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

Vedolizumab versus ustekinumab in Crohn's disease with prior anti-tumor necrosis factor failure: an updated meta-analysis

Ustekinumab and vedolizumab are key treatment options for Crohn's disease patients who fail anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. This updated meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of these two drugs. We performed a systematic review in PubMed, Embase , and Cochrane databases searching for randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing vedolizumab versus ustekinumab in patients with Crohn's disease with previous anti-TNF failure or intolerance. The primary outcome was steroid-free clinical remission (SFR) at the pos-induction (12-16 weeks) and maintenance period (48-52 weeks). The odds ratio (OR) was used for binary outcomes with their respective 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. This meta-analysis included 11 studies and 2724 patients. There was a significant difference favoring ustekinumab in SFR at pos-induction (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.88; P  = 0.006; I2  = 27%) and maintenance periods (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.23-2.82; P  = 0.003; I2  = 80%), in clinical remission at pos-induction period (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.63; P  < 0.001; I2  = 3%), and in treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.16-0.60; P  < 0.001; I2  = 0%). In patients with Crohn's disease with prior anti-TNF failure, ustekinumab showed higher SFR during both the pos-induction and maintenance period and a lower rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab at different intervals of maintenance phase in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ustekinumab has two alternative drug maintenance intervals for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), every 8 weeks (Q8W) and every 12 weeks (Q12W). The current study aimed at evaluating the comparative efficacy and safety of the two maintenance intervals in patients with IBD. A systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE was carried out. The relative risk (RR) was pooled for efficacy and safety outcomes between the two intervals at various follow-up time points, categorized as short term (less than 44 weeks), medium term (about 92 weeks), and long term (about 152 weeks). A total of 14 studies with 1448 patients were included. Q8W didn't result in a remarkably higher proportion of clinical remission compared to Q12W at short term (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.16), medium term (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.91-1.20), and long term (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.91-1.26). Similarly, no substantial differences exist at short term in clinical response (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.85-1.17), endoscopic remission (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.26-3.69), and histologic improvement (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.93-1.36) between the two intervals. For safety outcomes, the RR values for any adverse events in the short, medium, and long term were 1.10 (95% CI, 1.00-1.21), 1.14 (95% CI, 1.08-1.20), and 1.12 (95% CI, 1.07-1.17) for Q8W versus Q12W. Finally, we conclude that ustekinumab maintenance therapy administered every 8 and 12 weeks showed similar effectiveness in achieving efficacy outcomes in IBD patients, and most safety outcomes were significantly better for Q12W during the maintenance phase.

Korean clinical practice guidelines on biologics for moderate to severe Crohn's disease

Crohn's disease (CD) is a relapsing and progressive condition characterized by diarrhea, abdominal pain, weight loss, and hematochezia that results in serious complications such as perforations, fistulas, and abscesses. Various medications, interventions, and surgical treatments have been used to treat CD. The Korean guidelines for CD management were distributed in 2012 and revised in 2017 by the Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Research Group of the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases. Substantial progress in mucosal immunologic research has elucidated the pathophysiology of IBD, leading to development of biological agents for treatment of CD. The first developed biologic agent, tumor necrosis factor-α agents, were shown to be efficacious in CD, heralding a new era in management of CD. Subsequently, vedolizumab, a monoclonal antibody against integrin α4β7, and ustekinumab, a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the common p40 subunit of interleukin-12 and interleukin-23, were both approved for clinical use and are efficacious and safe for both induction and maintenance of remission in moderate-to-severe CD patients. Moreover, a recent study showed the non-inferiority of CT-P13, an infliximab biosimilar, compared with infliximab in CD patients. The third Korean guidelines for CD management provide updated information regarding treatment of moderate-to-severe CD patients with biologic agents.

Efficacy of ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or a second anti-TNF agent after the failure of a first anti-TNF agent in patients with Crohn's disease: a multicentre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

No study has performed a face-to-face comparison of biologics after the failure of the first anti-TNF agent in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of biologics in this setting.

