Outcome in ulcerative colitis after switch from adalimumab/golimumab to infliximab: A multicenter retrospective study

Infliximab is an effective option in patients with ulcerative colitis previously exposed to full subcutaneous anti-TNF agent: Results from a real-world multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Data on infliximab efficacy in bio-exposed patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) are limited.

AIMS

To evaluate infliximab effectiveness and its predictors in UC patients with prior exposure to subcutaneous (SC) anti-TNF agent.

METHODS

In this multicenter retrospective study (8 centers), we included all consecutive UC patients with prior exposure to subcutaneous anti-TNF, starting infliximab for symptomatic UC, excluding acute severe colitis. Corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CFREM) was assessed at week 14 (W14) and W52 while endoscopic improvement (CFREM + endoscopic Mayo score≤1) was evaluated at W14.

RESULTS

Overall, 104 patients were included (pancolitis=54.8%, primary failure to subcutaneous anti-TNF=57.4%, concomitant immunosuppressant=53.8%, median partial Mayo score at baseline=7[5-8]). The rate of CFREM was 33.6% (35/104) at W14 and 40.4% (42/104) at W52. At W14, endoscopic improvement was achieved in 29.8%(31/104). In multivariable analysis, concomitant immunosuppressant was associated with higher rate of CFREM at W14(OR=2.83[1.06-7.54], p = 0.037) and W52(OR=2.68[1.16-6.22];p = 0.021), while primary failure to a previous subcutaneous anti-TNF agent led to lower rate of CFREM at W14 (OR=0.37[0.14-0.98], p = 0.046). After a median follow-up of 20.9 months[11.7-33.7]), 50.0%(52/104) patients had discontinued infliximab.

CONCLUSION

Infliximab is an effective option in UC patients previously exposed to prior subcutaneous anti-TNF agent and should be used with concomitant immunosuppressant.

Efficacy of infliximab after loss of response of/intolerance to adalimumab in pediatric Crohn's disease: A retrospective multicenter cohort study of the "GETAID pédiatrique"

BACKGROUND

Infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADA) are recommended for induction and maintenance of remission in pediatric Crohn's disease (CD). ADA is now often used in first line due to its efficacy and tolerability, but a loss of response (LOR) can occur over time. The aim was to assess the efficacy of IFX as second line therapy after LOR or intolerance to ADA in pediatric CD patients at 1 year.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective and multicenter study in France among the "GETAID pédiatrique" centers between April 2019 and April 2022. CD patients under 18 years old and treated with IFX after ADA failure or intolerance were included. We collected anthropometric, clinical, and biological data at baseline (start of IFX), at 6 and 12 months. Clinical remission was defined by a Weighted Pediatric CD Activity Index (wPCDAI) score less than 12.5 points.

RESULTS

Of the 32 patients included in our study, 27 (84.4%) were still on IFX at 12 months of the switch. Among them, 13 had discontinued ADA because of a LOR, 12 for insufficient response and 2 due to primary nonresponse. At M12, 22 patients were in corticosteroid free clinical remission (68.7%). Under IFX, the wPCDAI decreased over time (47.5 ± 24.1, 16.6 ± 21.2 and 9.7 ± 19.0 at M0, M6 and M12 respectively). The only factor associated with clinical remission at 12 months was absence of perianal disease at the end of the IFX induction.

CONCLUSIONS

IFX is effective in maintaining remission at 1 year in pediatric CD patients experiencing a LOR or intolerance with ADA, and IFX could be an interesting therapeutic choice instead of other biologics in this situation.

Selection strategy of second-line biologic therapies in adult patients with ulcerative colitis following prior biologic treatment failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Optimizing second-line biologic therapies for adult ulcerative colitis (UC) post first-line failure is essential.

OBJECTIVE

Compare second-line biologic therapy efficacy in adult UC patients with prior treatment failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of electronic databases up to May 2023 was conducted to assess second-line biologic therapy efficacy using a random effects model. Parameters analyzed included clinical remission rate, clinical response rate, mucosal healing rate, annual discontinuation rate, and colectomy rates.

