Comparative efficacy of biologic therapy in biologic-naïve patients with Crohn disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Effectiveness comparison between ustekinumab and infliximab for Crohn's disease complicated with intestinal stenosis: a multicenter real-world study

Background

The efficacy of ustekinumab (UST) and infliximab (IFX) in Crohn's disease (CD) patients with intestinal stenosis remains uncertain.

Objective

This study aims to compare the efficacy of UST and IFX in the treatment of CD patients with intestinal stenosis.

Design

This was a retrospective and multicenter cohort study.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we included CD patients treated with IFX or UST at five centers. We assessed the clinical response rate at weeks 12 and 24, steroid-free clinical remission rate at weeks 24 and 52 for overall patients and those with stenosis, and objective examination (intestinal ultrasound and/or endoscopy) response rate at week 52 for stenosis patients.

Results

A total of 211 CD patients (106 IFX and 105 UST) were included, with 119 (56 IFX and 63 UST) having intestinal stenosis. In the overall patient population, there were no significant differences in clinical response rate and steroid-free clinical remission rate at weeks 12, 24, and 52 between the IFX and UST groups. In patients with stenosis, the steroid-free clinical remission rate at week 52 was significantly lower in the IFX group compared to the UST group (51.79% IFX vs 69.84% UST, p = 0.044). The objective examination response rate did not significantly differ between the IFX and UST groups at week 52 (66.67% IFX vs 76.19% UST, p = 0.690). In the UST group, steroid-free clinical remission rate was higher in bio-naïve patients than bio-experienced patients at week 24 (75.00% bio-naïve vs 55.38% bio-experienced, p = 0.043).

Conclusion

UST may be considered a more advantageous treatment option for those CD patients with intestinal stenosis, as it has better steroid-free clinical remission rates compared to IFX.

Vedolizumab in the treatment of Crohn's disease: A promising therapeutic approach

Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic and debilitating inflammatory bowel disease that affects millions of individuals worldwide. Despite the availability of various treatment options, a significant number of patients do not achieve remission or experience adverse effects with conventional therapies. Vedolizumab, a novel therapeutic agent, has emerged as a promising approach in the management of CD. Despite improvements in treatment choices, there is still a demand for medicines that are efficient and well-tolerated. Vedolizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting α4β7 integrin, has emerged as a promising therapeutic approach for the treatment of CD. The review aims to provide a summary of vedolizumab, current treatment options, impact of vedolizumab on the patient's quality of life, mechanism of action, clinical effectiveness, safety and efficacy of vedolizumab, potential side effects or risks associated with vedolizumab therapy, and potential predictors. Furthermore, we investigate limitations and challenges associated with vedolizumab and possible future developments and medical implications. This review provides a comprehensive examination of the present data supporting vedolizumab as a possible treatment option for CD, highlighting its benefits and outlining prospective directions for future study and clinical practice improvement.

Comparative Efficacy of Infliximab vs Ustekinumab for Maintenance of Clinical Response in Biologic Naïve Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND

There is a need to better understand the positioning of biologic therapies for long-term outcomes in biologic-naïve Crohn's disease (CD). We assessed the comparative effectiveness of infliximab and ustekinumab among induction responders for 1-year outcomes.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis included data from 220 biologic-naïve CD participants with response to induction therapy from 2 clinical trial programs. Participants achieving 1-year clinical remission (CR) (Crohn's disease activity index <150), corticosteroid-free CR, normalization of fecal calprotectin (FC), endoscopic response (Simple Endoscopic Score for CD decrease ≥50% from baseline), and endoscopic remission (ER) (Simple Endoscopic Score for CD <3) were compared. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated the likelihood of achieving the outcomes adjusted for confounders. Propensity score matching created a cohort with similar distribution of baseline covariates.

RESULTS

One-year CR and corticosteroid-free CR rates were similar between infliximab-treated and ustekinumab-treated patients (CR, 66 of 110 [60.0%] vs 63 of 110 [57.3%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.15; 95% CI, 0.67-1.98; P = .681; corticosteroid-free CR, 11 of 28 (39.3%) vs 27 of 51 [52.9%]; aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.23-1.47; P = .251). Compared with ustekinumab-treated patients, infliximab-treated participants were more likely to achieve 1-year endoscopic response (43 of 92 [46.7%] vs 6 of 30 [20.0%], aOR, 3.59; 95% CI, 1.34-9.66; P = .011) and ER (31 of 92 [33.7%] vs 4 of 30 [13.3%]; aOR, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.07-10.49; P = .038). Among patients with FC ≥250 mg/kg at baseline, normalization (<250 mg/kg) at 1-year was similar between groups. Similar results were observed within the propensity matched population for all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with infliximab and ustekinumab among induction responders achieved 1-year CR with similar efficacy, but infliximab may confer greater benefit for endoscopic outcomes. Findings should be interpreted with caution as our analyses were unpowered.

Comparative Efficacy and Rapidity of Action for Infliximab vs Ustekinumab in Biologic Naïve Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Comparative effectiveness has become increasingly important to help position therapies for inflammatory bowel disease. We compared the efficacy and rapidity of onset of action of infliximab vs ustekinumab induction therapy for moderate to severe biologic-naïve Crohn's disease (CD) using patient-level data from randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of 2 large CD clinical trial programs that included data on 420 biologic-naïve CD patients. Differences in proportions of patients achieving week 6 clinical remission, clinical response, and normalization of calprotectin were compared. Multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for confounders. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using propensity scores to create a cohort of matched participants with similar distribution of baseline covariates.

RESULTS

At week 6, a comparable number of patients achieved clinical remission with infliximab compared with patients treated with ustekinumab (44.9% vs 37.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.22; 95% CI, 0.79-1.89). Similarly, at week 6 the clinical response rates were not significantly different (58.4% infliximab vs 54.9% ustekinumab; aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.82-1.90). No significant difference was observed between treatment groups for achieving a week 6 fecal calprotectin level less than 250 mcg/L in those with increased values at baseline (42.3% infliximab vs 34.7% ustekinumab; aOR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.79-2.28). Similar results were seen for all analyses performed within the propensity matched cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this post hoc analysis, infliximab and ustekinumab appear to have similar efficacy and speed of onset in patients with CD who are biologic-naïve.

Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in comparison to infliximab for Crohn's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab (ADA) and infliximab (IFX) are the cornerstones of the treatment of Crohn’s disease (CD). It remains controversial whether there is a difference in the effectiveness and safety between IFX and ADA for CD.

AIM

To perform a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of ADA and IFX in CD.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched. Cohort studies were considered for inclusion. The primary outcomes were induction of response and remission, maintenance of response and remission, and secondary loss of response. Adverse events were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Fourteen cohort studies were included. There was no apparent difference between the two agents in the induction response [odds ratio (OR): 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-1.74, P = 0.14] and remission (OR: 1.11, 95%CI: 0.78–1.57, P = 0.57), maintenance response (OR: 1.08, 95%CI: 0.76–1.53, P = 0.67) and remission (OR: 1.26, 95%CI: 0.87–1.82, P = 0.22), and secondary loss of response (OR: 1.01, 95%CI: 0.65–1.55, P = 0.97). Subgroup analysis revealed ADA and IFX had similar rates of response, remission, and loss of response either in anti-tumor necrosis factor-α naïve or non-naïve patients. Further, there was a similar result regardless of whether CD patients were treated with optimized therapy, including dose intensification, shortening interval, and combination immunomodulators. However, ADA had a fewer overall adverse events than IFX (OR: 0.62, 95%CI: 0.42–0.91, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

ADA and IFX have similar clinical benefits for anti-tumor necrosis factor-α naïve or non-naïve CD patients. Overall adverse events rate is higher in patients in the IFX group.

Adalimumab vs Infliximab in Pediatric Patients With Crohn's Disease: A Propensity Score Analysis and Predictors of Treatment Escalation

INTRODUCTION

Two antitumor necrosis factor therapies (infliximab [IFX] and adalimumab [ADA]) have been approved for the treatment of pediatric Crohn's disease (CD) but have not been compared in head-to-head trials. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ADA and IFX by propensity score matching in a prospective cohort of pediatric patients with luminal CD and at least a 24-month follow-up.