METHODS

Patients with CD who were refractory to a first anti-TNF agent, and treated with ustekinumab (UST), vedolizumab (VDZ), or a second anti-TNF drug as a second-line biological agent at 10 French tertiary centres from 2013 to 2019 were retrospectively included in this study.

RESULTS

Among the 203 patients included, 90 (44%) received UST, 42 (21%) received VDZ and 71 (35%) received a second anti-TNF agent. The first anti-TNF agent was discontinued due to a primary nonresponse in 42 (21%) patients. At weeks 14-24, the rates of steroid-free remission were similar between the UST, VDZ and second anti-TNF groups (29%, 38% and 44%, respectively, p = 0.15). With a mean follow-up of 118 weeks, drug survival was shorter for patients who received ustekinumab treatment (p = 0.001). In the case of trough level less than 5 µg/ml, patients treated with a second anti-TNF agent had a higher postinduction remission rate (p = 0.002), and drug survival (p = 0.0005). No other relevant factors were associated with treatment efficacy, including trough levels greater than 5 µg/ml.

CONCLUSIONS

VDZ, UST and a second anti-TNF agent exhibit similar efficacy in the short term, as second-biological line treatment in patients with CD who are refractory to a first anti-TNF agent, but shorter drug maintenance is observed for patients treated with UST.

Prevalence of anti-TNF contraindications in Crohn's disease: A cross-sectional survey from the GETAID

BACKGROUND

The exact rate of contraindications to anti-TNF therapy and physician perspectives on treatment choices facing to anti-TNF contraindication, are poorly reported.

METHODS

A two-week cross-sectional study was conducted in 31 centres. Physicians completed a questionnaire for a total of 1,314 consecutive outpatients with Crohn's disease, assessing each patient's potential contraindications to anti-TNF therapy, the choice of alternative therapy to anti-TNFs, and their preference in an unrestricted reimbursement setting.

RESULTS

Among the 1,293 responses to the first item, 148 (11.5%) reported 32 absolute contraindications (2.5%) and 116 relative contraindications (9.0%) to anti-TNF therapy. When asked about their preference of alternative therapies in those cases with contraindications to anti-TNF, physicians chose ustekinumab and vedolizumab, 75.6% and 23.9%, respectively. In multivariable analysis, the choice of vedolizumab was the preferred choice for patients aged > 60 years with the L2 phenotype and the absence of perianal lesions. In a hypothetical setting of unrestricted reimbursement, anti-TNFs remained physicians' preferred first-line biological therapy choice for 78.2%.

CONCLUSION

Anti-TNF contraindications occurred in up to 11.5% of patients with Crohn's disease. Physicians' choices for alternative therapy to anti-TNF relied on ustekinumab in 75.6% and vedolizumab in 23.9% of these cases. This choice was driven mainly by phenotypical criteria and age.

The safety and efficacy of different endovascular treatments for in-stent restenosis of the femoropopliteal artery: A network meta-analysis

Purpose: Femoropopliteal artery in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a challenging treatment. We performed a network meta-analysis (NWM) for femoropopliteal artery ISR to explore the safety and efficacy of endovascular therapeutic strategies. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were used as data sources. The network meta-analysis (NWM) approach used random-effects models based on the frequentist framework. We compared technical success rate, primary patency, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major amputation at the 12-month follow-up for femoropopliteal artery ISR. Results: In total, 14 eligible studies (10 prospective and four retrospective; 1348 patients; and eight treatment modalities - standard balloon angioplasty (SBA), drug-coated balloon (DCB), peripheral cutting balloon angioplasty (PCBA), Viabahn endoprosthesis (VBE), directional atherectomy (DA), excimer laser atherectomy (ELA), and combinations - were included. The primary patency rates (at 6 months) were significantly higher for DCB and ELA+DCB than for SBA and ELA+SBA. ELA+DCB had higher primary patency rates (at 12 months) than ELA+SBA and SBA. The technical success rates were significantly lower for DCB and SBA than for VBE. The major amputation rates were significantly lower for ELA+DCB than for DCB. Based on the surface values under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), ELA+DCB was considered the best treatment in terms of primary patency at 6 months (SUCRA = 91.1), primary patency at 12 months (SUCRA = 82.3), and TLR (SUCRA = 83.4). Conclusion: ELA+DCB showed positive encouraging results in primary patency (6, 12 months), TLR, and major amputation in femoropopliteal ISR. The efficacy and safety of ELA+DCB are worthy of further investigation. (PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42021246674).