RESULTS

Forty-three research papers were analyzed. Clinical remission rates for second-line biologics were ranked at 6-14 weeks: Infliximab (30%) was followed by Vedolizumab (29%), Ustekinumab (27%), and Adalimumab (19%). At 52-54 weeks, the order shifted, with Vedolizumab (35%) followed by Infliximab (32%), Ustekinumab (31%), and Adalimumab (26%). The mucosal healing rate was 21%, ranked as: Infliximab (31%), Vedolizumab (21%), Adalimumab (21%), and Ustekinumab (14%). The annual discontinuation rate stood at 20%, with Adalimumab (25%), Vedolizumab (18%), Infliximab (17%), and Ustekinumab (16%). Discontinuation rates due to primary failure (PF), secondary failure (SF), and adverse events (AE) were 6%, 12%, and 3%, respectively. The annual colectomy rate was 9%, with Adalimumab (15%) followed by Vedolizumab (10%), Ustekinumab (9%), and Infliximab (5%), and colectomy rates of 10% due to PF, 12% due to SF, and 4% due to AE.

CONCLUSION

For UC patients with first-line treatment failure, it is recommended to prioritize infliximab or vedolizumab as second-line biologic therapies, while avoiding adalimumab as the primary choice. Further clinical trials are necessary to assess ustekinumab efficacy accurately.

Clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with two consecutive anti-TNF agents: data from the ENEIDA registry

Background

Infliximab seems to be the most efficacious of the three available anti-TNF agents for ulcerative colitis (UC) but little is known when it is used as the second anti-TNF.

Objectives

To compare the clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in UC patients.

Design

Retrospective observational study.

Methods

Patients from the ENEIDA registry treated consecutively with infliximab and a subcutaneous anti-TNF (or vice versa), naïve to other biological agents, were identified and grouped according to the administration route of the first anti-TNF into IVi (intravenous initially) or SCi (subcutaneous initially).

Results

Overall, 473 UC patients were included (330 IVi and 143 SCi). Clinical response at week 14 was 42.7% and 48.3% in the IVi and SCi groups (non-statistically significant), respectively. Clinical remission rates at week 52 were 32.8% and 31.4% in the IVi and SCi groups (nonsignificant differences), respectively. A propensity-matched score analysis showed a higher clinical response rate at week 14 in the SCi group and higher treatment persistence in the IVi group. Regarding long-term outcomes, dose escalation and discontinuation due to the primary failure of the first anti-TNF and more severe disease activity at the beginning of the second anti-TNF were inversely associated with clinical remission.

Conclusion

The use of a second anti-TNF for UC seems to be reasonable in terms of efficacy, although it is particularly reduced in the case of the primary failure of the first anti-TNF. Whether the second anti-TNF is infliximab or subcutaneous does not seem to affect efficacy.

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.

Systematic Literature Review of Real-World Evidence on Dose Escalation and Treatment Switching in Ulcerative Colitis

Background

Currently approved biologic therapies for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis have well-established efficacy. However, many patients fail to respond or lose response, leading to dose escalation or treatment switching.

Objective

We sought to identify real-world evidence on dose escalation and treatment switching and associated clinical and economic outcomes among adults with ulcerative colitis treated with infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, or tofacitinib.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE (up to 26 August 2020), and conference proceedings (2017-2020) for studies in adults with ulcerative colitis to assess clinical response and remission, colectomy, adverse events, and economic outcomes related to dose escalation and treatment switching.

Results

In 56 studies, dose escalation and treatment switching involving infliximab and/or adalimumab were most frequently investigated. Rates of clinical response after dose escalation were 20-95% (1.8-36 months), clinical remission rates were 10-94% (1.8-36 months), colectomy rates were 0-33% (12-38 months), and adverse event rates were 0-18%. Treatment switching rates in 21 studies were 4-70% over 3-62 months, with switch due to loss of response rates of 4-35% over 12-62 months (7 studies). Up to 35% of patients underwent colectomy 12-120 weeks after switching, and 13-38% experienced adverse events. Data relating to economic outcomes were limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, but demonstrated increased direct costs associated with both dose escalation and treatment switching.

Conclusion

Dose escalation and treatment switching are common with existing therapies. However, clinical response and remission rates vary, and a proportion of patients fail to achieve optimal clinical and economic outcomes. This highlights the need for more efficacious and durable treatments for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.

