Is infliximab effective for induction of remission in patients with ulcerative colitis?

Infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis after the failure of conventional therapy (including a review of TA140 and TA262): clinical effectiveness systematic review and economic model

BACKGROUND

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is the most common form of inflammatory bowel disease in the UK. UC can have a considerable impact on patients' quality of life. The burden for the NHS is substantial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of interventions, to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of all interventions and comparators (including medical and surgical options), to estimate the expected net budget impact of each intervention, and to identify key research priorities.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed publications, European Public Assessment Reports and manufacturers' submissions. The following databases were searched from inception to December 2013 for clinical effectiveness searches and from inception to January 2014 for cost-effectiveness searches for published and unpublished research evidence: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment database and NHS Economic Evaluation Database; ISI Web of Science, including Science Citation Index, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science and Bioscience Information Service Previews. The US Food and Drug Administration website and the European Medicines Agency website were also searched, as were research registers, conference proceedings and key journals.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review [including network meta-analysis (NMA)] was conducted to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of named interventions. The health economic analysis included a review of published economic evaluations and the development of a de novo model.

RESULTS

Ten randomised controlled trials were included in the systematic review. The trials suggest that adult patients receiving infliximab (IFX) [Remicade(®), Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd (MSD)], adalimumab (ADA) (Humira(®), AbbVie) or golimumab (GOL) (Simponi(®), MSD) were more likely to achieve clinical response and remission than those receiving placebo (PBO). Hospitalisation data were limited, but suggested more favourable outcomes for ADA- and IFX-treated patients. Data on the use of surgical intervention were sparse, with a potential benefit for intervention-treated patients. Data were available from one trial to support the use of IFX in paediatric patients. Safety issues identified included serious infections, malignancies and administration site reactions. Based on the NMA, in the induction phase, all biological treatments were associated with statistically significant beneficial effects relative to PBO, with the greatest effect associated with IFX. For patients in response following induction, all treatments except ADA and GOL 100 mg at 32-52 weeks were associated with beneficial effects when compared with PBO, although these were not significant. The greatest effects at 8-32 and 32-52 weeks were associated with 100 mg of GOL and 5 mg/kg of IFX, respectively. For patients in remission following induction, all treatments except ADA at 8-32 weeks and GOL 50 mg at 32-52 weeks were associated with beneficial effects when compared with PBO, although only the effect of ADA at 32-52 weeks was significant. The greatest effects were associated with GOL (at 8-32 weeks) and ADA (at 32-52 weeks). The economic analysis suggests that colectomy is expected to dominate drug therapies, but for some patients, colectomy may not be considered acceptable. In circumstances in which only drug options are considered, IFX and GOL are expected to be ruled out because of dominance, while the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ADA versus conventional treatment is approximately £50,300 per QALY gained.

LIMITATIONS

The health economic model is subject to several limitations: uncertainty associated with extrapolating trial data over a lifetime horizon, the model does not consider explicit sequential pathways of non-biological treatments, and evidence relating to complications of colectomy was identified through consideration of approaches used within previous models rather than a full systematic review.

CONCLUSIONS

Adult patients receiving IFX, ADA or GOL were more likely to achieve clinical response and remission than those receiving PBO. Further data are required to conclusively demonstrate the effect of interventions on hospitalisation and surgical outcomes. The economic analysis indicates that colectomy is expected to dominate medical treatments for moderate to severe UC.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

New aspects concerning ulcerative colitis and colonic carcinoma: analysis of levels of neuropeptides, neurotrophins, and TNFalpha/TNF receptor in plasma and mucosa in parallel with histological evaluation of the intestine

BACKGROUND

The levels of neuropeptides, neurotrophins, and TNFalpha (TNFalpha)/TNF receptor in plasma and mucosa for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and colonic carcinoma, and concerning plasma also for healthy controls, were examined. Moreover, the relationships between the different substances and the influence of mucosal derangement on the levels were analyzed.

METHODS

The levels of VIP, SP, CGRP, BDNF, NGF, and TNFalpha/TNF receptor 1 were measured using ELISA/EIA.