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the effectiveness of either ustekinumab or vedolizumab in patients with Crohn's disease refractory to anti-tumour necrosis factor

BACKGROUND

Ustekinumab and vedolizumab are commonly used after anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) failure in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). No randomised controlled trial has compared these drugs.

AIMS

To compare the effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in CD patients refractory to anti-TNF.

METHODS

From PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, through March 27, 2021, we identified studies that compared ustekinumab and vedolizumab in patients with CD refractory to anti-TNF. The main outcomes were clinical remission and steroid-free clinical remission at weeks 14 and 52. Secondary outcomes were biological remission and treatment persistence. We computed pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 1513 reports. Among them, 38 studies were assessed for eligibility and five studies were included. All studies included were of high quality: four were retrospective and one was prospective. Among 1026 patients, 659 received ustekinumab and 367 received vedolizumab. At week 14, clinical remission (OR 1.36; 95%CI: 0.74-2.47; I²  = 50%), steroid-free clinical remission (OR 1.24; 95%CI: 0.79-1.92; I²  = 52%) and biological remission (OR 0.80; 95%CI: 0.50-1.28; I²  = 0%) rates were similar between the two treatments. At week 52, ustekinumab was associated with higher rates of clinical remission (OR 1.87; 95% CI: 1.18-2.98; I²  = 0%), steroid-free clinical remission (OR 1.56; 95% CI: 1.23-1.97; I²  = 0%), biological remission (OR 1.86; 95% CI: 1.03-3.37; I²  = 29%) and treatment persistence (OR 2.37; 95% CI: 1.56-3.62; I²  = 0%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with CD refractory to anti-TNF, ustekinumab and vedolizumab are similarly effective in induction, but as maintenance treatment, ustekinumab appears to be more effective than vedolizumab.

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

Background: About a third of patients with inflammatory bowel disease do not respond to anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, which is challenging. Aim: To review the current data on the two main strategies when facing primary non-response to an anti-TNF agent in inflammatory bowel disease: changing to a second anti-TNF (switching) or to a drug with another mechanisms of action (swapping). Methods: We performed a bibliographic search to identify studies reporting on efficacy of any biologic treatment after primary anti-TNF non-response. Results: The efficacy of a second anti-TNF is lower when the reason to withdraw the first one is primary failure. Nevertheless, switching to another anti-TNF even after primary failure may still be effective in some patients. Both vedolizumab and ustekinumab have generally been shown to be less effective in anti-TNF exposed patients. However, despite primary anti-TNF failure, patients may respond to vedolizumab or ustekinumab in a limited but considerable number of cases. The cause for swapping (primary vs. secondary anti-TNF failure) seems to have limited effect on vedolizumab efficacy. Primary anti-TNF non-response seems to be a clearer predictor of treatment failure for ustekinumab. Unfortunately, the two main strategies to treat specifically a patient with primary non-response to an anti-TNF agent—switching to a second anti-TNF or swapping for vedolizumab/ustekinumab—have not been properly compared. Conclusion: The data reviewed in the present study clearly emphasise the imperative need to carry out head-to-head randomised trials in patients exposed to anti-TNF agents in general, and specifically in those with primary non-response to these agents.

Post-Induction High Adalimumab Drug Levels Predict Biological Remission at Week 24 in Patients With Crohn's Disease

INTRODUCTION

We investigated whether early adalimumab drug levels (ADL) at week 4 predicted biological remission at week 24.

METHODS

In a prospective study, we assessed clinical and biological remission at weeks 0, 4, 12, and 24 after induction of adalimumab in 33 patients with Crohn's disease. Disease activity was determined by the Harvey-Bradshaw Index, ileocolonoscopy reports, cross-sectional imaging, C-reactive protein (CRP), and fecal calprotectin (FC) levels. Clinical remission was defined as Harvey-Bradshaw Index <5. Biological remission was defined as a combination of FC < 200 μg/g and CRP <5 μg/mL. ADL trough levels were tested using a liquid phase, mobility shift assay.

