Comparison of real-world outcomes of adalimumab and infliximab for patients with ulcerative colitis in the United States

Efficacy and Safety of Infliximab Versus Adalimumab in Adult Subjects With Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an inflammatory disorder affecting the colon, and typically, during the disease course, the condition may exacerbate, relapse, and remit. One of the most successful lines for inducing and maintaining clinical remission in subjects with UC is biological therapy with anti-tumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNF) agents, including adalimumab (ADA) and infliximab (IFX). This meta-analysis is an attempt to obtain complementary information driven by real-world experience (RWE) concerning the efficacy and safety of two of the most popular anti-TNFs in treating UC. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of RWE studies comparing ADA and IFX as naïve anti-TNF agents for the treatment of subjects with UC. Studies were obtained by searching Scopus, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and the PubMed Central databases. Patients treated with IFX showed significantly higher induction responses. No statistically significant difference was found in the comparison of response in the maintenance treatment period. Higher overall adverse events were related to IFX treatment, with serious adverse events that were nonsignificantly higher in the ADA-treated group. In conclusion, IFX demonstrated significantly higher induction responses compared to ADA in patients with moderate-to-severe UC. IFX was associated with higher overall adverse events, whereas serious adverse events were non-significantly higher in the ADA-treated group. IFX may be favored as a first-line agent for its induction efficacy, and the choice between IFX and ADA should be individualized based on comprehensive clinical evaluation.

Continuous clinical remission with biologics in ulcerative colitis: the 'AURORA' comparison study

OBJECTIVES

Comparative trials among biological drugs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) provided conflicting results. After patent expire of infliximab originator, adalimumab, infliximab biosimilar, golimumab and vedolizumab have been approved in Italy.We compared the efficacy of these four biologics in UC according to the concept of continuous clinical remission (CCR).

METHODS

In a retrospective, multicentre study, all UC patients treated with adalimumab, infliximab biosimilar, golimumab or vedolizumab between 2014 and 2019 were included. All drugs were compared to each other according to the 1-year CCR rate, defined as Mayo partial score ≤2, with bleeding subscore = 0, without any relapse or optimization with dose escalation, topical treatments or steroid use after first clinical remission.

RESULTS

Four-hundred sixteen patients (adalimumab = 90, infliximab biosimilar = 105, golimumab = 79, vedolizumab = 142) were included. CCR was achieved in similar percentages among the groups (33%, 37%, 28%, 37%, respectively). All drugs were equivalent in biologic-naive patients, while vedolizumab was better than a second anti-TNFα in prior anti-TNFα agent failures. No differences were found according to type of adverse events or severe adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a strict definition of clinical remission, all biologics appear equally effective at 1 year. Changing to vedolizumab is more effective than switching to another anti-TNFα in TNFα failures.

An Update on Current Pharmacotherapeutic Options for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis

The main goals of Ulcerative Colitis (UC) treatment are to both induce and maintain the clinical and endoscopic remission of disease, reduce the incidence of complications such as dysplasia and colorectal carcinoma and improve quality of life. Although a curative medical treatment for UC has not yet been found, new therapeutic strategies addressing specific pathogenetic mechanisms of disease are emerging. Notwithstanding these novel therapies, non-biological conventional drugs remain a mainstay of treatment. The aim of this review is to summarize current therapeutic strategies used as treatment for ulcerative colitis and to briefly focus on emerging therapeutic strategies, including novel biologic therapies and small molecules. To date, multiple therapeutic approaches can be adopted in UC and the range of available compounds is constantly increasing. In this era, the realization of well-designed comparative clinical trials, as well as the definition of specific therapeutic models, would be strongly suggested in order to achieve personalized management for UC patients.

Short-term effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib in ulcerative colitis - real world data from tertiary medical centers in Israel

BACKGROUND

We sought to define the effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib in a real-world (RW) cohort of Israeli patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

This was a multi-center retrospective observational cohort study (2019-2020) to assess the effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib induction and maintenance therapy up to 26 weeks. Clinical response and remission were defined as a reduction in Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI) or partial Mayo score (PMS) of ≥3 points, and SCCAI ≤2 or a PMS ≤1, respectively.