RESULTS

Patients with UC demonstrated the highest levels of all analyzed substances in plasma, with the exception of BDNF. However, there were differences within the UC group, patients treated with corticosteroids, and/or nonsteroid antiinflammatory/immunosuppressive treatment having higher plasma levels than those not given these treatments. Patients with colonic carcinoma showed higher SP and TNF receptor 1 levels in plasma compared to healthy controls. Concerning mucosa, the levels of almost all analyzed substances were elevated for patients with UC compared to noncancerous mucosa of colonic carcinoma patients. There were correlations between many of the substances in both plasma and mucosa, especially concerning the 3 neuropeptides examined. There were also marked associations with mucosa derangement.

CONCLUSIONS

Via analysis of correlations for the respective patients and via comparisons between the different patient groups, new and original information was obtained. Interestingly, the degree of mucosal affection was markedly correlated with tissue levels of the substances and the treatments were found to be of importance concerning plasma but not tissue levels of these. Combined plasma analysis of neuropeptides, neurotrophins, and TNF receptor 1 may help to distinguish UC and colonic carcinoma patients.

A meta-analysis of antibiotic therapy for active ulcerative colitis

To systematically evaluate the efficacy of antibacterial therapy in ulcerative colitis, we carried out a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Within the time period 1966 through September 2006, PUBMED, EMBASE, and SCOPUS were searched for clinical trial studies that investigated the efficacy of antibiotics in ulcerative colitis. We considered clinical remission as our key outcome of interest. Of 122 studies, 10 randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials matched our criteria and were included in the analysis (530 patients). All the studies used antibiotics as an adjunct therapy to conventional treatment of ulcerative colitis (i.e., corticosteroids and 5-aminosalycilic acid). Pooling of these trials yielded odds ratio (OR) of 2.14 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48-3.09; P<0.0001) in favor of antimicrobial therapy. Meta-analysis of short-term trials (5-14 days) showed a higher rate of clinical remission in patients treated with antibiotics (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.36-3). These results suggest that adjunctive antibacterial therapy is effective for induction of clinical remission in ulcerative colitis.

Differences in the incidence of flares or new onset of inflammatory bowel diseases in patients with ankylosing spondylitis exposed to therapy with anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha agents

OBJECTIVE

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are clinically and pathologically linked. Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents are efficacious in treating AS, but not all are equally effective in treating IBD (Crohn's disease [CD] and ulcerative colitis [UC]). The purpose our study was to analyze the incidence of flares and new onset of IBD in patients with AS treated with anti-TNF agents.

METHODS

Data from 9 trials, 7 placebo-controlled trials and 2 open studies, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Data were available on 419 AS patients exposed to etanercept (625 patient-years), 366 exposed to infliximab (618 patient-years), 295 exposed to adalimumab (132 patient-years), and 434 placebo patients (150 patient-years). A history of IBD was reported in 76 of 1,130 patients (6.7%). There were 2 reports of IBD while receiving placebo (1.3 per 100 patient-years), 1 while receiving infliximab, and 3 while receiving adalimumab. Among the 14 IBD cases receiving etanercept (2.2 per 100 patient-years) there were 8 CD and 6 UC cases, significantly different from infliximab (P = 0.01) but not from placebo. Patients with a history of IBD had an IBD flare odds ratio of 18.0 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2-154) while taking etanercept and 4.2 (95% CI 0.4-44) while taking adalimumab, in comparison with infliximab. The incidence rates of new onset of IBD showed no significant difference between etanercept (0.8 per 100 patient-years) and placebo (0.5 per 100 patient-years).

CONCLUSION

New onset and flare of IBD are infrequent events in AS patients receiving anti-TNF therapy. Infliximab (but not etanercept) largely prevents IBD activity. More data are required for adalimumab. The incidence of new onset of IBD was statistically not different from placebo for all anti-TNF agents.

Systematic review: Infliximab therapy in ulcerative colitis

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerance of infliximab in ulcerative colitis.

SELECTION OF STUDIES

evaluating efficacy of infliximab in ulcerative colitis. For the meta-analysis, randomized clinical trials comparing infliximab vs. placebo/steroids.

SEARCH STRATEGY

electronic and manual. Study quality: independently assessed by two reviewers.

