1
|
Suárez Ferrer C, Mesonero Gismero F, Caballol B, Ballester MP, Bastón Rey I, Castaño García A, Miranda Bautista J, Saiz Chumillas R, Benitez JM, Sanchez-Delgado L, López-García A, Rubin de Celix C, Alonso Abreu I, Melcarne L, Plaza Santos R, Marques-Camí M, Caballero Mateos A, Gómez Díez C, Calafat M, Galan HA, Vega Vilaamil P, Castro Senosiain B, Guerro Moya A, Rodriguez Diaz CY, Spicakova K, Manceñido Marcos N, Molina G, de Castro Parga L, Rodriguez Angulo A, Cuevas Del Campo L, Rodriguez Grau MDC, Ramirez F, Gomez Pastrana B, Gonzalez Partida I, Botella Mateu B, Peña Gonzalez E, Iyo E, Elosua Gonzalez A, Sainz Arnau E, Hernandez Villalba L, Perez Galindo P, Torrealba Medina L, Monsalve Alonso S, Olmos Perez JA, Dueñas Sadornil C, Garcia Ramirez L, Martín-Arranz MD, López Sanroman A, Fernández A, Merino Murgui V, Calviño Suárez C, Flórez-Diez P, Lobato Matilla ME, Sicilia B, Soto Escribano P, Maroto Martin C, Mañosa M, Barreiro-De Acosta M. Efficacy and safety of biological treatment for inflammatory bowel disease in elderly patients: Results from a GETECCU cohort. GASTROENTEROLOGIA Y HEPATOLOGIA 2024:S0210-5705(24)00155-9. [PMID: 38710465 DOI: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2024.502197] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2023] [Revised: 02/07/2024] [Accepted: 02/27/2024] [Indexed: 05/08/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Biological therapies used for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have shown to be effective and safe, although these results were obtained from studies involving mostly a young population, who are generally included in clinical trials. The aim of our study was to determine the efficacy and safety of the different biological treatments in the elderly population. METHODS Multicenter study was carried out in the GETECCU group. Patients diagnosed with IBD and aged over 65 years at the time of initiating biological therapy (infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, ustekinumab or vedolizumab) were retrospectively included. Among the patients included, clinical response was assessed after drug induction (12 weeks of treatment) and at 52 weeks. Patients' colonoscopy data in week 52 were assessment, where available. Regarding complications, development of oncological events during follow-up and infectious processes occurring during biological treatment were collected (excluding bowel infection by cytomegalovirus). RESULTS A total of 1090 patients were included. After induction, at approximately 12-14 weeks of treatment, 419 patients (39.6%) were in clinical remission, 502 patients (47.4%) had responded without remission and 137 patients (12.9%) had no response. At 52 weeks of treatment 442 patients (57.1%) had achieved clinical remission, 249 patients had responded without remission (32.2%) and 53 patients had no response to the treatment (6.8%). Before 52 weeks, 129 patients (14.8%) had discontinued treatment due to inefficacy, this being significantly higher (p<0.0001) for Golimumab - 9 patients (37.5%) - compared to the other biological treatments analyzed. With respect to tumor development, an oncological event was observed in 74 patients (6.9%): 30 patients (8%) on infliximab, 23 (7.14%) on adalimumab, 3 (11.1%) on golimumab, 10 (6.4%) on ustekinumab, and 8 (3.8%) on vedolizumab. The incidence was significantly lower (p=0.04) for the vedolizumab group compared to other treatments. As regards infections, these occurred in 160 patients during treatment (14.9%), with no differences between the different biologicals used (p=0.61): 61 patients (19.4%) on infliximab, 39 (12.5%) on adalimumab, 5 (17.8%) on golimumab, 22 (14.1%) on ustekinumab, and 34 (16.5%) on vedolizumab. CONCLUSIONS Biological drug therapies have response rates in elderly patients similar to those described in the general population, Golimumab was the drug that was discontinued most frequently due to inefficacy. In our experience, tumor development was more frequent in patients who used anti-TNF therapies compared to other targets, although its incidence was generally low and that this is in line with younger patients based on previous literature.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cristina Suárez Ferrer
- Gastroenterology Department, School of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Hospital La Paz Institute for Health Research, La Paz Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
| | | | - Berta Caballol
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Iria Bastón Rey
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario Clínico de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | - Andrés Castaño García
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain
| | | | - Rosa Saiz Chumillas
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario de Burgos, Burgos, Spain
| | - Jose Manuel Benitez
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario Reina Sofia, Cordoba, Spain
| | | | - Alicia López-García
- Gastroneterology Department, Hospital del Mar, IMIM (Institut de Recerca Hospital del Mar ó Research Institute Hospital del Mar), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Cristina Rubin de Celix
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Princesa (IISIP), Madrid, Spain
| | - Inmaculada Alonso Abreu
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
| | - Luigi Melcarne