METHODS

Among 100 patients, 75 met the inclusion criteria, and 62 were matched by propensity score. We evaluated time to treatment escalation as the primary outcome and primary nonresponse, predictors of treatment escalation and relapse, serious adverse events, pharmacokinetics, and effect of concomitant immunomodulators as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

There was no difference between ADA and IFX in time to treatment escalation (HR = 0.63 [95% CI 0.31-1.28] P = 0.20), primary nonresponse (P = 0.95), or serious adverse events. The median (interquartile range) trough levels at the primary outcome were 14.05 (10.88-15.40) and 6.15 (2.08-6.58) µg/mL in the ADA and IFX groups, respectively. On a multivariate analysis, the combination of anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibody negativity and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody positivity was a strong independent predictor of treatment escalation (HR 5.19, [95% CI 2.41-11.18], P < 0.0001). The simple endoscopic score for CD, L3 disease phenotype, and use of concomitant immunomodulators for at least the first 6 months revealed a trend toward significance on a univariate analysis.

DISCUSSION

Propensity score matching did not reveal substantial differences in efficacy or safety between ADA and IFX. The anti-S. cerevisiae antibody negativity and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody positivity combination is a strong predictor of treatment escalation.

Model-Based Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy of Biologics and Small Targeted Molecules for Crohn’s Disease

Information on comparative drug efficacy is of great importance for drug development as well as clinical practice. Up to now, the relative efficacy of biologics and small targeted molecules for Crohn’s disease (CD) remains unclear. The objective of this study was to quantify the relative efficacy of investigational and approved biological treatments for CD measured in Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ), and C-reactive protein (CRP). The analysis dataset was composed of summary-level data from 46 trials, containing 12,846 patients, with treatment of 24 drugs. Six mathematical models with non-parametric placebo estimations were developed to describe the time course and dose–response of six efficacy measures. The effects of covariate were further evaluated. Time–response relationships were found in outcomes measured in CDAI. The patients’ age, disease duration, baseline CDAI, and CRP showed an impact on the efficacy. Model simulations were performed to compare the efficacies across different drugs. The most achievement in clinical remission (defined as CDAI less than 150) and clinical response (defined as the reduction in CDAI for 100 or 70) was observed in the simulation for PF-04236921 and infliximab, respectively. The most improvement in IBDQ was shown in tofacitinib. In general, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors were the most effective biologics, and the highest efficacy of small targeted molecules was observed in janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. These findings have important implications for clinical practice in CD.

Will the Inducing and Maintaining Remission of Non-biological Agents and Biological Agents Differ for Crohn's Disease? The Evidence From the Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Several drugs currently are available for the treatment of Crohn's disease, including non-biological agents such as anti-inflammatory agents, steroids, immunosuppressive agents, and biologic agents such as anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF), anti-α4β7 integrin, anti-alpha-4 integrin and anti-interleukin 12/23. However, the choice of treatments for induction and maintenance is still a challenge. The relevant comparison between non-biologic agents and biologic agents is few. In our research, we aimed to help making decisions, as well as providing clinicians and patients with medication references.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials for relevant randomized controlled trials published through to July 2020 and systematic reviews published from January 2011 to December 2020. Search results were screened by 2 independent reviewers first by title and abstract and then by full text. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer.

Results: 54 randomized controlled trials were included in our analysis. For induction of remission, azathioprine (OR, 3.5; 95% Crl, 1.4–8.9), infliximab (OR, 4.1; 95% Crl, 1.2–16.0), infliximab + azathioprine (OR, 7.0; 95% Crl, 1.2–41.0) and infliximab+ methotrexate (OR, 7.8; 95% Crl, 1.2–65.0) were more effective in first-line therapy than placebo. Adalimumab showed superiority to placebo in second-line therapy, but the range of SD was wide. For maintenance of remission, adalimumab (OR,2.24;95% Crl,1.17–4.76) and azathioprine (OR,2.05; 95% Crl,1.14–3.96) were more effective than placebo. Adalimumab (OR,0.56; 95%Crl,0.27–1.2), budesonide (OR,0.63; 95%Crl,0.26–1.6) and natalizumab (OR,0.65; 95%Crl,0.30–1.4) was associated with less risk of withdrawals when compared with placebo.

Conclusion: For induction of remission, azathioprine, infliximab, and infliximab + azathioprine were more effective in first-line therapy. In second-line therapy, adalimumab was more effective but should be interpreted carefully. For maintenance of remission, adalimumab and azathioprine were more effective. Besides, adalimumab, budesonide, natalizumab had lower withdrawals. Therefore, biological agents were not always better than non-biological agents and they have their own advantages in different treatment methods of Crohn's disease.

Quality of life of patients with inflammatory bowel disease using immunobiological therapy

Objectives To assess the quality of life of patients diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) using immunobiological therapy and to relate the general and domain scores of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) to the immunobiological drug in use and the clinical and sociodemographic variables.

Methods This was a descriptive observational cross-sectional study, conducted from June to September 2018 in a tertiary hospital in Sergipe, which included 47 patients with a diagnosis of Crohn's disease. The IBDQ questionnaire was applied together with a sociodemographic questionnaire, and the clinical data and the history of the disease were analyzed.

Results Female, mixed-race, married patients from the countryside of the state of Sergipe, Brazil, who had never undergone any intestinal surgery, represented most of the study participants. 24 patients were on infliximab and 23 were on adalimumab. Variables such as gender, type of immunobiological drug and duration of its use, and association of therapy with other medications were shown to statistically significantly influence the report quality of life (p-value < 0.05).

Conclusion Further studies with larger samples are necessary to allow a more accurate delimitation of the impact of clinical and sociodemographic variables on the quality of life of patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Long-term Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of the Infliximab (IFX) Biosimilar, PF-06438179/GP1111, in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After Switching from Reference IFX or Continuing Biosimilar Therapy: Week 54-78 Data From a Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial

Objective

Our objective was to evaluate the long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the infliximab biosimilar, PF-06438179/GP1111 (PF-SZ-IFX), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who continued biosimilar treatment throughout 78 weeks or who switched from reference infliximab (Remicade^®) sourced from the EU (IFX-EU) at week 30 or week 54 in the REFLECTIONS B537-02 study.

Methods

In this phase III, double-blind, active-controlled study, patients with moderate-to-severe active RA were initially randomized to PF-SZ-IFX or IFX-EU, each with methotrexate (treatment period [TP] 1; N = 650). At week 30, patients receiving PF-SZ-IFX continued PF-SZ-IFX; patients receiving IFX-EU were re-randomized to continue IFX-EU or switch to PF-SZ-IFX (TP2; n = 566). From weeks 54 to 78, all patients received open-label treatment with PF-SZ-IFX (TP3; n = 505). Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity data were analyzed during TP3.

Results

Efficacy was sustained and comparable across groups at week 78, with American College of Rheumatology criteria for ≥ 20% clinical improvement response rates of 75.9% (biosimilar group), 77.8% (week 30 switch group), and 68.3% (week 54 switch group). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 28.9%, 29.4%, and 30.2%, respectively. The proportion of patients who were antidrug antibody (ADA) positive and neutralizing antibody positive (as a percentage of ADA-positive patients) was stable and comparable between groups.

Conclusions

Results to week 78 continue to support the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of PF-SZ-IFX in patients with moderate-to-severe active RA. There were no clinically meaningful differences between groups, independent of a single treatment transition from IFX-EU to PF-SZ-IFX at week 30 or week 54.

Trial Registration Number

NCT02222493.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-019-00403-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison of Long-term Outcomes of Infliximab versus Adalimumab in 1,488 Biologic-Naive Korean Patients with Crohn's Disease

Background/Aims

Data on the comparative effectiveness of infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab (ADA) in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) are rare, particularly for Asian patients. We compared the key clinical outcomes (surgery, hospitalization, and corticosteroid use) of use of these two drugs in biologic-naive Korean patients with CD.

Methods

Using National Health Insurance claims, we collected data on patients who were diagnosed with CD and exposed to IFX or ADA between 2010 and 2016.

Results

We included 1,488 new users of biologics (1,000 IFX users and 488 ADA users). Over a median follow-up period of 2.1 years after starting biological therapy, no significant differences were found between IFX and ADA users in the risks for surgery (ADA vs IFX adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.84), hospitalization (aHR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.28), and corticosteroid use (aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.19). These results were unchanged even when only patients who used biologics for over 6 months were analyzed (aHR [95% CI] surgery, 1.31 [0.82 to 2.11]; hospitalization, 1.02 [0.80 to 1.30]; corticosteroid use, 0.80 [0.54 to 1.18]). Additionally, these results were unchanged in patients treated with biologics as monotherapy or in combination with immunomodulators.