DATA SYNTHESIS

meta-analysis combining the odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies (896 patients) evaluated infliximab therapy in UC, with heterogeneous results. Mean short-term (2.3 weeks) response and remission with infliximab was 68% (95% CI 65-71%) and 40% (36-44%). Mean long-term (8.9 months) response and remission was 53% (49-56%) and 39% (35-42%). Five randomized double-blind studies compared infliximab with placebo, the meta-analysis showing an advantage (P < 0.001) of infliximab in all endpoints (short-/long-term response/remission): ORs from 2.7 to 4.6, and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) from 3 to 5. Similar infliximab response was calculated independently of the indication (steroid-refractory/non-steroid-refractory) or the dose (5/10 mg/kg). Adverse effects were reported in 83% and 75% of the infliximab and placebo-treated patients (OR = 1.52; 95% CI 1.03-2.24; number-needed-to-harm (NNH) was 14).

CONCLUSION

Infliximab is more effective than placebo, with an NNT from 3 to 5, for the treatment of moderate-to-severe UC, achieving clinical remission in 40% of the patients at approximately 9 months of follow-up. Further studies are necessary to confirm the long-term efficacy of infliximab in ulcerative colitis.

Tumour necrosis factor alpha blocking agents for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Anti-TNF-alpha agents have been shown to be effective for the induction of remission in Crohn's disease. The role of TNF-alpha blocking agents in ulcerative colitis is, however, unclear and recent studies have yielded conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of TNF-alpha antibody for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis, and to determine adverse events associated with TNF-alpha antibody treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (1966 to 2005), EMBASE (1984 to 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 3, 2004) and the IBD/FBD Review Group Specialized Trials Register. We hand-searched the articles cited in each publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials in which patients with active ulcerative colitis (defined by a combination of clinical, radiographic, endoscopic and histologic criteria) were randomly allocated to receive a TNF-alpha blocking agent in the treatment arm, and to receive placebo or another treatment in the comparison arm were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality of each study were independently performed by two reviewers. Any disagreement among reviewers was resolved by consensus. The main outcome measure was the occurrence of remission as defined by the primary studies. Other endpoints were clinical, histological or endoscopic improvement as defined by the primary studies; improvement in quality of life as measured by a validated quality of life tool and the occurrence of adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven randomised controlled trials were identified that satisfied the inclusion criteria. In patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis whose disease was refractory to conventional treatment using corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressive agents, infliximab (three intravenous infusions at 0, 2, and 6 weeks) was more effective than placebo in inducing clinical remission (Relative Risk (RR) 3.22, 95% CI 2.18 to 4.76); inducing endoscopic remission (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.28); and in inducing clinical response (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.41) at 8 weeks. A single infusion of infliximab was also more effective than placebo in reducing the need for colectomy within 90 days after infusion (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.87).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis whose disease is refractory to conventional treatment using corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressive agents, infliximab is effective in inducing clinical remission, inducing clinical response, promoting mucosal healing, and reducing the need for colectomy at least in the short term. Serious adverse events attributable to infliximab were not common in the included studies but physicians should be aware of and be prepared to deal with potential adverse events such as anaphylactic reactions and infections.

Management of refractory ulcerative colitis

A physician's approach to patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who are refractory to standard first-line therapies must be thoughtful and systematic and include the individual's physical and emotional state as the physician examines the various dietary, medical, and surgical options currently available. It is of foremost importance to confirm that the refractory patient's symptoms are not simply due to dietary indiscretion, concomitant bowel infection (especially with Clostridium difficile), an incorrect diagnosis (eg, colitis due to infection, NSAIDs, ischemia, diverticulitis, or Crohn's disease), or even a concomitant diagnosis (eg, celiac sprue, pancreatic insufficiency, functional bowel disorder, laxative or sorbitol intake). The ability to quickly assess the status of the colonic mucosa with flexible sigmoidoscopy aids in the ability to distinguish patients with refractory inflammation from those with other diagnoses. The initiation and optimization of the long-term purine analogues azathioprine (AZA) or 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) remain the backbone of medical therapy for patients with refractory UC. For those unresponsive to corticosteroids, quicker induction of remission may necessitate infliximab, cyclosporine, or tacrolimus. Successful induction and maintenance with AZA, 6-MP, and/or infliximab should be followed by long-term therapy with these agents. Cessation of therapy often leads to relapse. Novel therapies under investigation hold the promise of offering more options for both the induction and maintenance of remission in refractory UC patients. Discussions of surgical intervention should not be put off as a last resort but rather included in the overall treatment plan offered to the patient.