Effectiveness and Safety Profiles of Biological Therapies in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Real Life Data from an Active Pharmacovigilance Project

Post-marketing surveillance is essential to evaluate the risk/benefit profile of drugs; however, pharmacovigilance studies comparing persistence and safety of biologic therapies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are scant. The aim of this study was to prospectively investigate persistence together with safety profiles of biologics in a cohort of patients diagnosed with Crohn's Disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) followed by the IBD unit of Messina and treated with infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA), golimumab (GOL), vedolizumab (VED), and ustekinumab (UST) from 2017 through 2021. Descriptive and treatment persistence analyses with predictors for discontinuation and occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were performed. A total of 675 IBD patients were enrolled. A higher persistence rate was noted for UST and ADA in the first year (83.8% and 83.1%, respectively) and for IFX in the fifth year of treatment (58.1%). GOL, VED, and UST-all used as second/third-line therapies-seemed to have a higher risk of non-persistence than IFX (in order HR: 2.19; CI 95%: 1.33-3.61, 1.45; 1.04-2.04, 2.25; 1.25-4.07) as well as switchers and those who had at least one ADR (18.1; 13.22-24.68 and 1.55; 1.20-1.99, respectively). The reported ADRs, which were generally mild-moderate, were largely known. However, real-world data should be implemented to further study undetected safety concerns, including risk of malignancy.

Anti-TNFα antibody versus non-anti-TNFα molecular agents for ulcerative colitis patients who failed initial anti-TNFα therapy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α antibody (ATA) and biologics/molecular targeted agents with other mechanisms (non-ATA) are currently available for refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the knowledge about optimal drug selection after the initial treatment with ATA failure is lacking. This study assessed whether the response to the initial ATA could be a basis for selecting subsequent agents in UC patients.

METHODS

Ulcerative colitis patients treated with ATA or non-ATA as the subsequent biologic after the failure of initial ATA were retrospectively analyzed. The efficacy at 14 weeks was examined according to the response to initial ATA.

RESULTS

Of 163 patients treated with the first ATA, the efficacy of subsequent ATA and non-ATA was evaluated in 63 and 36, respectively. Remission and response to subsequent-line therapy, regardless of ATA or non-ATA, were lower in patients with primary nonresponse (PNR) to initial ATA than in patients with efficacy to initial ATA (33.3% vs 69.2%, P < 0.01). In patients with PNR to initial ATA, the remission rate with subsequent ATA was significantly lower than with subsequent non-ATA (4.3% vs 26.3%, P = 0.04). In patients who showed efficacy to initial ATA, the remission rate with subsequent ATA was also lower than that with subsequent non-ATA (30.6% vs 56.3%, P = 0.08). PNR with initial ATA was the predictor of PNR to subsequent ATA (odds ratio: 5.62, 95% confidence interval: 1.50-21.7).

CONCLUSION

Non-ATA may be suitable in UC patients as the subsequent biologics regardless of the outcome of the first ATA.

Use of biologics and small molecule drugs for the management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: IG-IBD clinical guidelines based on the GRADE methodology

The management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis has undergone significant changes over the past 15 years due to the regulatory approval of several new drugs. In particular, following the approval of the first biological, i.e. infliximab, a number of further biological drugs, such as adalimumab, golimumab, vedolizumab and ustekinumab, and small molecules, such as tofacitinib, have been approved, thus enriching the therapeutic armamentarium for ulcerative colitis. Choice of therapy must take into consideration not only the need to induce and maintain disease remission according to the patient's profile, but also age, co-morbidities, and prior treatments. To guide these decisions, the Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease has developed clinical guidelines that supersede its earlier document from 2011. These new guidelines were developed following the GRADE methodology for rating the quality of the evidence and for determining the strength of the recommendations. This article presents the methodology and results, in the form of 20 statements with commentary on the use of the five biologics and tofacitinib for managing the intestinal manifestations of active ulcerative colitis and for maintaining remission. A separate technical review reports the analyses of the evidence upon which the present recommendations are based.

Primary Failure to an Anti-TNF Agent in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Switch (to a Second Anti-TNF Agent) or Swap (for Another Mechanism of Action)?

BACKGROUND

About a third of patients with inflammatory bowel disease do not respond to anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, which is challenging.

AIM

To review the current data on the two main strategies when facing primary non-response to an anti-TNF agent in inflammatory bowel disease: changing to a second anti-TNF (switching) or to a drug with another mechanisms of action (swapping).

