Real-world Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Vedolizumab and Adalimumab in Biologic-naive Patients With Crohn's Disease: Results From the EVOLVE Study

GOALS

This study evaluated the real-world effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab versus adalimumab over 12 months of treatment in biologic-naive patients with Crohn's disease (CD), using data from the EVOLVE study.

BACKGROUND

A comparison of vedolizumab and adalimumab may help to better position them in the therapeutic algorithm for moderate-to-severe CD.

STUDY

Data were collected from medical records of patients with CD aged ≥18 years initiating treatment with adalimumab or vedolizumab between May 2014 and July 2017. Adjusted analyses were performed using inverse probability weighting to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Cumulative rates for clinical effectiveness outcomes and treatment persistence were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Disease-related exacerbations, serious adverse events (SAEs), and serious infections (SIs) were also assessed.

RESULTS

Data from 218 vedolizumab- and 144 adalimumab-treated patients were analyzed. Adjusted cumulative rates of clinical remission were greater with vedolizumab than with adalimumab (66.3% vs. 46.4%; P=0.006). Probability of treatment persistence was higher with vedolizumab (89.3% vs. 77.5%; P=0.024); probabilities of clinical response (68.5% vs. 61.1%; P=0.586) and mucosal healing (67.7% vs. 56.0%; P=0.562) were similar. SAEs were less likely to occur with vedolizumab [hazard ratio, 0.45 (95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.93)]; however, the likelihood of SIs [0.27 (0.06-1.20)], CD exacerbations [0.91 (0.56-1.47)], and CD-related surgeries [1.55 (0.21-11.15)] was comparable between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting, biologic-naive patients with CD treated with vedolizumab demonstrated a greater likelihood of drug persistence and achieving clinical remission, with equivalent rates of response and mucosal healing versus adalimumab-treated patients.

Acute interstitial nephritis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with vedolizumab: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Acute interstitial nephritis (AIN) is a complication of drugs that may cause permanent kidney injury. AIN has been reported in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with the integrin inhibitor vedolizumab. Through systematic review of existing literature, we aimed to identify and describe cases of AIN in patients with IBD treated with vedolizumab.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science Core Collection between 1 January 2009 and 25 April 2023. The search yielded 1473 publications. Titles and abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers. Seventy publications were reviewed in full-text. Eight met the inclusion criteria. Clinical characteristics of AIN cases were extracted. Case causality assessment was performed according to two international adverse drug reaction probability assessment scales. Results were reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Nine biopsy-confirmed cases of AIN were reported in six patients with ulcerative colitis and three with Crohn's disease. Mean age at AIN onset was 36 years (range = 19-58) and the majority of patients were females (n = 6/9). Time from vedolizumab treatment initiation to AIN onset spanned from hours to 12 months. Common symptoms were fever and malaise. Creatinine levels were elevated in all patients. Five patients sustained permanent kidney injury.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that vedolizumab, although rarely, could cause AIN in patients with IBD. Awareness of laboratory findings and symptoms consistent with AIN, along with monitoring of the kidney function, could be warranted in patients with IBD treated with vedolizumab.

Effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab and infliximab in biologic-naive patients with Crohn's disease: results from the EVOLVE study

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the real-world effectiveness and safety of α 4 β 7 -integrin inhibitor vedolizumab and anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFα) inhibitor infliximab in biologic-naive patients with Crohn's disease (CD).

METHODS

EVOLVE was a retrospective, multicenter, medical chart review of biologic-naive adults with inflammatory bowel disease receiving vedolizumab or anti-TNFα treatment as first-line biologics in Canada, Greece, and the USA. Twelve-month outcomes were analyzed in vedolizumab- or infliximab-treated patients with moderate-to-severe CD (and subgroups with complicated and noncomplicated CD) including cumulative rates of clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing, and incidence rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) and serious infections (SIs). Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to account for baseline differences between treatment groups.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed from 167 patients. In the IPW dataset (99 vedolizumab-treated and 63 infliximab-treated), adjusted 12-month clinical remission rates were 73.1% and 55.2%, respectively ( P  = 0.31). Overall, effectiveness rates were similar across treatment and complicated/noncomplicated disease subgroups. Adjusted 12-month incidence rates (first occurrence/1000 person-years) of SAEs for vedolizumab vs. infliximab: 43.6 vs. 200.9 [hazard ratio (HR) 0.36 (0.09-1.54)]; SIs: 10.8 vs. 96.0 [HR 0.08 (<0.01-2.64)]. AE incidence was significantly lower in vedolizumab- vs. infliximab-treated patients for complicated [131.6 vs. 732.2; HR 0.19 (0.05-0.65)] and noncomplicated [276.3 vs. 494.8; HR 0.59 (0.35-0.99)] disease subgroups.