Infliximab efficacy in pediatric ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

The effects of infliximab, a tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) antibody, have been well established in adult patients with inflammatory and fistulizing Crohn's disease. This study evaluates short- and long-term efficacy of infliximab in children with ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

All pediatric patients with ulcerative colitis who received infliximab between July 2001 and November 2003 at the Johns Hopkins Children's Center were identified. Short- and long-term outcomes and adverse reactions were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twelve pediatric patients with ulcerative colitis received infliximab for treatment of fulminant colitis (3 patients), acute exacerbation of colitis (3), steroid-dependent colitis (5), and steroid-refractory colitis (1). Nine patients had a complete short-term response, and 3 had partial improvement. The mean per patient dose of corticosteroid after the first infliximab infusion decreased from 45 mg/day at the first infusion to 22.2 mg/day at 4 weeks (P = 0.02) and 7.8 mg/day at 8 weeks (P = 0.008). Eight patients were classified as long-term responders with a median follow-up time of 10.4 months. Of the 4 long-term nonresponders, 3 underwent colectomy, and the fourth has ongoing chronic symptoms. Three of 4 long-term nonresponders were steroid-refractory compared with 1 of 8 long-term responders. Patients receiving 6-mercaptopurine had a better response to infliximab.

CONCLUSION

Infliximab should be considered in the treatment of children with symptoms of acute moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

Inflammatory bowel disease emergencies

Emergency complications of IBD are rare, but may be life-threatening, require surgery, and result in permanent end organ damage. The most common complications associated with UC are fulminant colitis, toxic megacolon, and bleeding. Each of these complications may resolve with aggressive medical therapy but often result in a total proctocolectomy. The most common complications associated with CD are abscesses and intestinal obstruction. Although initial treatment includes medical treatment, these Crohn's-related complications usually require a surgical intervention and intestinal resection. Finally, the most common extraintestinal manifestations that present as an emergency include thromboembolic events, ocular complications, and hepatobiliary disease. Some of these complications may parallel the course of the underlying disease and respond to IBD treatment, but thromboemboli, uveitis, and PSC do not. In the last decade there has been an explosion of knowledge and discovery into the pathogenesis of IBD. These findings have led to better and earlier treatment of IBD that it is hoped will alter the natural course of disease and prevent many of the complications outlined in this article.

Biologic therapies in the spondyloarthritis: new opportunities, new challenges

Therapeutic options for patients suffering from the more severe forms of spondyloarthritis have been rather limited in the last decades. There is now accumulating evidence that antitumor necrosis factor therapy is highly effective in spondyloarthritis, especially in ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. Based on the data recently published on more than 500 patients with ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis, this treatment seems to be even more effective than in rheumatoid arthritis. The antitumor necrosis factor-alpha agents currently available, infliximab (Remicade), etanercept (Enbrel), and adalimumab (Humira), are approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the United States and partly in Europe. The situation in spondyloarthritis is different from that of rheumatoid arthritis because there is an unmet medical need, especially in ankylosing spondylitis: no therapies with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are available for severely affected patients, especially with spinal disease. Thus, tumor necrosis factor blockers may even be considered a first-line treatment in a patient with active ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis whose condition is not sufficiently controlled with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in the case of axial disease, and sulfasalazine or methotrexate in the case of peripheral arthritis. For infliximab, a dose of 5 mg/kg was required, and intervals between 6 and 12 weeks were necessary to suppress disease activity constantly-also a major aim for long-term treatment. The standard dosage of etanercept is 2 x 25 mg subcutaneously per week. There are no studies yet on adalimumab (standard rheumatoid arthritis dose, 20-40 mg subcutaneously every 1-2 weeks) in spondyloarthritis. Infliximab was very recently approved for AS in Europe. The efficacy of etanercept was first demonstrated in psoriatic arthritis, and it is now approved for this indication. A double-blind study has also been performed in ankylosing spondylitis, with similarly clear efficacy. There is preliminary evidence that both agents do also work in other spondyloarthritis, such as undifferentiated spondyloarthritis. Ideally, both agents will be approved soon for the short-term treatment of severe, uncontrolled spondyloarthritis. In parallel, studies should be performed to document the long-term efficacy of this treatment. There is hope that ankylosis may be preventable, but it remains to be shown whether patients benefit from long-term antitumor necrosis factor therapy and whether radiologic progression and ankylosis can be stopped. Severe adverse events have remained rare. Complicated infections including tuberculosis have been reported. These can be largely prevented by appropriate screening. At it stands now, the benefits of antitumor necrosis factor therapy in ankylosing spondylitis seem to outweigh these shortcomings.