Conclusions

In this nationwide population-based study, no significant difference was found in the long-term effectiveness of IFX and ADA in the real-world setting of biologic-naive Korean patients with CD. In the absence of trials to directly compare IFX and ADA, our study indicates that the selection of one of these two biologics can be determined by patient and/or physician preference.

Serum oncostatin M at baseline predicts mucosal healing in Crohn's disease patients treated with infliximab

BACKGROUND

Oncostatin M is upregulated in Crohn's disease inflamed intestinal mucosa, and has been suggested as a promising biomarker to predict responsiveness to anti-TNF therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases.

AIM

To evaluate the suitability of serum oncostatin M as a predictive marker of response to infliximab in Crohn's disease.

METHODS

We included patients treated with infliximab monotherapy. All patients underwent colonoscopy at week 54 to evaluate mucosal healing. Serum oncostatin M and faecal calprotectin were measured at baseline and after 14 weeks of treatment. Mann-Whitney test was used to evaluate correlation of oncostatin M and faecal calprotectin at baseline and week 14 with mucosal healing at week 54. Their accuracy in predicting mucosal healing was assessed by area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

In a cohort of 45 included patients, 27 displayed mucosal healing. At both baseline and week 14, oncostatin M levels were significantly lower in patients with mucosal healing than in patients not achieving this endpoint (P < 0.001). Faecal calprotectin levels at week 14 were lower also in responders than nonresponders (P < 0.001). Oncostatin M values at baseline and week 14 were significantly associated (Spearman correlation = 0.92, P < 0.001). The diagnostic accuracy of oncostatin M at baseline in predicting mucosal healing (AUC = 0.91) was greater than faecal calprotectin (AUC = 0.51, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that oncostatin M can predict the outcome of infliximab treatment. Compared with faecal calprotectin, the predictive capability of oncostatin M was appreciable at baseline, thus indicating oncostatin M as a promising biomarker for driving therapeutic choices in Crohn's disease.

Administration Timing Is the Best Clinical Outcome Predictor for Adalimumab Administration in Crohn's Disease

Biological intervention for Crohn's Disease (CDs) patients, mainly using anti-TNF antibodies, is often an efficient therapeutic solution. Nonetheless, data defining the administration timing to maximize the chances of clinical remission are lacking. The objective of this “real-life” retrospective study was to evaluate if early Adalimumab (ADA) administration (<12 months) was an efficient strategy to improve patients' clinical outcome. This single center study included 157 CD patients, of which 80 received the first ADA administration within the first 12 months from the diagnosis. After 1 year of therapy, clinical remission was observed in 50.32% of patients, mucosal healing in 37.58%. Clinical remission was observed in 66.25% of the early ADA administration patients vs. 33.77% of the late (>12 months) (p < 0.001); mucosal healing was observed in 53.75% of the early vs. 20.78% of the late (p < 0.001). Dose escalation was required for 30.00% of the early vs. 66.23% of the late (<0.01). In the early ADA administration group, 7.50% patients were considered non-responders at the end of the follow-up vs. 22.08% patients in the late administration group. These findings highlighted that early ADA administration (within 1 year of diagnosis) improves the clinical response and mucosal healing, and reduces the loss of response rate and need for dose escalation.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Luminal Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Crohn's disease (CD) is a lifelong illness with substantial morbidity, although new therapies and treatment paradigms have been developed. We provide guidance for treatment of ambulatory patients with mild to severe active luminal CD.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review to identify published studies of the management of CD. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Statements were developed through an iterative online platform and then finalized and voted on by a group of specialists.

RESULTS

The consensus includes 41 statements focused on 6 main drug classes: antibiotics, 5-aminosalicylate, corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, biologic therapies, and other therapies. The group suggested against the use of antibiotics or 5-aminosalicylate as induction or maintenance therapies. Corticosteroid therapies (including budesonide) can be used as induction, but not maintenance therapies. Among immunosuppressants, thiopurines should not be used for induction, but can be used for maintenance therapy for selected low-risk patients. Parenteral methotrexate was proposed for induction and maintenance therapy in patients with corticosteroid-dependent CD. Biologic agents, including tumor necrosis factor antagonists, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab, were recommended for patients failed by conventional induction therapies and as maintenance therapy. The consensus group was unable to clearly define the role of concomitant immunosuppressant therapies in initiation of treatment with a biologic agent.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal management of CD requires careful patient assessment, acknowledgement of patient preferences, evidence-based use of existing therapies, and thorough assessment to define treatment success.

Novel Pharmacological Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Beyond Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are chronic conditions of the gastrointestinal tract in which dysregulated immune responses cause persistent inflammation of the gut mucosa. Biologic therapy with anti-TNF blockers has revolutionized the therapeutic management of IBD for their remarkable efficacy and potential impact on disease course and for many years has represented the sole treatment option for patients refractory or intolerant to conventional therapy. In recent years, more molecules, both biologically and chemically synthetized, have been developed as potential therapeutic options for IBD that target different molecular pathways aside from TNF blockade, and which have been proposed as targets for novel drugs. This is particularly relevant for the present, as well as future, management of IBD, considering that some patients are refractory to anti-TNF. This review will summarize the pharmacological options, either currently available or in the pipeline, for market approval to treat IBD, besides anti-TNF strategies, based on their mechanism(s) of action. We will also analyze the current evidence for effectiveness and safety, as well as offer perspective, regarding the potential implementation for such therapies in the future.

Treatment sequence network meta-analysis in Crohn's disease: a methodological case study

OBJECTIVE

Several biologic therapies are available for the treatment of mild-to-moderate Crohn's disease (CD). This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of ustekinumab, adalimumab, vedolizumab and infliximab in the maintenance of clinical response and remission after 1 year of treatment.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Key outcomes of interest were clinical response (CD activity index [CDAI] reduction of 100 points; CDAI-100) and remission (CDAI score under 150 points; CDAI < 150). A treatment sequence Bayesian NMA was conducted to account for the re-randomization of patients based on different clinical definitions, the lack of similarity of the common comparator for each trial and the full treatment pathway from the induction phase onwards.

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs were identified. Ustekinumab 90 mg q8w was associated with statistically significant improvement in clinical response relative to placebo and vedolizumab 300 mg. For clinical remission, ustekinumab 90 mg q8w was associated with statistically significant improvement relative to placebo and vedolizumab 300 mg q8w. Findings from sub-population analyses had similar results but were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The NMA suggest that ustekinumab is associated with the highest likelihood of reaching response or remission at 1 year compared with placebo, adalimumab and vedolizumab. Results should be interpreted with caution because this is a novel methodology; however, the treatment sequence analysis may be the most methodologically sound analysis to derive estimates of comparative efficacy in CD in the absence of head-to-head evidence.

A Propensity Score-matched Comparison of Infliximab and Adalimumab in Tumour Necrosis Factor-α Inhibitor-naïve and Non-naïve Patients With Crohn's Disease: Real-Life Data From the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is an unmet need to better understand the effectiveness of different biologics in inflammatory bowel diseases. We aimed at performing a multicentre, real-life comparison of the effectiveness of infliximab [IFX] and adalimumab [ADA] in Crohn's disease [CD].

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients with CD treated with IFX and ADA from January 2013 to May 2017 were extracted from the cohort of the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. We used propensity score-matching accounting for the main baseline characteristics in TNF-α inhibitor-naïve and non-naïve patients.

RESULTS

A total of 632 patients [735 total treatments] were included. Among naïve patients, a clinical benefit [the sum of steroid-free remission plus clinical response] was achieved in 81.8% patients treated with ADA and in 77.6% patients treated with IFX (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.23, 95% CI 0.63-2-44, p = 0.547] at 12 weeks; after 1 year, a clinical benefit was achieved in 69.2% of patients treated with ADA and in 64.5% patients treated with IFX [adjusted OR: 1.10, 95% CI 0.61-1.96, p = 0.766]. Among non-naïve patients, a clinical benefit was achieved in 61.7% of patients treated with ADA and in 68.1% of patients treated with IFX [adjusted OR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.21-2.44, p = 0.600] at 12 weeks; after 1 year, a clinical benefit was achieved in 48.9% of patients treated with ADA and in 40.4% patients treated with IFX [adjusted OR: 1.23, 95% CI 0.54-2.86, p = 0.620].