METHODS

We performed a bibliographic search to identify studies reporting on efficacy of any biologic treatment after primary anti-TNF non-response.

RESULTS

The efficacy of a second anti-TNF is lower when the reason to withdraw the first one is primary failure. Nevertheless, switching to another anti-TNF even after primary failure may still be effective in some patients. Both vedolizumab and ustekinumab have generally been shown to be less effective in anti-TNF exposed patients. However, despite primary anti-TNF failure, patients may respond to vedolizumab or ustekinumab in a limited but considerable number of cases. The cause for swapping (primary vs. secondary anti-TNF failure) seems to have limited effect on vedolizumab efficacy. Primary anti-TNF non-response seems to be a clearer predictor of treatment failure for ustekinumab. Unfortunately, the two main strategies to treat specifically a patient with primary non-response to an anti-TNF agent-switching to a second anti-TNF or swapping for vedolizumab/ustekinumab-have not been properly compared.

CONCLUSION

The data reviewed in the present study clearly emphasise the imperative need to carry out head-to-head randomised trials in patients exposed to anti-TNF agents in general, and specifically in those with primary non-response to these agents.

Predictors of drug survival: A cohort study comparing anti-tumour necrosis factor agents using the Swedish inflammatory bowel disease quality register

BACKGROUND

Whether long-term effectiveness differs between anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents is unknown.

AIMS

To examine drug survival of first-line anti-TNF agents and identify predictors of discontinuation. To reduce channelling bias, we also compared drug survival of the second anti-TNF.

METHODS

Biologic-naïve patients (N = 955) recorded in the Swedish IBD Quality Register (SWIBREG) were examined. We used propensity score matching, comparing drug survival over up to three years of follow-up. Cox regression estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

In Crohn's disease, discontinuation because of lack/loss of response was 32% [95%CI = 26%-38%] for infliximab versus 16% [95%CI = 11%-21%] for adalimumab. Infliximab [vs adalimumab; aHR = 1.96; 95%CI = 1.20-3.21] and colonic disease (L2) [vs no L2; aHR = 2.17; 95% CI = 1.26-3.75] were associated with higher discontinuation rates, whereas normalised CRP at three months [aHR = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.19-0.81] with a lower rate. Consistently, patients who switched from adalimumab to infliximab (vs infliximab to adalimumab) had earlier discontinuation (P = 0.04). Concomitant use of immunomodulators was associated with a lower adverse drug reaction-mediated discontinuation rate [aHR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.28-0.77], in part explained by fewer infusion reactions [aHR = 0.27; 95% CI = 0.08-0.89]. In ulcerative colitis, the probability of discontinuation because of lack/loss of response was 40% [95% CI = 33%-47%] for infliximab versus 37% [95% CI = 21%-53%] for adalimumab. Disease duration ≥10 years [aHR = 0.25; 95% CI = 0.10-0.58] and normalised CRP after three months [aHR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.18-0.84] were associated with lower discontinuation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical characterisation of patients may aid decision-making on anti-TNF treatment. The consistently shorter drug survival for infliximab (vs adalimumab) in Crohn's disease, suggests a potential difference between the two drugs.

Medical therapy versus surgery in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis, a chronic inflammatory condition that affects the colon from rectum to caecum, is characterized by periods of increased bowel movements, blood in feces, rectal urgency, tenesmus, and abdominal pain, with periods of remission and flares of disease, which negatively impact quality of life. A number of therapeutic options are available for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis, however, no clear treatment algorithm exists. Therapeutic goals include short-term benefits for patients (i.e., the reduction/absence of symptoms, essentially stool frequency and rectal bleeding) and long-term benefits (i.e., sustained clinical remission, steroid-free remission, and mucosal healing). Therapies currently approved and available for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis include monoclonal antibodies such as those targeting anti-tumor necrosis factor α (i.e., infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab), anti-adhesion molecules (i.e., vedolizumab), anti-interleukin 12/23 agents (i.e., ustekinumab), and Janus Kinase inhibitors (i.e., tofacitinib). Surgical approaches should also be considered in patients refractory to medical therapy or with complications (including toxic megacolon or colonic dysplasia/cancer). This review provides an overview of currently available treatment options for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis and summarizes factors that should be considered during the therapeutic decision.

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.

