimumab [ADA]) in patients with moderate-to-severe CD and UC.

Frequency and Effectiveness of Empirical Anti-TNF Dose Intensification in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Loss of response to antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies in inflammatory bowel disease occurs in a high proportion of patients. Our aim was to evaluate the loss of response to anti-TNF therapy, considered as the need for dose intensification (DI), DI effectiveness and the possible variables influencing its requirements. Bibliographical searches were performed.

SELECTION

prospective and retrospective studies assessing DI in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis patients treated for at least 12 weeks with an anti-TNF drug.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

studies using anti-TNF as a prophylaxis for the postoperative recurrence in Crohn's disease or those where DI was based on therapeutic drug monitoring.

DATA SYNTHESIS

effectiveness by intention-to-treat (random effects model). Data were stratified by medical condition (ulcerative colitis vs. Crohn's disease), anti-TNF drug and follow-up.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-three studies (33,241 patients) were included. Overall rate of the DI requirement after 12 months was 28% (95% CI 24-32, I2 = 96%, 41 studies) in naïve patients and 39% (95% CI 31-47, I2 = 86%, 18 studies) in non-naïve patients. The DI requirement rate was higher both in those with prior anti-TNF exposure (p = 0.01) and with ulcerative colitis (p = 0.02). The DI requirement rate in naïve patients after 36 months was 35% (95% CI 28-43%; I2 = 98%; 18 studies). The overall short-term response and remission rates of empirical DI in naïve patients were 63% (95% CI 48-78%; I2 = 99%; 32 studies) and 48% (95% CI: 39-58%; I2 = 92%; 25 studies), respectively. The loss of response to anti-TNF agents-and, consequently, DI-occurred frequently in inflammatory bowel disease (approximately in one-fourth at one year and in one-third at 3 years). Empirical DI was a relatively effective therapeutic option.

Head-to-head comparison of biological drugs for inflammatory bowel disease: from randomized controlled trials to real-world experience

During past years, the increasing knowledge of molecular mechanisms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have led to the development of several targeted biological therapies. This great expansion of available medical options has prompted the need for comparative data between drugs. For years, given that most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were performed only versus placebo, this demand has clashed with the absence of head-to-head trials comparing two or more treatments. The quality of evidence coming from real-world experience was low overall, so it was extremely difficult to clarify the correct positioning of the biologicals inside the therapeutic algorithms for IBD. Fortunately, times are changing: head-to-head comparative RCTs have been conducted or are ongoing, and the methodological quality of real-world studies is gradually increasing, mainly thanks to a higher rate of application of statistical methods capable of reducing the selection bias, such as the propensity score. In this evolving scenario, the increasing number of comparative RCTs is providing high-quality data for a correct drug positioning in IBD. In parallel, real-world observational studies are supporting the data coming from RCTs, and covering those comparisons not performed in the RCT setting. We believe that there is moderate evidence already available to support clinicians in the correct choice between different biologicals, and data will certainly be more robust in the near future.

A propensity score weighted comparison of Vedolizumab, Adalimumab, and Golimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

No real-life study on the comparative effectiveness of Vedolizumab (VDZ), Adalimumab (ADA), and Golimumab (GOL) in ulcerative colitis (UC) is currently available.

AIMS

To compare the effectiveness of the three biologics in consecutive patients with UC.

METHODS

A three-arms propensity score-adjusted analysis was performed using the Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting method.

RESULTS

463 treatments (VDZ: n = 187; ADA: n = 168; GOL: n = 108) were included (median follow-up: 47.6 weeks). At 12 weeks (n = 463), a steroid-free remission was reported in 24.1% patients in the VDZ group, in 33.3% patients in the ADA group, and in 30.6% patients in the GOL group (p = n.s. for all comparisons). At 52 weeks (n = 377), a steroid-free remission was reported in 51.5% patients in the VDZ group, in 31.2% patients in the ADA group, and in 29.4% patients in the GOL group (p = 0.002 for VDZ vs. ADA, p = 0.001 for VDZ vs. GOL, p = n.s. for ADA vs. GOL). Cox survival analysis demonstrated that patients treated with VDZ had reduced probability of treatment discontinuation compared to those treated with ADA (HR: 0.42, 95% CI 0.28-0.64, p < 0.001) and GOL (HR: 0.30, 95% CI 0.19-0.46, p < 0.001), while patients treated with ADA had reduced risk of treatment discontinuation compared to those treated with GOL (HR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.50-1.00, p = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

VDZ was superior to ADA and GOL at 52 weeks and as treatment persistence, while ADA showed a superior treatment persistence compared to GOL.

Efficacies of first and second tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in refractory ulcerative colitis patients in real-world practice

BACKGROUND

Switching tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors is an important treatment option for refractory ulcerative colitis (UC) patients who fail the first anti-tumor necrosis factor-α therapy, although many questions about this option remain unanswered.