CONCLUSIONS

In this propensity score-matched comparison of ADA and IFX in CD, both drugs showed high rates of clinical benefit, without significant differences between them.

Network meta-analysis to inform positioning of biologics in patients with Crohn's disease: Promise and perils

With availability of several different classes of biologic agents with variable efficacy and safety profiles for moderate-severe Crohn's disease (CD), positioning of different agents in treatment course is an important question for clinicians. Though in an ideal world, positioning would be personalized and driven by likelihood of response to different agents based on biomarkers in individual patients, that is still far from reality, and decisions are empiric. In the absence of head-to-head trials of different medications, decisions on treatment choice and positioning are primarily based on clinician experience, opinion-based treatment algorithms, patient preference and insurance reimbursement. Understandably, in the absence of guidance, there is considerable practice variability on optimal choice of first- and second-line biologics in the treatment of patients with CD. In the absence of direct evidence from head-to-head trials, network meta-analysis can help assess comparative efficacy of several interventions and synthesize evidence across a network of randomized controlled trials. In this review, we discuss what network meta-analyses, what do they tell us about positioning different agents, and strengths and limitations of such an approach.

Treatment Perspectives in Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND

Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic immune-mediated disorder of the gastrointestinal tract. The pathophysiological understanding of this disease is limited and no curative therapy is available so far. Therefore, most patients require long-lasting or even life-long immunosuppressive therapies for the suppression of symptoms to improve quality of life and reduction of long-term risks. However, in a relevant subgroup of patients, these therapeutic goals cannot be sufficiently attained.

SUMMARY

Clinically established therapies in active CD comprise corticosteroids and immunosuppressants such as azathioprine. After the introduction of anti-TNFα (Tumor necrosis factor alpha) antibodies, other biologicals (e.g., vedolizumab and ustekinumab) have also been approved. New drugs in the pipeline like filgotinib, upadacitinib, risankizumab or rifaximin could improve the therapy of CD in the near future. Thus, an individualized therapy management, based on optimal selection of therapeutic agents will become more important. Additionally, the local application of mesenchymal stem cells might be helpful in the management of fistulas. Key Messages: The targeted biological therapeutic agents (anti-TNFα antibodies, vedolizumab, ustekinumab) are well established for therapy in CD. There are several new substances in the pipeline with promising results in phase II trials (filgotinib, rifaximin, risankizumab, upadacitinib). The upcoming extension of the therapeutic arsenal will require methods for an optimized selection of substances, thus enabling a more individualized therapy.

Etrolizumab versus infliximab in the treatment of induction phase of ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and indirect comparison

OBJECTIVES

There is still a need to develop new effective medications for the treatment of ulcerative colitis, particularly for patients who are intolerant or resistant to first line therapies. This article compared the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab and infliximab in moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA statement protocol. A systematic literature search of three major bibliographic databases (Scopus, PubMed, and Cochran) was performed until June 30, 2018. This review included studies that evaluated the efficacy of etrolizumab or infliximab in ulcerative colitis and were placebo controlled randomized trials. Pooled data from each treatment were indirectly compared using Bucher's method.

RESULTS

Seven trials were sufficiently homogeneous to be used for indirect comparison of the induction phase of the treatment. There were no significant differences in clinical remission and serious adverse events between etrolizumab and infliximab. Moreover, adverse events of etrolizumab were significantly less than those of infliximab. However, further trials are required to compare other parameters of efficacy such as the clinical response and mucosal healing of etrolizumab with infliximab in anti-TNF alpha naïve patients.

Positioning of old and new biologicals and small molecules in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases

The past decade has brought substantial advances in the management of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists, evidence for the value of combination therapy, the recognition of targeting lymphocyte trafficking and activation as a viable treatment, and the need for early treatment of high-risk patients are all fundamental concepts for current modern IBD treatment algorithms. In this article, authors review the existing data on approved biologicals and small molecules as well as provide insight on the current positioning of approved therapies. Patient stratification for the selection of specific therapies, therapeutic targets and patient monitoring will be discussed as well. The therapeutic armamentarium for IBD is expanding as novel and more targeted therapies become available. In the absence of comparative trials, positioning these agents is becoming difficult. Emerging concepts for the future will include an emphasis on the development of algorithms which will facilitate a greater understanding of the positioning of novel biological drugs and small molecules in order to best tailor therapy to the patient. In the interim, anti-TNF therapy remains an important component of IBD therapy with the most real-life evidence and should be considered as first-line therapy in patients with complicated Crohn’s disease and in acute-severe ulcerative colitis. The safety and efficacy of these ‘older’ anti-TNF therapies can be optimized by adhering to therapeutic algorithms which combine clinical and objective markers of disease severity and response to therapy.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis: first- and second-line biologic therapies for moderate-severe Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

There are limited data to inform positioning of agents for treating moderate-severe Crohn's disease (CD).

AIM

We assessed comparative efficacy and safety of first-line (biologic-naïve) and second-line (prior exposure to anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF]-α) agents) biologic therapy for moderate-severe CD, through a systematic review and network meta-analysis, and appraised quality of evidence (QoE) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with moderate-severe CD treated with approved anti-TNF agents, anti-integrin agents and anti-IL12/23 agents, first-line or second-line, and compared with placebo or another active agent. Efficacy outcomes were induction and maintenance of clinical remission; safety outcomes were serious adverse events and infections. Network meta-analyses were performed, and ranking was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities.

RESULTS

No head-to-head trials were identified. In biologic-naïve patients, infliximab (SUCRA,0.93) and adalimumab (SUCRA,0.75) were ranked highest for induction of clinical remission (moderate QoE). In patients with prior anti-TNF exposure, adalimumab (SUCRA, 0.91; low QoE, in patients with prior response or intolerance to anti-TNF agents) and ustekinumab (SUCRA, 0.71) were ranked highest for induction of clinical remission. In patients with response to induction therapy, adalimumab (SUCRA, 0.97) and infliximab (SUCRA, 0.68) were ranked highest for maintenance of remission. Ustekinumab had lowest risk of serious adverse events (SUCRA, 0.72) and infection (SUCRA, 0.71; along with infliximab, SUCRA, 0.83) in maintenance trials.

CONCLUSION

Indirect comparisons suggest that infliximab or adalimumab may be preferred first-line agents, and ustekinumab a preferred second-line agent, for induction of remission in patients with moderate-severe CD. Head-to-head trials are warranted.

Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis: Efficacy of Induction Therapy with a Second Biological Agent in Anti-TNF-Experienced Crohn's Disease Patients

Background and Aim

Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal tract with the potential to progress to a severe debilitating state. Treatment with biological agents is highly efficient, improving both short-term outcomes and long-term prognosis. Nonetheless, up to 60% of patients receiving biological therapy will exhibit nonresponse at some point. The optimal management of such patients is not clearly defined. Besides traditional anti-TNF agents (infliximab, adalimumab, and certolizumab), alternative biological therapies (natalizumab, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab) are currently available for the treatment of CD. Our aim was to analyze all available evidence regarding efficacy of a second biological in "biological-treatment-experienced" patients.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using specific criteria for selecting relevant randomized clinical trials evaluating response to administration of secondary biological therapy in "anti-TNF-experienced" CD patients. Data from these studies was used to perform (a) traditional meta-analysis to ascertain the effect of secondary treatment versus placebo and (b) network meta-analysis to compare indirectly the efficacy of available biological agents.

Results

Out of initially 977 studies, only eight were included for analysis, providing a total of 1281 treated and 733 placebo-receiving CD patients. Treatment with a second biological was found to be superior to placebo for both induction of remission (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.7 to 3) and response (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.5), with global rates of 24% and 42%, respectively (placebo rate: 11% and 27%, p < 0.0001 for both). Indirect comparisons performed with network meta-analysis suggest no specific agent is clearly superior to others, with relatively better results observed for adalimumab in inducing disease remission.

Conclusion

In anti-TNF-experienced CD patients, secondary biological administration may be efficient, while no specific agent seems to outperform the others. Further research is needed to identify optimal management strategies for this challenging subset of patients.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Luminal Crohn's Disease

Background & Aims

Crohn’s disease (CD) is a lifelong illness with substantial morbidity, although new therapies and treatment paradigms have been developed. We provide guidance for treatment of ambulatory patients with mild to severe active luminal CD.