CONCLUSION

These real-world data on first-line biologics show no differences in 12-month effectiveness outcomes for vedolizumab- vs. infliximab-treated biologic-naive patients with CD. Vedolizumab may have a more favorable safety profile vs. infliximab in patients with complicated and noncomplicated disease.

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

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

Vedolizumab is superior to infliximab in biologic naïve patients with ulcerative colitis

There are no prospective, head-to-head, controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of Infliximab (IFX) and Vedolizumab (VDZ) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC), while only a few real-life retrospective studies have been published so far. We assessed the efficacy of IFX vs. VDZ in two cohorts of biologic-naïve outpatients with moderate-to-severe UC or mild, but refractory, disease. Data were extracted from patients' files and reviewed. The duration of follow-up (FU) was 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was the clinical remission (CR) at the end of FU. Secondary endpoints were: drug persistency, time to obtain CR, clinical response at the end of the induction phase (IP), steroid-free CR (compared to patients who used steroids at baseline) at the end of FU, need for drug optimization, adverse events (AEs), and normalization of C-reactive protein (CRP). We also analyzed the causes of dropping out (primary non-response), or secondary loss of response (immunogenic or not), for each group. We enrolled 82 patients (50 IFX and 32 VDZ) who met the inclusion criteria. At the end of FU, CR was obtained in 32% of the patients on IFX and 75% on VDZ (p = 0.0003). Drug persistency was superior for VDZ compared to IFX (78% vs. 52%, p = 0.033). Clinical response at the end of induction was reached in 54% and in 81% in the IFX and VDZ group, respectively (p = 0.014). Steroid-free clinical remission at the end of FU was 62% and 94% in the IFX vs. VDZ group, respectively (p = 0.036). The need for drug optimization was higher for VDZ than for IFX (28% vs. 57%, p = 0.009), while the time to obtain CR, the incidence of AEs, mean duration of FU, and rate of CRP normalization at the end of IP were comparable between the two groups. There was a prevalence of patients dropping out because of primary non-response in IFX group (p = 0.027), while the incidence of secondary loss of response was similar in the two groups. At the multivariate analysis, CRP and Partial Mayo Score (PMS) at T0 did not correlate with CR at the end of FU in both groups. In this retrospective, real world data study in biologic-naïve patients, VDZ was superior to IFX in CR, clinical response rate at the end of IP, drug persistency, steroid-free remission, and need for optimization at the end of FU.

Comparative Long-Term Drug Survival of Vedolizumab, Adalimumab, and Infliximab in Biologic-Naïve Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

The comparative long-term survival of first-line biologics for UC and reasons for drug discontinuation are poorly understood. We sought to compare the long-term drug survival related to non-response (NR) and adverse effects (AEs) for vedolizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab among biologic-naïve patients with UC.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of adult biologic-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe UC initiating vedolizumab, adalimumab, or infliximab 6/1/14-12/31/20 at a large academic medical center. The primary outcome was time to biologic discontinuation for primary or secondary NR (including colectomy). The secondary outcome was time to biologic discontinuation due to AEs. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted (IPTW) Cox regression was used to perform three pair-wise comparisons of drug survival.

RESULTS

The cohort included 805 patients with UC who initiated vedolizumab (n = 195), adalimumab (n = 278), or infliximab (n = 332). The adjusted hazard of biologic discontinuation for NR was significantly lower for vedolizumab vs adalimumab (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.75), similar for vedolizumab vs infliximab (HR 1.32, 95% CI 0.79-2.18), and greater for adalimumab vs infliximab (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.51-2.86). The adjusted hazard of discontinuation for AEs was significantly lower for vedolizumab vs adalimumab (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.64), lower for vedolizumab vs infliximab (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10-0.46), and similar for adalimumab vs infliximab (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53-1.35).