METHODS

The efficacy of the second anti-tumor necrosis factor-α therapy in refractory UC patients who failed the first anti-tumor necrosis factor-α therapy was examined using the Mayo score as a measure of disease activity at week 8. The efficacy of the first anti-tumor necrosis factor-α therapy before treatment and at weeks 8 and 52 was also evaluated in real-world practice.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in remission induction and maintenance between infliximab and adalimumab as the first anti-tumor necrosis factor-α therapy in UC patients. Of 123 UC patients, 21 (17.1%) switched tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors. Eight (38.1%), 4 (19.0%), 7 (33.3%), and 2 (9.5%) patients switched from infliximab to adalimumab, infliximab to golimumab, adalimumab to infliximab, and adalimumab to golimumab, respectively. Three (100%) with intolerance to the first anti-tumor necrosis factor-α therapy, 5 (41.7%) with loss of response to the first anti-tumor necrosis factor-α therapy, and 1 (20.0%) with no improvement with the first anti-tumor necrosis factor-α therapy had clinical remission at week 8.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors is more effective for refractory UC patients who are intolerant and lose response to the first anti-tumor necrosis factor-α therapy rather than for those showing no improvement with the first anti-tumor necrosis factor-α therapy. Patients with primary failure of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α therapy should be switched to another class of drug.

Real-life experience with 4 years of golimumab persistence in ulcerative colitis patients

Golimumab has demonstrated its long-term efficacy and safety in ulcerative colitis in clinical trials, but no data of long-term persistence has been published from real world. To estimate long-term persistence of golimumab, as well as factors associated with longer persistence, in patients with ulcerative colitis in real life. Observational multicentre study including adult patients with ulcerative colitis treated with golimumab and with at least twelve months of follow-up. We included 190 patients, 105 (55.26%) naive to anti-TNF, with mean disease duration of 9.32 ± 8.09 years. Probability of persistence was 63%, 46%, 39% and 27% at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years, respectively. Persistence was lower in patients with primary failure to previous anti-TNF. Eighty-two (43.16%) patients needed dose intensification during follow-up, with a mean time until intensification of 8.03 ± 8.64 months. Dose intensification and lower disease duration predicted higher persistence with golimumab (p = 0.037 and p = 0.008, respectively). During a follow-up of 17.25 ± 15.83 months, 32 (16.5%) patients needed hospitalisation and 11 (6%) underwent colectomy. No unexpected adverse events were reported. Golimumab has demonstrated good persistence and safety profile for long treatment in ulcerative colitis patients.

Integrated strategy for accurately screening biomarkers based on metabolomics coupled with network pharmacology

Screening diagnostic biomarkers can be challenging due to the complexity of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and ambiguous pharmacological mechanisms. In this study, we reported an integrated strategy for accurately screening diagnostic biomarkers based on metabolomics coupled with network pharmacology. First, a feasible pharmacological model was established through systems pharmacology and based on metabolomics-based techniques to explore diagnostic biomarkers. While the components satisfying the q-value < 0.05, fold change (FC) ≥ 1.2 or FC ≤ 0.8, coefficient of variance (CV) ≤ 30%(QC) and the variable importance in the project (VIP) value > 1 are considered to be diagnostic biomarkers. Second, the ingredients were retained only when oral bioavailability (OB), Caco-2 permeability, drug half-life, TPSA and drug likeness (DL) satisfied the criteria (OB ≥ 40%; Caco-2 ≥ -0.4; HL ≥ 4 h; TPSA˂140; DL ≥ 0.18) suggested by the TCMSP database. Moreover, ingredients that exhibit extensive biological activity in TCM are also retained. Third, the effect targets of TCM were screened using the TCMSP database, Swiss Target Prediction and STICH online software. Disease targets were gathered from the therapeutic target database (TTD), PharmGkb and TCMSP database. Hub genes were screened by potential protein-protein interaction (PPI) network pharmacology analysis. Finally, a metabolic network pathway is established between the diagnostic biomarker and the hub gene. In the network analysis of metabolic pathways, most of the genes involved in this pathway are the second-step-obtained hub genes, which can explain the accuracy of the identified biomarkers. The proposed integrated strategy was successfully applied to explore the mechanism of action of Pulsatilla decoction (PD) in the treatment of acute ulcerative colitis (UC). Based on this integrated strategy, 23 potential biomarkers of acute UC treated with PD were identified. In conclusion, the integrated strategy provides novel insights into network pharmacology and metabolomics as effective tools to illuminate the mechanism of action of TCM.

Lupus-like reactions in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with anti-TNFs are insidious adverse events: data from a large single-center cohort

Objectives: Very few data on the incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of lupus-like reactions (LLRs) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with anti-TNFs have been reported. Materials and methods: All records of consecutive IBD patients who started a treatment with an anti-TNF from January 2006 to June 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were defined as having LLR by the presence of immunologic abnormalities (positivity for ANA and/or anti-ds-DNA), along with clinical features that included at least two of the following: arthralgia, fatigue, fever, cutaneous manifestations, or serositis, which had a clear temporal association with exposure to the anti-TNFs, and resolved without recurrence once the drug was discontinued. Results: 760 patients (1059 total treatments with anti-TNFs) were included. Participants contributed a total of 2863.5 person-years of follow-up, during which 16 cases of LLRs (2.1% of patients) were reported, accounting for an incidence rate of 5.6 per 1000 person-years. Female gender and being former smokers were more prevalent in the LLR group (75.0% versus 44.1%, p = .02; and 18.8% versus 5.4%, p = .037, respectively), with a hazard ratio of 4.40 (95% CI: 1.40-13.81; p = .011) and 4.87 (95% CI: 1.37-17.38; p = .015), respectively, at Cox regression analysis. All LLRs resolved following discontinuation of the drug after a mean of 8.1 ± 4.2 weeks. Ten patients required corticosteroids to control severe symptoms. Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients treated with anti-TNFs with long follow-up, LLRs were rare adverse events, more common in women and former smokers, occurring with nonspecific and insidious clinical features.