Novel approaches in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis and other spondyloarthritides

The therapeutic options for patients suffering from severe forms of spondyloarthritis (SpA) have been rather limited in recent decades. There is now accumulating evidence that anti-TNF therapy is highly effective in SpA, especially in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Based on the data recently published on what is now several hundred AS and PsA patients, this treatment seems to be even more effective than the same therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The anti-TNF-alpha agents currently available, infliximab (Remicade); Centocor), etanercept (Enbrel); Amgen) and adalimumab (Humira; Abbott), are approved for the treatment of RA in the US; infliximab and etanercept are approved in Europe. The situation in SpA is different to RA because there is an unmet medical need, especially in AS, since no therapies with disease-controlling antirheumatic drugs are available for severely affected patients, especially with spinal disease. Thus, TNF blockers might even be considered as first-line immunosuppressive agents in patients with active AS and PsA who are not sufficiently treated by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and sulfasalazine, if peripheral arthritis is present. For infliximab, a dosage of 5 mg/kg at intervals between 6 and 12 weeks was necessary to constantly suppress disease activity; this is also a major aim of long-term treatment. No dose-finding studies have yet been performed. The standard dose of etanercept is 25 mg s.c. twice-weekly. No studies on adalimumab (standard RA dose 20 - 40 mg s.c. every 2 weeks) have yet been conducted in SpA. The efficacy of etanercept was first demonstrated in PsA and etanercept is now approved for this indication. A double-blind study has also been performed in AS, with similarly clearcut efficacy. There is preliminary evidence that both agents do also work in other SpA such as undifferentiated SpA. Infliximab has recently been approved for short-term treatment of severe uncontrolled AS; the approval for etanercept is pending. Studies should be performed to document the long-term efficacy of this treatment. There is hope that ankylosis might be preventable but it remains to be shown whether patients benefit from long-term anti-TNF therapy and whether radiological progression and ankylosis can be stopped. Severe adverse events have remained rare. Complicated infections including tuberculosis have been reported. Tuberculosis can be mostly prevented if patients are checked for previous contact with tuberculosis. Currently, the benefits of anti-TNF therapy in AS seem to outweigh these shortcomings.

Therapy of ankylosing spondylitis and other spondyloarthritides: established medical treatment, anti-TNF-alpha therapy and other novel approaches

Therapeutic options for patients with more severe forms of spondyloarthritis (SpA) have been rather limited in recent decades. There is accumulating evidence that anti-tumor-necrosis-factor (anti-TNF) therapy is highly effective in SpA, especially in ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. The major anti-TNF-alpha agents currently available, infliximab (Remicade(R)) and etanercept (Enbrel(R)), are approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in many countries. In ankylosing spondylitis there is an unmet medical need, since there are almost no disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) available for severely affected patients, especially those with spinal manifestations. Judging from recent data from more than 300 patients with SpA, anti-TNF therapy seems to be even more effective in SpA than in rheumatoid arthritis. However, it remains to be shown whether patients benefit from long-term treatment, whether radiological progression and ankylosis can be stopped and whether long-term biologic therapy is safe.

Infliximab as a novel therapy for pediatric ulcerative colitis

OBJECTIVES

The role of infliximab (anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha antibody) therapy in ulcerative colitis (UC) is not well defined. There are only two reports published describing its use in UC. The authors describe their experience with open-label use of infliximab in children with moderate to severe UC.

METHODS

The authors collected data on all consecutive pediatric patients with UC who received infliximab at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia until July 2001. The primary measured outcome was clinical response at 2 days and 2 weeks after infliximab infusion, as measured by the Lichtiger colitis activity index (LCAI) score and the Physician Global Assessment (PGA). Tolerance of the infusions and adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Nine patients qualified for clinical response analysis. The median Lichtiger colitis activity index score decreased from 11 before the infusion to 1 at 2 days and 2 weeks after the infusion, respectively (P = 0.01 for 2 days and 2 weeks). Seven of nine (77%) patients had decreased activity of their disease measured by the Physician Global Assessment. Corticosteroid therapy was discontinued in six (66%) patients. An infusion reaction developed (generalized pruritus and facial flushing) in two patients and an elevated anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) titer of 1:1280 developed in one patient.

CONCLUSION

Infliximab is associated with short-term clinical improvement in children and adolescents with moderate to severe UC.