Methods

We performed a systematic review to identify published studies of the management of CD. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Statements were developed through an iterative online platform and then finalized and voted on by a group of specialists.

Results

The consensus includes 41 statements focused on 6 main drug classes: antibiotics, 5-aminosalicylate, corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, biologic therapies, and other therapies. The group suggested against the use of antibiotics or 5-aminosalicylate as induction or maintenance therapies. Corticosteroid therapies (including budesonide) can be used as induction, but not maintenance therapies. Among immunosuppressants, thiopurines should not be used for induction, but can be used for maintenance therapy for selected low-risk patients. Parenteral methotrexate was proposed for induction and maintenance therapy in patients with corticosteroid-dependent CD. Biologic agents, including tumor necrosis factor antagonists, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab, were recommended for patients failed by conventional induction therapies and as maintenance therapy. The consensus group was unable to clearly define the role of concomitant immunosuppressant therapies in initiation of treatment with a biologic agent.

Conclusions

Optimal management of CD requires careful patient assessment, acknowledgement of patient preferences, evidence-based use of existing therapies, and thorough assessment to define treatment success.

Therapy for Crohn's Disease: a Review of Recent Developments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review recent advances in the treatment of Crohn's disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several key advances are highlighted, including the increasing role of treatment algorithms and where new therapies can be used most effectively, the appropriate use of therapeutic drug monitoring, optimal management of post-surgical patients, and the role of multi-disciplinary clinics. The last several years have seen a number of exciting developments in the field of Crohn's therapy. This review covers research advances including updated treatment algorithms focusing on identifying patient risk as well as the role of drug monitoring in managing the disease. We also review the optimal management of post-surgical patients as well as new biologics and biosimilars. Finally, we describe innovations in care delivery including multi-disciplinary clinics and emerging evidence from developing therapeutics.

Comparison of infliximab with adalimumab in 827 biologic-naïve patients with Crohn's disease: a population-based Danish cohort study

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting data on comparative effectiveness of adalimumab and infliximab in patients with Crohn's disease (CD).

AIMS

To compare the effectiveness and safety of adalimumab and infliximab in biologic-naïve patients with CD, in a nationwide register-based propensity score-matched cohort study in Denmark.

METHODS

A total of 2908 Danish adults with CD had been treated with adalimumab or infliximab as their first biologic agent between 2005-2014. By Cox regression, we compared rates of all-cause hospitalisation, CD-related hospitalisation, major abdominal surgery and serious infections after variable 2:1 propensity score matching, accounting for baseline disease characteristics, healthcare utilisation and use of CD-related medications.

RESULTS

After propensity-score matching, we included 315 adalimumab- (34.9 ± 12.9 years, 41.9% males) and 512 infliximab-treated (33.6 ± 12.6 years, 40.8% males) patients, with median disease duration 4.0 years; 36.9% had prior abdominal surgery. Over a median follow-up 2.3 years after starting biological therapy, there were no significant differences in rate of CD-related hospitalisation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81 [95% CI, 0.55-1.20]) or major abdominal surgery (HR, 1.24 [0.66-2.33]) between adalimumab- and infliximab-treated patients, though rate of all-cause hospitalisation was lower in adalimumab-treated patients (HR, 0.74 [0.56-0.97]). There was no significant difference in incidence of serious infections requiring hospitalisation (HR, 1.06 [0.26-4.21]). These results were stable in patients treated with biological monotherapy (all-cause hospitalisation: HR, 0.75 [0.53-1.05]; CD-related hospitalisation: HR, 0.82 [0.51-1.32], abdominal surgery: HR, 1.47 [0.63-3.47]) or in combination with immunomodulators (all-cause hospitalisation: HR, 0.70 [0.44-1.11]; CD-related hospitalisation: HR, 0.80 [0.42-1.52], abdominal surgery: HR, 1.02 [0.39-2.64]).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based, propensity score matched, real-life cohort study using administrative claims, there was no significant difference in effectiveness and safety of adalimumab and infliximab in biologic-naïve patients with CD.

Population-based cohort study on comparative effectiveness and safety of biologics in inflammatory bowel disease

Background

The comparison of effectiveness and safety of anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha agents for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is relevant for clinical practice and stakeholders.

Objective

The objective of this study was to compare the risk of abdominal surgery, steroid utilization, and hospitalization for infection in Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) patients newly treated with infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab (ADA).

Methods

A retrospective population-based cohort study was performed using health information systems data from Lazio region, Italy. Patients with CD or UC diagnosis were enrolled at first prescription of IFX or ADA during 2008–2014 (index date). Only new drug users were followed for 2 years from the index date. IFX versus ADA adjusted hazard ratios were calculated applying “intention-to-treat” approach, controlling for several characteristics and stratifying the analysis on steroid use according to previous drug utilization. Sensitivity analyses were performed according to “as-treated” approach, adjusting for propensity score, censoring at switching or discontinuation, and evaluating different lengths of follow-up periods.

Results

We enrolled 1,432 IBD patients (42% and 83% exposed to IFX for CD and UC, respectively). In both diseases, treatment effects did not differ in any outcome considered, and sensitivity analyses confirmed the results from the main analysis.

Conclusion

In our population-based cohort study, effectiveness and safety data in new users of ADA or IFX with CD or UC were comparable for the outcomes we tested.

Integrin α4β7 Blockade Preferentially Impacts CCR6+ Lymphocyte Subsets in Blood and Mucosal Tissues of Naive Rhesus Macaques

Infusion of a simianized anti-α₄β₇ mAb (Rh-α₄β₇) just before and following SIV infection protected rhesus macaques from developing AIDS and partially from vaginal SIV acquisition. Recently, short-term treatment with Rh-α₄β₇ in combination with cART was found to lead to prolonged viral suppression after withdrawal of all therapeutic interventions. The humanized form of Rh-α₄β₇, vedolizumab, is a highly effective treatment for inflammatory bowel disease. To clarify the mechanism of action of Rh-α₄β₇, naive macaques were infused with Rh-α₄β₇ and sampled in blood and tissues before and after treatment to monitor several immune cell subsets. In blood, Rh-α₄β₇ increased the CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cell counts, but not B cell counts, and preferentially increased CCR6⁺ subsets while decreasing CD103⁺ and CD69⁺ lymphocytes. In mucosal tissues, surprisingly, Rh-α₄β₇ did not impact integrin α₄⁺ cells, but decreased the frequencies of CCR6⁺ and CD69⁺ CD4⁺ T cells and, in the gut, Rh-α₄β₇ transiently decreased the frequency of memory and IgA⁺ B cells. In summary, even in the absence of inflammation, Rh-α₄β₇ impacted selected immune cell subsets in different tissues. These data provide new insights into the mechanisms by which Rh-α₄β₇ may mediate its effect in SIV-infected macaques with implications for understanding the effect of treatment with vedolizumab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in the induction therapy of TNF-α-refractory Crohn's disease patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: The aim of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in the induction therapy of anti-TNF-α failure patients with Crohn's disease. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Library until 30 December 2016. We included randomized controlled trials that compared efficacy (clinical response and remission) and safety profile of ustekinumab in TNF-α failure Crohn's disease patients; primary and secondary TNF-α nonresponders or intolerant patients were also assessed. Included studies were critically appraised according to the PRISMA statement protocol; data aggregation with a RevMan® software was performed. Results: Three randomized controlled trials were revealed in the systematic review but only two of them (CERTIFI and UNITI-1) were homogenous to be included in the meta-analysis; aggregation of data only for induction phase of therapy was possible. Clinical response was significantly higher for patients who received ustekinumab compared with placebo patients in a group of TNF-α antagonist failure patients (relative benefit [RB] = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.28–2.04) and in the following subgroups: secondary nonresponders (RB = 1.98; 95% CI: 1.49–2.63), intolerant patients (RB = 1.47; 95% CI: 1.01–2.13) and patients who failed at least two TNF-α antagonists (RB = 2.19; 95% CI: 1.53–3.14) but in case of primary nonresponders it occurred insignificant (RB = 1.22; 95% CI: 0.76–1.98). The clinical remission in TNF-α antagonist failure population was significantly higher for patients who received ustekinumab compared with placebo (RB = 1.72; 95% CI: 1.17–2.53). Pooled analysis revealed that risk of adverse events in induction phase of therapy was not significantly different (risk ratio = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.86–1.06) between ustekinumab and placebo groups. Conclusion: The clinical response was significantly higher for TNF-α antagonist failure patients who received ustekinumab as well as in subgroups of secondary nonresponders or intolerant patients but not in case of primary nonresponders. Ustekinumab occurred as safe as placebo in the induction as well as in a maintenance phase of therapy.