RESULTS

We included 73 patients, 47% male; median age 26 years [IQR: 19.5-39.5], disease duration 7 years [IQR: 2.5-14.5], follow-up 7.1 months [IQR: 3-12], 91% biologics-experienced, and 74% ≥ 2-biologics. Half of patients used concomitant corticosteroids (CS). Overall, 56.1% discontinued therapy due to either lack of response and/or adverse events (AEs), median time to discontinuation - 9.7 months [IQR 3.4-16]. Overall, response, remission, and CS-free-remission were achieved in 47.6%, 20.6%, and 17.5% of patients, respectively. At early maintenance (week 26), response, remission, and CS-free-remission were achieved in 65%, 22.5%, and 20% of patients, respectively. At week 26, tofacitinib 10 mg BID was still used in 43%. Seventeen patients (23.2%) had an adverse event including herpes zoster- 2.7%, hospitalization- 12.3%, and colectomy- 2.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Tofacitinib was effective in achieving CS-free-remission in about 1/5 of highly biologics -experienced patients with UC. Despite a considerable proportion of patients maintained on tofacitinib 10 mg bid, it was well tolerated and safe. Earlier positioning of tofacitinib in the therapeutic algorithm may result in improved outcomes.

Optimizing biologic therapy in inflammatory bowel disease: a Delphi consensus in the United Arab Emirates

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are chronic, relapsing-remitting inflammatory conditions with a substantial negative impact on health-related quality of life and work productivity. Treatment of IBD has been revolutionized by the advent of biologic therapies, initially with anti-TNF agents and more recently with multiple alternatives targets, and yet more under development.

OBJECTIVES

Approximatively one third of patients do not respond to biologic therapy and more importantly a significant proportion experiences partial response or loss of response during treatment. The latter are common clinical situations and paradoxically are not addressed in the commercial drug labels and available guidelines. There is therefore a clinical need for physicians to understand when and how eventually to optimize the biologic therapy.

DESIGN

This consensus using a Delphi methodology was promoted and supported by the Emirates Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology to close this gap.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

Following an extensive systematic review of over 60,000 studies, 81 studies with dose escalation and five addressing drug monitoring were selected and in addition five systematic reviews and three guidelines.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

after three rounds of voting 18 statements were selected with agreement ranging from of 80% to 100.

Frequency and Effectiveness of Empirical Anti-TNF Dose Intensification in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Loss of response to antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies in inflammatory bowel disease occurs in a high proportion of patients. Our aim was to evaluate the loss of response to anti-TNF therapy, considered as the need for dose intensification (DI), DI effectiveness and the possible variables influencing its requirements. Bibliographical searches were performed.

SELECTION

prospective and retrospective studies assessing DI in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis patients treated for at least 12 weeks with an anti-TNF drug.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

studies using anti-TNF as a prophylaxis for the postoperative recurrence in Crohn's disease or those where DI was based on therapeutic drug monitoring.

DATA SYNTHESIS

effectiveness by intention-to-treat (random effects model). Data were stratified by medical condition (ulcerative colitis vs. Crohn's disease), anti-TNF drug and follow-up.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-three studies (33,241 patients) were included. Overall rate of the DI requirement after 12 months was 28% (95% CI 24-32, I2 = 96%, 41 studies) in naïve patients and 39% (95% CI 31-47, I2 = 86%, 18 studies) in non-naïve patients. The DI requirement rate was higher both in those with prior anti-TNF exposure (p = 0.01) and with ulcerative colitis (p = 0.02). The DI requirement rate in naïve patients after 36 months was 35% (95% CI 28-43%; I2 = 98%; 18 studies). The overall short-term response and remission rates of empirical DI in naïve patients were 63% (95% CI 48-78%; I2 = 99%; 32 studies) and 48% (95% CI: 39-58%; I2 = 92%; 25 studies), respectively. The loss of response to anti-TNF agents-and, consequently, DI-occurred frequently in inflammatory bowel disease (approximately in one-fourth at one year and in one-third at 3 years). Empirical DI was a relatively effective therapeutic option.

Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes of Infliximab versus Adalimumab Treatment in Biologic-Naïve Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

Background/Aims

The tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors infliximab and adalimumab are standard treatments for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). However, there has been no headto- head comparison of treatment efficacy and outcomes between the two agents. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and long-term outcomes of infliximab versus adalimumab treatment in biologic-naïve patients with UC.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 113 biologic-naïve patients with UC who were treated between September 2012 and December 2017 (the infliximab group [n=83] and the adalimumab group [n=30]). We compared remission and response rates between these groups at 8 and 52 weeks. We used Kaplan-Meier curves to compare long-term outcomes, and logistic regression analysis and Cox-proportional hazard regression models to assess factors affecting outcomes.

Results

The median follow-up duration was 25.8 months. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the rate of clinical remission or clinical response at 8 or 52 weeks. Multivariate analyses also showed that long-term outcomes were not significantly different (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 2.56; p=0.208). An elevated C-reactive protein level (greater than 5 mg/L) was a significant predictive factor for poor outcomes (adjusted HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.37 to 3.70; p=0.001). During the follow-up period, the rates of adverse event were not significantly different between the two groups (p=0.441).

Conclusions

In our study, infliximab and adalimumab had similar treatment efficacy and longterm outcomes in biologic-naïve patients with moderate to severe UC.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after elective surgery for ulcerative colitis

AIM

Approximately 20%-30% of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) will undergo surgery during their disease course, the vast majority being elective due to chronic refractory disease. The risks of elective surgery are reported variably. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the outcomes after elective surgery for UC.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted that analysed studies reporting outcomes for elective surgery in the modern era (>2002). It was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO database (ref: CRD42018115513). Searches were performed of Embase and MEDLINE on 15 January 2019. Outcomes were split by operation performed. Primary outcome was quality of life; secondary outcomes were early, late and functional outcomes after surgery. Outcomes reported in five or more studies underwent a meta-analysis of incidence using random effects. Heterogeneity is reported with I² , and publication bias was assessed using Doi plots and the Luis Furuya-Kanamori index.

RESULTS

A total of 34 studies were included (11 774 patients). Quality of life was reported in 12 studies, with variable and contrasting results. Thirteen outcomes (eight early surgical complications, five functional outcomes) were included in the formal meta-analysis, all of which were outcomes for ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). A further 71 outcomes were reported (50 IPAA, 21 end ileostomy). Only 14 of 84 outcomes received formal definitions, with high inter-study variation of definitions.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes after elective surgery for UC are variably defined. This systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the range of reported incidences and provides practical information that facilitates shared decision making in clinical practice.

Comparison of Real-World Outcomes of Infliximab versus Adalimumab in Biologic-Naïve Korean Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: A Population-Based Study

PURPOSE

Data on the comparative effectiveness of infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab (ADA) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) are extremely limited, especially in the Asian population. We compared clinically important outcomes [colectomy, UC-related emergency room (ER) visits, UC-related hospitalizations, and need for corticosteroids] for these two biologics in biologic-naïve Korean patients with UC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

A total of 862 new users of biologics were included, of whom 630 were treated with IFX and 232 were treated with ADA. Over a median follow-up of 1.8 years after starting biologic therapy, there were no significant differences in the risk of colectomy [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.30-11.63], ER visits (aHR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.79-3.16), hospitalizations (aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.59-1.17), and corticosteroid use (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.76-1.78) between IFX and ADA users. These results were stable even when only patients who used biologics for ≥6 months were analyzed. Additionally, these results were unchanged in patients treated with biologic monotherapy or combination therapy with immunomodulators.

CONCLUSION

In this nationwide population-based study, there was no significant difference in the risk of colectomy, ER visits, hospitalizations, and corticosteroid use between IFX and ADA users. Our findings indicate that IFX and ADA have comparable effectiveness in biologic-naïve Korean patients with UC.