RESULTS

At 24 weeks, 18/33 (55%) of the patients were with biological remission. Ten (30%) patients required dose escalation or withdrawal from adalimumab by week 24 because of lack of response and exhibited significantly higher FC (P = 0.003) and CRP (P = 0.002). ADL levels at week 4 (19.8 μg/mL vs 10.2 μg/mL, P = 0.001) were significantly higher in patients with biological remission vs nonresponders at week 24. ADL levels at week 4 were a good predictor of biological remission at week 24, with area under the curve 0.86, 95% confidence interval (1.1; 1.67) and for combined biological and clinical remission, with area under the curve 0.8. The best ADL cutoff at week 4 that predicted biological remission at week 24 was 13.9 μg/mL (sensitivity 94.4% and specificity 73.3%).

DISCUSSION

In individuals with Crohn's disease, higher adalimumab drug levels at week 4 (>13.9 μg/mL) were significantly associated with biological remission at week 24.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Vedolizumab in the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Crohn's Disease in China

INTRODUCTION

To compare the cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab with that of conventional therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe active Crohn's disease (CD) in China.

METHODS

A decision tree and Markov model were built to predict the lifetime cost and health outcomes in the induction phase and maintenance phase of vedolizumab treatment and conventional therapy (a combination of corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, and aminosalicylates) in adult patients with moderate-to-severe active CD from the perspective of China's healthcare system. Clinical efficacy and health utility were derived from the GEMINI 2 and GEMINI 3 trials and published literature. Costs were mainly obtained from clinical physician surveys in China and are presented in 2020 US dollars. Health outcomes (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) and costs were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. The incremental cost per QALY gained was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed to test the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

The model predicted more QALYs (9.92 vs 9.00 QALYs) and lower incurred costs ($288,284 vs $309,680) in vedolizumab than in conventional therapy in a mixed population (anti-TNF-naïve and anti-TNF-failure populations) over a lifetime horizon in the base-case analysis. Similar results were observed in the anti-TNF-naïve and anti-TNF-failure subgroups of patients with CD. One-way sensitivity analysis results suggested that health state cost was the most influential factor in the model. The PSA results supported the dominance of vedolizumab in the base-case analysis.

CONCLUSION

Vedolizumab appears to be a cost-effective strategy option in the treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe active CD in China in both anti-TNF-naïve and anti-TNF-failure populations.

Effects of Anti-Inflammatory Treatment and Surgical Intervention on Endothelial Glycocalyx, Peripheral and Coronary Microcirculatory Function and Myocardial Deformation in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Two-Arms Two-Stage Clinical Trial

Sixty inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients (45 Crohn disease and 15 ulcerative colitis, 40 ± 13 years, 53% male) were examined at baseline and 4 months after intervention (surgical (35 patients) or anti-TNFa treatment (25 patients)). IBD severity, using Mayo score, Harvey–Bradshaw Index (HBI) and biomarkers, was correlated with cardiovascular markers. At baseline, the disease severity, the white blood cells (WBC) values and the reducing power (RP) were significantly correlated with the aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) (r = 0.4, r = 0.44 and r = 0.48, p < 0.05) and the lateral mitral E’ velocity (r = 0.35, p < 0.05 and r = 0.3, p < 0.05). Four months after intervention, there was a reduction of WBC (1962.8/mm³ ± 0.425/mm³, p < 0.001), C-reactive protein (CRP) (8.1 mg/L ± 1.7 mg/L, p < 0.001), malondialdehyde (MDA) (0.81 nmol/mg ± 0.37, p < 0.05) and glycocalyx perfused boundary region (PBR 5-25) (0.24 μm ± 0.05 μm, p < 0.01). Moreover, the brachial flow mediated dilatation (FMD), the coronary flow reserve (CFR) and the left ventricle global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) were significantly improved for both groups (4.5% ± 0.9%, 0.55 ± 0.08, 1.4% ± 0.35%, p < 0.01), while a more significant improvement of PWV/GLS was noticed in the anti-TNFa group. IBD severity is associated with vascular endothelial, cardiac diastolic, and coronary microcirculatory dysfunction. The systemic inflammatory inhibition and the local surgical intervention lead to significant improvement in endothelial function, coronary microcirculation and myocardial deformation.