Management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease and spondyloarthritis

INTRODUCTION

More than half of the patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) experience at least one extra-intestinal manifestation (EIM). The most common EIM in patients with IBD is spondyloarthritis (SpA). Microscopic intestinal inflammation is documented in almost 50% of the patients with SpA. Areas covered: We give an overview of the classification, the epidemiology and the diagnosis of IBD and SpA. The treatment goals, the pharmacologic management options and the available treatment guidelines in IBD patients with SpA are discussed. Expert commentary: The coexistence of IBD and SpA generates challenges and opportunities for both the gastroenterologist and the rheumatologist. The potential of drugs with a gut-specific mode of action in the treatment of IBD-related arthritis warrants further exploration.

Use of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factors and Anti-Integrins in the Treatment of Crohn's Disease

In patients with Crohn's disease (CD), anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy is efficacious for the induction and maintenance of clinical remission, mucosal healing, reducing rates of surgery and hospitalizations, and improving health-related quality of life. The decision between anti-TNFs and anti-integrins as first-line treatment in CD depends on disease severity, safety concerns, and prescription coverage. Given the existing data on long-term outcomes and safety, anti-TNFs are often preferred to anti-integrins. Additional clinical experience and preferably prospective, head-to-head studies will be important to determine whether vedolizumab should be considered more often for first-line therapy in CD.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: comparative efficacy of biologics for induction and maintenance of mucosal healing in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Mucosal healing is an important therapeutic endpoint in the management of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Limited data exist regarding the comparative efficacy of various therapies in achieving this outcome.

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of biologics for induction and maintenance of mucosal healing in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCT) examining mucosal healing as an endpoint of immunosuppressives, anti-tumour necrosis factor α (anti-TNF) or anti-integrin monoclonal antibody therapy for moderate-to-severe CD or UC. Pooled effect sizes for induction and maintenance of mucosal healing were calculated and pairwise treatment comparisons evaluated using a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 12 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis (CD - 2 induction, 4 maintenance; UC - 8 induction, 5 maintenance). Duration of follow-up was 6-12 weeks for induction and 32-54 weeks for maintenance trials. In CD, anti-TNFs were more effective than placebo for maintaining mucosal healing [28% vs. 1%, Odds ratio (OR) 19.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.51-110.84]. In UC, anti-TNFs and anti-integrins were more effective than placebo for inducing (45% vs. 30%) and maintaining mucosal healing (33% vs. 18%). In network analysis, adalimumab therapy was inferior to infliximab [OR 0.45, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.25-0.82] and combination infliximab-azathioprine (OR 0.32, 95% CrI 0.12-0.84) for inducing mucosal healing in UC. There was no statistically significant pairwise difference between vedolizumab and anti-TNF agents in UC.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-TNF and anti-integrin biological agents are effective in inducing mucosal healing in UC, with adalimumab being inferior to infliximab or combination therapy. Infliximab and adalimumab were similar in CD.

Risk for Overall Infection with Anti-TNF and Anti-integrin Agents Used in IBD: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The overall risk for infection with contemporary biological agents in treating Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) has not been systematically assessed.

METHODS

We performed a PubMed and Cochrane database literature search to evaluate randomized, placebo-controlled trials of biologics in treating UC and CD. Meta-analysis was performed using a DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. We determined relative risk (RR) of harm against placebo; number needed to harm (NNH) was reported when appropriate. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials (6 UC and 8 CD) evaluating 5107 patients were included. For anti-tumor necrosis factor agents used in the treatment of UC, golimumab {NNH of 9.3, RR = 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.8)} and pooled studies of infliximab and adalimumab (NNH = 17.2, RR = 1.2 [95% CI, 1.0-1.3]) had a statistically significant higher risk for any infection versus placebo. Risk was not significantly increased in anti-tumor necrosis factor trials in CD (RR = 1.1 [95% CI, 0.8-1.5]). By contrast, anti-integrin agents in UC (RR = 1.0 [95% CI, 0.9-1.2]) or CD (RR = 1.1 [95% CI, 0.97-1.3]) did not confer a statistically significant excess risk of infection versus placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy but not anti-integrin therapy is associated with a greater infection risk than placebo in treating UC. Neither class of therapy is associated with increased infection risk over placebo in treating CD. Our findings can help guide patient-centered discussions regarding the risk for infection with biological agents.

Factors Associated with Discontinuation of Anti-TNF Inhibitors Among Persons with IBD: A Population-Based Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) medications are known to be highly efficacious in persons with moderate-to-severe inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). There is a paucity of data from population-based sources to elucidate persistence with these medications in the general population of IBD. Discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy is a marker of lack of effectiveness, intolerance, and patient/physician practice preferences.

METHODS

We identified all persons with IBD in Manitoba who were dispensed infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADA) between 2001 and 2014. Subjects were followed longitudinally to assess rates of completion of anti-TNF induction, duration of continued use, intraclass substitution, and dose adjustments. Cox proportional hazards models were used to test demographic and clinical factors associated with anti-TNF therapy discontinuation.

RESULTS

Overall, 925 of 8651 persons (10.7%) with IBD were prescribed an anti-TNF drug (705 Crohn's disease: 523 IFX and 182 ADA; 220 ulcerative colitis: 214 IFX and 6 ADA). Approximately four-fifths of persons starting on anti-TNF therapy completed induction. At 1 and 5 years, persistence rates with the original anti-TNF were approximately 60% and 40%, respectively. Immunomodulator use at the time of anti-TNF dispensation was associated with a decreased likelihood of anti-TNF discontinuation in both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. ADA users with Crohn's disease who reached maintenance phase had a higher risk of discontinuation than IFX users (hazard ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 1.15-2.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately two-fifths of anti-TNF users discontinue use within 1 year of initiation, and three-fifths will have discontinued at 5 years. Concomitant IM therapy has a modest effect on discontinuation rates.

Obesity in IBD: epidemiology, pathogenesis, disease course and treatment outcomes

Incidence of IBD is rising in parallel with overweight and obesity. Contrary to conventional belief, about 15-40% of patients with IBD are obese, which might contribute to the development of IBD. Findings from cross-sectional and retrospective cohort studies are conflicting on the effect of obesity on natural history and course of IBD. Most studies are limited by small sample size, low event rates, non-validated assessment of disease activity and lack robust longitudinal follow-up and have incomplete adjustment for confounding factors. The effect of obesity on the efficacy of IBD-related therapy remains to be studied, though data from other autoimmune diseases suggests that obesity results in suboptimal response to therapy, potentially by promoting rapid clearance of biologic agents leading to low trough concentrations. These data provide a rationale for using weight loss interventions as adjunctive therapy in patients with IBD who are obese. Obesity also makes colorectal surgery technically challenging and might increase the risk of perioperative complications. In this Review, we highlight the existing literature on the epidemiology of obesity in IBD, discuss its plausible role in disease pathogenesis and effect on disease course and treatment response, and identify high-priority areas of future research.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: comparative efficacy of immunosuppressants and biologics for reducing hospitalisation and surgery in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis

INTRODUCTION

Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) have a progressive course leading to hospitalisation and surgery. The ability of existing therapies to alter disease course is not clearly defined.

AIM

To investigate the comparative efficacy of currently available inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapies to reduce hospitalisation and surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in MEDLINE/PubMed for randomised controlled trials (RCT) published between January 1980 and May 2016 examining efficacy of biological or immunomodulator therapy in IBD. We performed direct comparisons of pooled proportions of hospitalisation and surgery. Pair-wise comparisons using a random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed to assess comparative efficacy of different treatments.