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitari Parc Taulli, Sabadel, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Rocío Plaza Santos
- Gastroenterology Department, Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
| | | | | | - César Gómez Díez
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario Cabueñes, Gijón, Spain
| | - Margalida Calafat
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Ciberehd, Spain
| | | | - Pablo Vega Vilaamil
- Gastroenterology Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Spain
| | - Beatriz Castro Senosiain
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, IDIVAL, Santander, Spain
| | - Andrea Guerro Moya
- Gastroenterology Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña, Spain
| | | | - Katerina Spicakova
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario de Alava, Vitoria, Spain
| | | | - Gema Molina
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario de Ferrol, A Coruña, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | - Fernando Ramirez
- Gastroneterology Department, Ciudad Real University Hospital, Ciudad Real, Spain
| | | | - Irene Gonzalez Partida
- Gastroenterology Department, Puerta de Hierro University Hospital, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain
| | - Belen Botella Mateu
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Univesitario Infanta Cristina, Parla, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Eduardo Iyo
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Comarcal de Inca, Baleares, Spain
| | | | - Empar Sainz Arnau
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Xara Assistencial Althaia de Manressa, Spain
| | | | - Pablo Perez Galindo
- Gastroenterology Department, Pontevedra University Hospital Complex, Pontevedra, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | - Laura Garcia Ramirez
- Gastroenterology Department, School of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Hospital La Paz Institute for Health Research, La Paz Hospital, Madrid, Spain
| | - María Dolores Martín-Arranz
- Gastroenterology Department, School of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Hospital La Paz Institute for Health Research, La Paz Hospital, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Agnès Fernández
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Cristina Calviño Suárez
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario Clínico de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | - Pablo Flórez-Diez
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain
| | | | - Beatriz Sicilia
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario de Burgos, Burgos, Spain
| | | | - Carlos Maroto Martin
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Valladolid, Spain
| | - Míriam Mañosa
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Ciberehd, Spain
| | - Manuel Barreiro-De Acosta
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario Clínico de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Saldaña Dueñas C, Rullán Iriarte M, Elosua González A, Rodríguez Gutiérrez C, Rubio Iturria S, Nantes Castillejo Ó. Ustekinumab in Crohn's disease: effectiveness and safety in clinical practice. GASTROENTEROLOGIA Y HEPATOLOGIA 2020; 43:497-505. [PMID: 32703654 DOI: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2020.01.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2019] [Revised: 12/16/2019] [Accepted: 01/23/2020] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Ustekinumab (UST) is a monoclonal antibody against IL-12/23 approved in Spain (2017) to treat moderate / severe Crohn's disease. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effectiveness and safety in real clinical practice in patients treated with UST in our center. METHODS This is a prospective observational study including patients who started UST from 08/01/2017 to 02/28/2019 with follow-up up to that date. We analyze response and remission in weeks 16, 24 and 52, using "Crohn's Disease Activity Index" (response if 100 point decrease and remission if <150) and Physician's Global Assessment. RESULTS We included 61 patients with a median duration of Crohn's disease of 14,6 years (0-36). The 83,6% of patients without steroids and 73,8% without associated immunosuppressors. Previously all patients had received anti-TNF and 14,8%, in addition, vedolizumab. We observed a good correlation between Crohn's Disease Activity Index and Physician's Global Assessment (r = 0,89, p <.001). In week 16 (n = 45) 75,6% response (57,8% remission), in week 24 (n = 35) 69,9% response (45,7% remission) and in week 52 (n = 12) 75% response (58.3% remission). There were no statistically significant differences in the response/remission rates at week 16 or 24 depending on the reason for the onset of UST or the number of previous biologics. In 2 patients it was withdrawn due to toxicity (arthralgia / myalgia). CONCLUSION UST is an effective and safe treatment in real clinical practice with high rates of clinical remission at week 16, 24 and 52 regardless of the order of biological used and the reason for starting UST.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - María Rullán Iriarte
- Servicio de Aparato Digestivo, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Navarra, España
| | | | | | - Saioa Rubio Iturria
- Servicio de Aparato Digestivo, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Navarra, España
| | | |
Collapse
|