Ustekinumab for treating ulcerative colitis: an expert opinion

INTRODUCTION

Biologic agents have revolutionized the therapeutic management of ulcerative colitis. Anti-tumor necrosis factor agents were the first biologic drugs used to induce and maintain remission in this inflammatory bowel disease. Recently, another biologic option, ustekinumab, has become available for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, the authors review the literature on the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in the context of current biologic agents used for the management of this disease. The potential role of ustekinumab in the treatment paradigm of the disease is also discussed. Expert opinion: The UNIFI trial has demonstrated the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in induction and maintenance phases of treatment for ulcerative colitis. Ustekinumab may provide clinical benefit in a range of settings in patients with ulcerative colitis, even for those with multiple treatment failures, which are relatively common in daily clinical practice. Future clinical trials should compare the efficacy of ustekinumab with existing biologic agents in the management of ulcerative colitis.

Comparative efficacy and safety of vedolizumab and infliximab in ulcerative colitis after failure of a first subcutaneous anti-TNF agent: a multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Few data exist to help select a second biologic agent in patients with refractory ulcerative colitis (UC).

AIM

To compare the efficacy of infliximab (IFX) and vedolizumab (VDZ) in UC patients who failed a first subcutaneous anti-tumor necrosing factor (TNF) agent.

METHODS

Consecutive UC patients from 12 French centres starting IFX or VDZ after at least one injection of adalimumab or golimumab have been included in a retrospective study. Outcomes were clinical remission at week 14, survival without treatment discontinuation and survival without UC-related event.

RESULTS

Among the 225 patients included, clinical remission at week 14 was achieved in 40/154 (26%) patients treated with IFX and in 35/71 (49%) treated with VDZ (P = 0.001). After a propensity score matching analysis, this difference remained significant (odds ratio: 1.67; 95% confidence interval: 1.08-2.56; P = 0.02). With a median follow-up of 117 weeks, survival rates without treatment discontinuation at years 1 and 3 were 50% and 29% with IFX, and 80% and 55% with VDZ, respectively (P < 0.001). Regarding survival without UC-related event, they were 49% and 27% with IFX, and 74% and 52% with VDZ (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

After failure of a first subcutaneous anti-TNF agent, UC patients were more likely to achieve clinical remission with VDZ than those treated with IFX. Although due to prescription habits patients in the IFX group had a significantly more severe disease, these differences remained after adjustments and subgroup analyses. Such results have to be confirmed prospectively and warrant dedicated head-to-head trials.

Living with ulcerative colitis in Germany: a retrospective analysis of dose escalation, concomitant treatment use and healthcare costs

Aims: To investigate treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) using real-world German health insurance claims data.Materials and methods: A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study was conducted from a German statutory health insurance database for adult patients with UC indexed on biologic therapy initiation (2013-2015). Anonymized data were evaluated for 12 months prior to (baseline) through 24 months after (follow-up) indexing. Biologic dose escalations, steroid and immunosuppressant use, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and direct healthcare costs were evaluated, with significant differences assessed across and between index biologics. Descriptive statistics, chi-square or Fisher's exact tests, and analysis of variance were performed.Results: The analysis included 304 patients (adalimumab, n = 125; golimumab, n = 47; infliximab, n = 114; vedolizumab, n = 18). Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar across biologics. Dose escalations occurred in 58% of patients (73% of patients receiving adalimumab), with 41% receiving subsequent de-escalation. Steroids were used during follow-up by 74% of patients; 25% received steroids >14 weeks after indexing. Overall, 41% of patients received an immunosuppressant during follow-up. Steroid and immunosuppressant use were similar across biologics. Total direct healthcare costs were higher during follow-up than baseline and differed significantly across treatments (p < .05), with highest costs for golimumab. Biologic costs contributed to a major portion of follow-up costs. HCRU and costs for most resources were higher in the first 12-month follow-up period than baseline. All resource use except gastroenterology visits returned to, or below, baseline levels 13-24 months post-index date.Limitations: There was potential for inappropriate inclusion/exclusion due to miscoding. Patients may have received biologics >12 months prior to the index date. Biologic originators and biosimilars could not be differentiated.Conclusions: These data suggest that control with current biologics is suboptimal. Further treatment options that provide sustained steroid-free remission for this patient population without the need for dose escalations or concomitant therapies may be warranted.