RESULTS

We identified seven randomised controlled trials (5 CD; 2 UC) comparing three biologics and one immunomodulator with placebo. In CD, anti-TNF biologics significantly reduced hospitalisation [Odds ratio (OR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.60] and surgery (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.13-0.42) compared to placebo. No statistically significant reduction was noted with azathioprine or vedolizumab. Azathioprine was inferior to both infliximab and adalimumab in preventing CD-related hospitalisation (>97.5% probability). Anti-TNF biologics significantly reduced hospitalisation (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.80) and surgery (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.97) in UC. There were no statistically significant differences in the pair-wise comparisons between active treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

In CD and UC, anti-TNF biologics are efficacious in reducing the odds of hospitalisation by half and surgery by 33-77%. Azathioprine and vedolizumab were not associated with a similar improvement, but robust conclusions may be limited due to paucity of RCTs.

Efficacy of Adalimumab in Korean Patients with Crohn's Disease

Background/Aims

Adalimumab is effective for both remission induction and the maintenance of Crohn’s disease (CD) in Western countries. We evaluated the efficacy of adalim-umab in the conventional step-up treatment approach for CD in Korea.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 62 patients with CD who were treated with adalimumab. Their Crohn’s disease activity index (CDAI) was measured at weeks 4, 8, and 52. Clinical remission was defined as a CDAI score <150. Induction and maintenance outcomes were analyzed.

Results

Forty-one patients (66.1%) achieved a reduction of 70 CDAI points at week 8. Among them, 28 (45.2%) achieved clinical remission at week 8, 20 (32.3%) maintained remission at week 52. The absence of prior anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy and Montreal classification L1 at baseline predicted clinical remission at week 8 in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. In the Cox proportional hazards model, the hazard ratio for the secondary loss of response during maintenance therapy after clinical remission induction was significantly higher in patients who showed initial mild CDAI severity or Montreal classification A3.

Conclusions

In our study, anti-TNF therapy-naive and Montreal classification L1 were associated with adalimumab efficacy as induction therapy in CD. Further studies are warranted to determine the prognostic factors for the long-term response after adalimumab therapy.

Anti-IL-12/23p40 antibodies for induction of remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Ustekinumab (CNTO 1275) and briakinumab (ABT-874) are monoclonal antibodies that target the standard p40 subunit of the cytokines interleukin-12 and interleukin-23 (IL-12/23p40), which are involved in the pathogenesis of Crohn's disease.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to assess the efficacy and safety of anti-IL-12/23p40 antibodies for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to 12 September 2016: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL). References and conference abstracts were searched to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) trials in which monoclonal antibodies against IL-12/23p40 were compared to placebo or another active comparator in patients with active Crohn's disease were included.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened  studies for inclusion and extracted data. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was failure to induce clinical remission, defined as a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) of < 150 points. Secondary outcomes included failure to induce clinical improvement, adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Clinical improvement was defined as decreases of > 70 or > 100 points in the CDAI from baseline. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs (n = 2324 patients) met the inclusion criteria. A low risk of bias was assigned to all studies. The two briakinumab trials were not pooled due to differences in doses and time points for analysis. In both studies there was no statistically significant difference in remission rates. One study (n = 79) compared doses of 1 mg/kg and 3 mg/kg to placebo. In the briakinumab group 70% (44/63) of patients failed to enter clinical remission at 6 or 9 weeks compared to 81% (13/16) of placebo patients (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences by dose. The other briakinumab study (n = 230) compared intravenous doses of 200 mg, 400 mg and 700 mg with placebo. Eighty-four per cent (154/184) of briakinumab patients failed to enter clinical remission at six weeks compared to 91% (42/46) of placebo patients (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.03). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences by dose. GRADE analyses of the briakinumab studies rated the overall quality of the evidence for the outcome clinical remission as low. Based on the results of these two studies the manufacturers of briakinumab stopped production of this medication. The ustekinumab studies were pooled despite differences in intravenous doses (i.e. 1mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, 4.5 mg/kg, and 6 mg/kg), however the subcutaneous dose group was not included in the analysis, as it was unclear if subcutaneous was equivalent to intravenous dosing. There was a statistically significant difference in remission rates. At week six, 84% (764/914) of ustekinumab patients failed to enter remission compared to 90% (367/406) of placebo patients (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.96; 3 studies; high-quality evidence). Subgroup analysis showed a statistically significant difference for the 6.0 mg/kg dose group (moderate-quality evidence). There were statistically significant differences in clinical improvement between ustekinumab and placebo-treated patients. In the ustekinumab group, 55% (502/914) of patients failed to improve clinically (i.e. 70-point decline in CDAI score), compared to 71% (287/406) of placebo patients (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.85; 3 studies). Subgroup analysis revealed significant differences compared to placebo for the 1 mg/kg, 4.5 mg/kg and 6 mg/kg dosage subgroups. Similarly for a 100-point decline in CDAI, 64% (588/914) of patients in the ustekinumab group failed to improve clinically compared to 78% (318/406) of placebo patients (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.88; 3 studies; high-quality evidence). Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference compared to placebo for the 4.5 mg/kg and 6.0 mg/kg (high-quality evidence) dose groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events, serious adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events. Sixty-two per cent (860/1386) of ustekinumab patients developed at least one adverse event compared to 64% (407/637) of placebo patients (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04; 4 studies; high-quality evidence). Five per cent (75/1386) of ustekinumab patients had a serious adverse event compared to 6% (41/637) of placebo patients (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.20; 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The most common adverse events in briakinumab patients were injection site reactions and infections. Infections were the most common adverse event in ustekinumab patients. Worsening of Crohn's disease and serious infections were the most common serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High quality evidence suggests that ustekinumab is effective for induction of clinical remission and clinical improvement in patients with moderate to severe Crohn's disease. Moderate to high quality evidence suggests that the optimal dosage of ustekinumab is 6 mg/kg. Briakinumab and ustekinumab appear to be safe. Moderate quality evidence suggests no increased risk of serious adverse events. Future studies are required to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in patients with moderate to severe Crohn's disease.

Top-down Versus Step-up Prescribing Strategies for Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Inhibitors in Children and Young Adults with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Early initiation of tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor (TNFI) therapy for children and young adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is not well described.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children and young adults (≤24 yr) newly diagnosed with IBD using health insurance claims from 2009 to 2013. The conventional "step-up" approach was defined as TNFI initiation >30 days after first IBD medication prescription, whereas the "top-down" approach was defined as new TNFI prescription within 30 days of first IBD medication prescription. Switching rates, time to initiation, discontinuation, and adherence to TNFIs were compared between the 2 strategies.

RESULTS

A total of 11,962 IBD patients were identified. Among 3300 TNFI users, 1298 (39.3%) were treated with the top-down approach, whereas 2002 (60.7%) were treated with the step-up approach. Top-down approach use increased from 31.4% to 49.8% during the 5-year period, and under this approach, most patients were treated with TNFIs alone. Time to TNFI initiation was shorter for patients diagnosed in more recent years. Patients treated with the top-down strategy had lower rates of corticosteroid use (32.5% versus 94.2%) compared with step-up treatment but presented a higher rate of TNFI discontinuation. The 2 strategies both exhibited high adherence (mean proportion of days covered: 83.7%-95.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Early TNFI initiation increased over time for children and young adults with IBD and was related to lower rates of corticosteroid use compared with the conventional approach. However, the higher rate of TNFI discontinuation under the top-down approach requires further examination.

Biologic Therapies and Risk of Infection and Malignancy in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Safety issues are a major concern for patients considering treatments for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether biologic agents affect the risk of infection or malignancy in adults with IBD.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov through March 2016 for randomized placebo-controlled or head-to-head trials of biologic agents approved for treatment of adults with IBD (ie, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, infliximab, natalizumab, or vedolizumab). Two reviewers independently extracted study data and outcomes (serious infections, opportunistic infections, tuberculosis, any infection, and malignancies) and rated each trial's risk of bias. We used conventional meta-analysis to synthesize direct evidence and a network meta-analysis for adjusted indirect treatment comparisons.