Ustekinumab is associated with superior effectiveness outcomes compared to vedolizumab in Crohn's disease patients with prior failure to anti-TNF treatment

BACKGROUND

Both vedolizumab and ustekinumab can be considered for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) when anti-TNF treatment fails. However, head-to-head trials are currently not available or planned.

AIM

To compare vedolizumab and ustekinumab in Crohn´s disease patients in a prospective registry specifically developed for comparative studies with correction for confounders.

METHODS

Crohn´s disease patients, who failed anti-TNF treatment and started vedolizumab or ustekinumab in standard care as second-line biological, were identified in the observational prospective Dutch Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry. Corticosteroid-free clinical remission (Harvey Bradshaw Index ≤4), biochemical remission (C-reactive protein ≤5 mg/L and fecal calprotectin ≤250 µg/g), combined corticosteroid-free clinical and biochemical remission, and safety outcomes were compared after 52 weeks of treatment. To adjust for confounding and selection bias, we used multiple logistic regression and propensity score matching.

RESULTS

In total, 128 vedolizumab- and 85 ustekinumab-treated patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. After adjusting for confounders, ustekinumab-treated patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission (odds ratio [OR]: 2.58, 95% CI: 1.36-4.90, P = 0.004), biochemical remission (OR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.10-4.96, P = 0.027), and combined corticosteroid-free clinical and biochemical remission (OR: 2.74, 95% CI: 1.23-6.09, P = 0.014), while safety outcomes (infections: OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.63-2.54, P = 0.517; adverse events: OR: 1.33, 95% CI: 0.62-2.81, P = 0.464; hospitalisations: OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.32-1.39, P = 0.282) were comparable between the two groups. The propensity score matched cohort with sensitivity analyses showed comparable results.

CONCLUSIONS

Ustekinumab was associated with superior effectiveness outcomes when compared to vedolizumab, while safety outcomes were comparable after 52 weeks of treatment in CD patients who have failed anti-TNF treatment.

The effectiveness of either ustekinumab or vedolizumab in 239 patients with Crohn's disease refractory to anti-tumour necrosis factor

BACKGROUND

There is no head-to-head trial comparing ustekinumab and vedolizumab in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) refractory to anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF).

AIM

To compare the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in patients with CD refractory to anti-TNF in a multicentre retrospective observational cohort.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with CD refractory or intolerant to anti-TNF who initiated either vedolizumab or ustekinumab were included between May 2014 and August 2018. Clinical remission, steroid-free clinical remission (SFCR) and treatment persistence were assessed at week 48 with intention-to-treat analysis and propensity scores weighted comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 239 patients were included, 107 received ustekinumab and 132 received vedolizumab. At week 48, ustekinumab was associated with a higher clinical remission rate (54.4% vs 38.3%; odds ratios, OR = 1.92, 95% CI [1.09-3.39]) and treatment persistence (71.5% vs 49.7%; OR = 2.54, 95% CI [1.40-4.62]) than vedolizumab. The rate of SFCR did not differ significantly between ustekinumab and vedolizumab (44.7% vs 34.0%; OR = 1.57, 95% CI [0.88-2.79]). Subgroup analyses showed that ustekinumab was associated with a higher clinical remission rates at week 48 in patients with ileal location (OR = 3.49, 95% CI [1.33-9.17) and penetrating behaviour (OR = 6.58, 95% CI [1.91-22.68]). Regardless of the treatment group, combination therapy at initiation was associated with a higher clinical remission rate at week 48 (OR = 1.93, 95% CI [1.09-3.43]).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that ustekinumab is associated with a higher rate of clinical remission and treatment persistence than vedolizumab after 48 weeks of follow-up, in patients with CD refractory or intolerant to anti-TNF. The rate of SFCR was not significantly different.

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.