CONCLUSIONS

There was greater survival of vedolizumab compared to adalimumab for clinical response and greater survival of vedolizumab compared to both adalimumab and infliximab for AEs. These long-term data support the use of vedolizumab as a first-line biologic over adalimumab for biologic-naïve patients with UC.

Comparative efficacy and safety of infliximab and vedolizumab therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aims

There are limited comparative data for infliximab and vedolizumab in inflammatory bowel disease patients.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of infliximab and vedolizumab in adult patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis.

Results

We identified six eligible Crohn’s disease and seven eligible ulcerative colitis trials that randomised over 1900 participants per disease cohort to infliximab or vedolizumab. In the Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis cohorts, infliximab yielded better efficacy than vedolizumab for all analysed outcomes (CDAI-70, CDAI-100 responses, and clinical remission for Crohn’s disease and clinical response and clinical remission for ulcerative colitis) during the induction phase, with non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals. In the maintenance phase, similar proportions of infliximab- or vedolizumab-treated patients achieved clinical response, clinical remission, or mucosal healing in both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. For the safety outcomes, rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, and discontinuations due to adverse events were similar in infliximab- and vedolizumab-treated patients in both diseases. The infection rate was higher in infliximab for Crohn’s disease and higher in vedolizumab when treating patients with ulcerative colitis. There was no difference between the treatments in the proportions of patients who reported serious infections in both indications.

Conclusions

Indirect comparison of infliximab and vedolizumab trials in adult patients with moderate-to severe Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis demonstrated that infliximab has better efficacy in the induction phase and comparable efficacy during the maintenance phase and overall safety profile compared to vedolizumab.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-022-02347-1.

Is There a Best First Line Biological/Small Molecule in IBD: Are We Ready for Sequencing?

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic, life-long inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal tract. Treatment strategy depends on the severity of the disease course. IBD physicians need to be aware of the life-long treatment options available. The goal is not only to achieve clinical remission but to halt or stabilize the chronic inflammation in the intestines to prevent further structural damage. Therefore, the use of early biologic therapy is recommended in moderate-to-severe IBD patients. However, in the last decade, use of therapeutic drug monitoring has increased considerably, opening an opportunity for sequencing. This review summarizes the available evidence on biologic and small molecules therapy in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in different clinical scenarios, including perianal CD, the elderly, extra intestinal manifestations, and pregnancy.

How to Choose the Biologic Therapy in a Bio-Naïve Patient with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The availability of biologic therapies in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasing significantly. This represents more options to treat patients, but also more difficulties in choosing the therapies, especially in the context of bio-naïve patients. Most evidence of safety and efficacy came from clinical trials comparing biologics with placebo, with a lack of head-to-head studies. Network meta-analysis of biologics and real-world studies have been developed to solve this problem. Despite the results of these studies, there are also other important factors to consider before choosing the biologic, such as patient preferences, comorbidities, genetics, and inflammatory markers. Given that resources are limited, another important aspect is the cost of biologic therapy, since biosimilars are widely available and have been demonstrated to be effective with a significant decrease in costs. In this review, we summarize the evidence comparing biologic therapy in both Crohn´s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in different clinical situations. We also briefly synthesize the evidence related to predictors of biologic response, as well as the biologic use in extraintestinal manifestations and the importance of the drug-related costs.

Comparative effectiveness of a second-line biologic in patients with ulcerative colitis: vedolizumab followed by an anti-TNF versus anti-TNF followed by vedolizumab

BACKGROUND

Sequential drug treatment with biological agents in ulcerative colitis (UC) is becoming increasingly complex. There are few studies comparing head-to-head outcomes in second-line treatments. The study assesses whether using anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF)-α therapy following the α4β7 integrin blocker vedolizumab (VDZ) or VDZ after an anti-TNF has more favourable clinical outcomes in UC in a real-world outpatient setting.