RESULTS

We identified 49 randomized placebo-controlled studies comprising 14,590 participants. Synthesis of the evidence indicated that patients treated with biologics had a moderate increase in risk of any infection (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.29) and a significant increase in risk of opportunistic infections (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.21-3.01). Risk of serious infections was not increased in patients treated with biologics (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.12). On the contrary, biologics appeared to significantly reduce risk of serious infections in studies with low risk of bias (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.90). We did not find an increased risk of malignancy with use of biologic agents (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.50), but data were insufficient in terms of exposure and follow-up times. None of the indirect comparisons, either among the individual agents or between the anti-tumor necrosis factor and anti-integrin classes, reached significance for any of the outcomes analyzed.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of a systematic review and meta-analysis, biologic agents increase the risk of opportunistic infections in patients with IBD, but not the risk of serious infections. It is necessary to continue to monitor the comparative and long-term safety profiles of these drugs.

Vedolizumab Compared with Certolizumab in the Therapy of Crohn Disease: A Systematic Review and Indirect Comparison

OBJECTIVES

The increasing prevalence of Crohn disease (CD) underscores the need to identify new effective drugs, which is particularly important for patients who do not respond or do not tolerate standard biologic therapies. The purpose of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab and certolizumab pegol in patients with active moderate to severe CD.

METHODS

This analysis was prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic literature search of Medline (PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted through March 5, 2016. Studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled patients treated for CD with vedolizumab or certolizumab pegol. All studies were critically appraised; indirect comparison was performed with the Bucher method.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were identified, and four were homogeneous enough to be included in the indirect comparison of the induction phase of treatment. No statistically significant differences were found in clinical response (relative risk [RR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.88) or remission (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.89-2.07) between vedolizumab and certolizumab pegol in the overall population. Similar nonstatistically significant differences in response and remission were noted in a subgroup analysis of anti-tumor necrosis factor-naive patients (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.72-1.66 and RR 1.98, 95% CI 0.95-4.11, respectively). In addition, there were no statistically significant differences in safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

This indirect comparison analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences in efficacy and safety between vedolizumab and certolizumab pegol.

The Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Vedolizumab for Moderate-Severe Crohn's Disease: Results From the US VICTORY Consortium

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the real-world effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab (VDZ) in moderate-severe Crohn's disease (CD).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of seven medical centers, from May 2014 to December 2015. Adults with moderate-severe CD treated with VDZ, with follow-up after initiation of therapy, were included. Using the multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, we identified independent predictors of clinical remission or mucosal healing with VDZ. Rates of serious infection (requiring antibiotics, resulting in discontinuation of VDZ, hospitalization or death) and serious adverse events (discontinuation of VDZ, hospitalization or death) were described quantitatively.

RESULTS

We included 212 patients with moderate-severe CD (median age 34 years; 40% male; 90% tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-antagonist exposed) with a median follow-up (IQR) of 39 weeks (25-53). Twelve-month cumulative rates of clinical remission, mucosal healing, and deep remission (clinical remission+mucosal healing) were 35%, 63%, and 26%, respectively. Individuals with prior TNF-antagonist exposure (hazard ratio (HR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20-0.81), smoking history (HR 0.47; 95% CI: 0.25-0.89), active perianal disease (HR 0.49; 95% CI: 0.27-0.88), and severe disease activity (HR 0.54; 95% CI: 0.31-0.95) were less likely to achieve clinical remission. Those with prior TNF-antagonist exposure (HR 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73), and severe disease activity (HR 0.54; 95% CI: 0.31-0.95) were less likely to achieve mucosal healing. During 160 patient years of follow-up (PYF) and 1,433 VDZ infusions, 5 patients developed infusion reactions (3.5 per 1,000 infusions), 21 developed serious infections (13 per 100 PYF), and 17 developed serious adverse events (10 per 100 PYF). A minority of adverse events required discontinuation of therapy (6 per 100 PYF).

CONCLUSIONS

VDZ is a safe and effective treatment option for moderate-severe CD in routine practice. Clinical remission and deep remission (clinical remission and mucosal healing) can be achieved in 1/3 of individuals, and a minority of individuals require discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Agents in Biologic-Naive Patients With Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Inhibitors of tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF agents) are the most effective therapy for Crohn's disease (CD). We evaluated the real-world comparative effectiveness and safety of different anti-TNF agents (infliximab, adalimumab, and certolizumab pegol) in biologic-naive patients with CD in a retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study using a national administrative claims database (Optum Labs Data Warehouse).

METHODS

We identified 3205 biologic-naive patients with CD (mean age, 41 ± 15 years; 45% male; median follow-up period after anti-TNF therapy, 19 months; 44.5% on infliximab and 38.9% on adalimumab) who received their first prescription for an anti-TNF agent (infliximab, adalimumab, or certolizumab pegol) after a 12-month period without any anti-TNF treatment (baseline), and with a minimum follow-up period of 6 months after their initial anti-TNF prescription, between 2006 and 2014. The primary outcomes were all-cause and CD-related hospitalization, abdominal surgery, corticosteroid use, and serious infections. We performed a propensity-matched, Cox proportional hazards analysis, accounting for baseline demographics, health care use, comorbidities, and use of CD-related medication.

RESULTS

Compared with adalimumab-treated patients, infliximab-treated patients had a lower risk of CD-related hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.98), abdominal surgery (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58-0.99), and corticosteroid use (aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96). Compared with certolizumab pegol-treated patients, infliximab-treated patients had a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.95) and CD-related hospitalization (aHR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.90). Adalimumab-treated patients had outcomes comparable with those of certolizumab pegol-treated patients. All agents had comparable risk of serious infections.

CONCLUSIONS

In a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of biologic-naive patients with CD, we found infliximab to be superior to adalimumab and certolizumab pegol for patient-relevant outcomes, without increased risk of serious infections.

Safety profile of biologic drugs in the therapy of Crohn disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Crohn disease (CD) is an inflammatory bowel disease which occurs especially in developed countries of Western Europe and North America. The aim of the study was to compare the safety profile of biologic drugs in patients with CD.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases, until April 27, 2016. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the safety of biologic drugs (infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, certolizumab pegol, and ustekinumab) with one another or with placebo in patients with CD. The network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted for an induction phase (6-10 weeks) and maintenance phase (52-56 weeks) with a Bayesian hierarchical random effects model in the ADDIS^® software. The PROSPERO registration number was CRD42016032606.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs were included in the systematic review with NMA. In the case of the induction phase, the NMA could be conducted for the assessment of the relative safety profile of adalimumab, vedolizumab, certolizumab pegol, and ustekinumab, and in the case of the maintenance phase-of infliximab, adalimumab, and vedolizumab. There were no significant differences in the rate of adverse events in patients treated with biologics. Statistical analysis revealed that vedolizumab had the greatest probability of being the safest treatment in most endpoints in the induction phase and adalimumab-in the maintenance phase.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences between the biologics in the relative safety profile analysis were observed. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings, including head-to-head comparisons between the analyzed biologics.

Considerations, challenges and future of anti-TNF therapy in treating inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are chronic disabling conditions. Monoclonal antibody therapy directed against tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) has revolutionized the care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

AREAS COVERED

Considerations before starting anti-TNF therapy are highlighted: the best time to start with anti-TNF therapy, either alone or in combination with an immunomodulator, the choice of an anti-TNF agent and the contra-indications to anti-TNF therapy. Primary nonresponse and secondary loss of response are discussed. De-escalating therapy, the role of therapeutic drug monitoring and the use of biosimilars, are handled. Finally, the future directions of anti-TNF therapy are emphasized.

EXPERT OPINION

Anti-TNF therapy remains the cornerstone in the treatment of IBD. When initiating long-term therapy, safety and cost issues are of great importance. The therapeutic armamentarium in the treatment of IBD is rapidly growing. Therefore, the challenge is to optimize the use and refine the exact position of anti-TNF therapy in the near future, with personalized medicine as the ultimate goal.

Update on the Medical Management of Crohn's Disease

The medical management of Crohn's disease is a rapidly evolving field with expanding therapeutic drug options and treatment strategies. In addition to corticosteroids, immunomodulators, and anti-tumor necrosis (anti-TNF) agents, a new anti-adhesion medication (vedolizumab) has been approved. Individualized patient-based dosing of immunomodulators and biologic agents is now possible with therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). There is a changing paradigm in treatment goals to achieve deeper remission identified by composite clinical and endoscopic endpoints. More aggressive treatment strategies in the postoperative setting have been proposed due to emerging data on medication efficacy in this setting. Management algorithms that stratify CD patients into risk groups to balance treatment benefit against adverse events and costs are being developed to translate research into clinical practice. This review provides an update on these new developments for practicing gastroenterologists.