British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn's and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, including patients, their families and friends.

British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn's and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, including patients, their families and friends.

Dose escalation and switching of biologics in ulcerative colitis: a systematic literature review in real-world evidence

Background: Biologics used to treat ulcerative colitis (UC) may lose their effect over time, requiring patients to undergo dose escalation or treatment switching, and systematic literature reviews of real-world evidence on these topics are lacking. Aim: To summarize the occurrence and outcomes of dose escalation and treatment switching in UC patients in real-world evidence. Methods: Studies were searched through MEDLINE, MEDLINE IN PROCESS, Embase and Cochrane (2006-2017) as well as proceedings from three major scientific meetings. Results: In total, 41 studies were included in the review among which 35 covered dose escalation and 12 covered treatment switching of biologics. Tumor necrosis factor antagonist (anti-TNF) escalation for all patients included at induction ranged from 5% (6 months) to 50% (median 0.67 years) and 15.2% to 70.8% (8 weeks) for anti-TNF induction responders. Mean/median time to dose escalation on anti-TNF ranged from 1.84 to 11 months. The most common switching pattern, infliximab → adalimumab, occurred in 3.8% (median 5.6 years) to 25.5% (mean 3.3 years) of patients. Conclusions: Dose escalation and treatment switching of biologics may be considered as indicators of suboptimal therapy suggesting a lack of long-term remission and response under current therapies.

Treatment Persistence of Infliximab Versus Adalimumab in Ulcerative Colitis: A 16-Year Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Infliximab and adalimumab are widely used in the treatment of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). There are few published data on the treatment persistence of infliximab and adalimumab in patients with UC.

METHODS

We aimed to compare the treatment persistence rates of infliximab versus adalimumab as first- and second-line tumor necrosis factor antagonists (anti-TNF), to identify factors potentially associated with persistence, and to evaluate reasons for withdrawal in UC patients. We performed a retrospective, single-center cohort study of UC patients treated with infliximab or adalimumab for at least 6 months between June 2002 and May 2018.

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of follow-up was 5.4 (3.2-8.3) years. For first-line anti-TNF agent, data on 160 patients with UC were analyzed. The mean (SD) duration of persistence was 3.4 (3.5) years and 2.1 (2.0) years in the infliximab and adalimumab subgroups, respectively (P = 0.24). Concomitant use of 5-aminosalicylate was associated with higher persistence of first-line anti-TNF treatment in the overall population (hazard ratio [HR] 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.8; P = 0.002). For second-line anti-TNF agent, data on 43 patients were analyzed. The mean (SD) duration of persistence was 2.0 (1.7) years and 3.2 (3.1) years in the infliximab and adalimumab subgroups, respectively (P = 0.95). No factors were associated with persistence of second-line anti-TNF treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab and adalimumab showed similar levels of persistence as first- and second-line anti-TNF treatments. Concomitant use of 5-aminosalicylates was associated with higher persistence of first-line anti-TNF treatment.

Real-world evidence on adherence, persistence, switching and dose escalation with biologics in adult inflammatory bowel disease in the United States: A systematic review

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

The application of biologics to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, is well established. Our aim was to characterize the most recent five years of data on rates of adherence, persistence, switching and dose escalations with biologics used to treat IBD in the United States.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed electronic databases MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for 2012-2017 as well as conference proceedings for 2016-2017 published in English.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Of 449 records identified, 41 met all screening criteria. Published studies varied greatly in methodology, data sources, population studied, follow-up time and endpoint definitions, preventing meaningful comparisons across studies. Based on studies using a medication possession rate threshold of <80% or <86%, 38%-77% of patients were found non-adherent to biologics. Discontinuation within the first 3 months occurred in 0%-25% of patients in six studies; 7%-65% discontinued by 12 months in 13 studies. Among all patients who initiated an index biologic, the switch rate to another biologic ranged from 4.5% to 20% in 6 studies. Dose escalations were reported in only four studies; 8%-35% of patients had their dose escalated within the first year of therapy.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates variability in study design and methodology to assess adherence, persistence, switching and dose escalation with biologics among adults with IBD in the United States. Our findings suggest that real-world biologic use may be suboptimal and indicate new therapies and/or additional patient support may be needed.