METHODS

Patients with UC who were exposed to first-line anti-TNF (adalimumab or infliximab) or VDZ who subsequently switched to the alternate class between May 2013 and August 2020 were identified by reviewing patient databases at 10 hospitals. Data were collected retrospectively using patient records. Baseline demographics, disease activity indices, biochemical markers, endoscopic Mayo score, colectomy rates, treatment persistence and urgent hospital utilisation composite endpoint (UHUC) rates were examined over a 52-week period.

RESULTS

Second-line week 52 treatment persistence was higher in the VDZ group (71/81, 89%) versus the anti-TNF group (15/34, 44%; p=0.0001), as were week 52 colectomy-free survival (VDZ: 77/80, 96%, vs anti-TNF: 26/32, 81%; p=0.009), week 52 UHUC survival (VDZ: 68/84, 81%, vs anti-TNF: 20/34, 59%; p=0.002) and week 52 corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CFCR) rates (VDZ: 22/34, 65%, vs anti-TNF: 4/20, 20%; p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with second-line anti TNF usage, the VDZ second-line cohort had significantly higher 52-week treatment persistence, UHUC survival, higher colectomy-free survival rates and higher week 52 CFCR. These data suggest that VDZ is an effective biologic in UC as a second-line therapy after anti-TNF exposure. It highlights the effect of biological order on clinically important outcomes.

Vedolizumab and Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor α Real-World Outcomes in Biologic-Naïve Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: Results from the EVOLVE Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study aimed to compare real-world clinical effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab, an α4β7-integrin inhibitor, and anti-tumour necrosis factor-α [anti-TNFα] agents in biologic-naïve ulcerative colitis [UC] and Crohn's disease [CD] patients.

METHODS

This was a 24-month retrospective medical chart study in adult UC and CD patients treated with vedolizumab or anti-TNFα in Canada, Greece and the USA. Inverse probability weighting was used to account for differences between groups. Primary outcomes were cumulative rates of clinical effectiveness [clinical response, clinical remission, mucosal healing] and incidence rates of serious adverse events [SAEs] and serious infections [SIs]. Secondary outcomes included cumulative rates of treatment persistence [patients who did not discontinue index treatment during follow-up] and dose escalation and incidence rates of disease exacerbations and disease-related surgeries. Adjusted analyses were performed using inverse probability weighting.

RESULTS

A total of 1095 patients [604 UC, 491 CD] were included. By 24 months, rates of clinical effectiveness were similar between groups, but incidence rates of SAEs (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.42 [0.28-0.62]) and SIs (HR = 0.40 [0.19-0.85]) were significantly lower in vedolizumab vs anti-TNFα patients. Rates of treatment persistence [p < 0.01] by 24 months were higher in vedolizumab patients with UC. Incidence rates of disease exacerbations were lower in vedolizumab patients with UC (HR = 0.58 [0.45-0.76]). Other outcomes did not significantly differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

In this real-world setting, first-line biologic therapy in biologic-naïve patients with UC and CD demonstrated that vedolizumab and anti-TNFα treatments were equally effective at controlling disease symptoms, but vedolizumab has a more favourable safety profile.

Irish data on the safety and efficacy of vedolizumab in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

This study reviews the safety and efficacy of treatment with vedolizumab for patients with inflammatory bowel disease across 9 Irish hospitals. It generates valuable and timely real-world data on treatment outcomes to add to the existing evidence base. Our population represents a refractory cohort with most patients previously exposed to at least one anti-TNFa agent and expressing an inflammatory phenotype. Results are reassuringly similar to larger international studies with additional insights into potential predictors of treatment response. This study further supports the safety and efficacy of vedolizumab in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Key SummaryVedolizumab has growing real world data on its safety and efficacy in the treatment of IBD. Data on predictors of response are lacking. Studies such as VARSITY require new real-world data to help identify the place VDZ will occupy in the treatment algorithm for IBDThis study provides national Irish data on the safety and efficacy of VDZ in the treatment of IBD. It gives insight into various predictors of response for both UC and CD. It strengthens the available body of evidence on the use of VDZ and helps us determine its position on the treatment algorithm.