Effectiveness of golimumab in ulcerative colitis: A review of the real world evidence

BACKGROUND

Biologics against tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) have dramatically changed the management of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). In pivotal clinical trials, golimumab showed efficacy as induction and maintenance therapy in anti-TNF naïve UC patients. However, confirmatory data on effectiveness in the real world setting are needed.

AIM

to summarize recent evidence on the effectiveness of golimumab in observational real-world studies.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, and congresses databases for English language articles or abstracts on the effectiveness of golimumab published between January 1, 2014 and May 15, 2018. Pooled short-term (6-14 weeks) and mid- and long-term (24-54 weeks) clinical response and remission rates were calculated.

RESULTS

24 abstracts were included; of those 8 were published full-text articles and 16 were abstracts from medical conferences. Overall, pooled short-term clinical response and remission rates were 59.3% (range 35-85.5%; 13 studies; 1429 patients) and 35.9% (range 14-51.7%; 9 studies; 666 patients), respectively. Pooled mid- and long-term clinical response and remission rates were 60.3% (range 37.1-89.5%; 4 studies; 356 patients) and 39.2% (range 12-84%; 8 studies; 822 patients), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Results: of observational studies confirm that golimumab is an effective therapy for UC in clinical practice.

Acetarsol in the management of mesalazine-refractory ulcerative proctitis: a tertiary-level care experience

BACKGROUND

Mesalazine-refractory ulcerative proctitis is common, with a significant proportion of the patients requiring escalation to immunomodulators or biological therapy. Three small preliminary cohort studies suggested good clinical efficacy for the organic arsenic derivative acetarsol in the management of proctitis. Our aim was to describe our experience on the use of acetarsol in proctitis and to review all existing evidence on its safety and efficacy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed clinical records of all ulcerative colitis patients exposed to acetarsol at Nottingham University Hospitals since 2012. Clinical response was determined basing on physicians' global assessments and patients' improvement over the baseline (reduction in stool frequency and rectal bleeding). Clinical remission was defined as total resolution of symptoms including bleeding cessation. Serum arsenic, C-reactive protein and faecal calprotectin levels reviewed when available. Nonparametric analysis performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight (16 males) patients with median (range) age 39 (35) and 9 (19) years disease duration received acetarsol suppositories for proctitis. All had failed mesalazine or corticosteroid topical therapy, with 50% having additionally failed immunomodulators. Median treatment duration was 70 (64) days. 16/28 were prescribed acetarsol more than once. 67.9% achieved clinical response and 46.4% clinical remission. 32.1% required treatment escalation to steroids, thiopurines or antitumour necrosis factor agents. 6/28 patients stopped acetarsol due to side effects.

CONCLUSION

Acetarsol could be an effective and safe option in the management of refractory proctitis. A definitive trial with long-term safety follow-up is required to investigate the efficacy and safety of this promising drug.

Effectiveness and safety of adalimumab to treat outpatient ulcerative colitis: A real-life multicenter, observational study in primary inflammatory bowel disease centers

Adalimumab (ADA) was approved in Italy for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) unresponsive to standard treatments in 2014, but no data from real life are currently available. The aim of the present study was to assess the real-life efficacy and safety of ADA in managing UC outpatients in some Italian primary inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) centers after approval of ADA reimbursement.Consecutive UC outpatients with at least 3-month follow-up were retrospectively evaluated. The primary end point was the induction and maintenance of remission in UC, defined as Mayo score ≤2.One hundred seven patients were included. At 3-month follow-up, obtained in 102 (95.3%) patients, 56 (54.9%) patients achieved a clinical remission. At univariate analysis, both Mayo partial score >7 and Mayo subscore for endoscopy = 3 at entry showed to be significantly associated with the lack of remission induction.During a median (95% confidence interval [CI]) follow-up of 18 (12-24) months, 56.6% of patients were under clinical remission; clinical response was achieved in 89.2% of cases. Mucosal healing was achieved in 66 (76.7%) patients, and colectomy occurred in 3 (2.8%) patients. Both C-reactive protein and fecal calprotectin values significantly decreased during follow-up. Steroids discontinuation occurred in 67 (66.7%) patients, and ADA dose escalation was adopted in 9 (16.1%) patients under remission. No factor was significantly related to the maintenance of clinical remission.This first Italian experience found ADA safe and effective to induce and maintain remission in real-life UC outpatients.

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.

Indicators of suboptimal tumor necrosis factor antagonist therapy in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is refractory to treatment in one-half of patients.

AIMS

To evaluate the occurrence of suboptimal therapy among patients with IBD treated with tumor necrosis factor antagonists (anti-TNFs).

METHODS

A multinational chart review in Europe and Canada was conducted among IBD patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD) who initiated anti-TNF therapy between 2009 and 2013. The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of suboptimal therapy during a two-year follow-up period, defined by the presence of the following indicators: dose escalation, discontinuation, switching, non-biologic therapy escalation, or surgery.

RESULTS

The study included 1195 anti-TNF initiators (538 UC and 657 CD). The majority of patients (64% of UC and 58% of CD) had at least one indicator of suboptimal therapy. The median time to suboptimal therapy indicator was 12.5 and 17.5 months for UC and CD patients, respectively. Among the 111 UC and 174 CD anti-TNF switchers, 51% and 56% had an indicator of suboptimal therapy, respectively. The median time to suboptimal therapy indicator with the second anti-TNF was 14.3 and 13.0 months for UC and CD patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The majority of IBD patients showed suboptimal therapy with current anti-TNFs.

Effect of Adalimumab on Clinical Outcomes and Health-related Quality of Life Among Patients With Ulcerative Colitis in a Clinical Practice Setting: Results From InspirADA

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Randomised trials have described the benefits of adalimumab [ADA] for ulcerative colitis [UC]; however, few data are available on health-related quality of life [HRQL] and health care costs in clinical practice.

METHODS

InspirADA, a multicentre, prospective study, evaluated the effect of ADA in patients with moderate to severe UC treated according to usual clinical practice. Outcomes assessed were: Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index [SCCAI] response/remission rates; changes in HRQL; all-cause direct costs; and UC-related direct and indirect costs from baseline to Week 26.

RESULTS

Data from 463 patients were analysed. At Week 26, 67% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 62%, 71%) of patients achieved response; 48% [95% CI: 44%, 53%] were in remission. For the overall population, significant [all p < 0.001] improvements from baseline to Week 26 were observed for the Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire [SIBDQ] (mean change ± standard deviation [SD]: 17.4 ± 14.5) and the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Level [EQ-5D-5L] (index: 0.1 ± 0.2; visual analogue scale [VAS]: 19.5 ± 25.8). Parallel improvements were seen in work productivity [11% absolute decrease in absenteeism; 25% absolute decrease in impairment while working; and 27% absolute decrease in impairment of ability to perform daily activities, all p < 0.001]. Among study completers, cumulative all-cause medical costs and UC-related medical costs were significantly [both p < 0.001] reduced by 59% and 77%, respectively, 6 months after initiation of therapy compared with the preceding 6 months. The safety profile of ADA was consistent with that observed in previous clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

ADA therapy in usual clinical practice is effective at improving and maintaining symptomatic control, improving HRQL, and decreasing costs of medical care among patients with UC.

Comparison of Infliximab and Adalimumab in Biologic-Naive Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: A Nationwide Danish Cohort Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

This study compares the effectiveness and safety of infliximab and adalimumab in biologic-naive patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), in a nationwide register-based propensity score-matched cohort study.

METHODS

From 1719 adults with UC, between ages 15 and 75 years in Denmark treated with either infliximab or adalimumab as their first biologic agent, we compared rates of all-cause hospitalization, UC-related hospitalization, major abdominal surgery, and serious infections after a variable 2:1 propensity score matching, accounting for baseline clinical characteristics, disease severity, health care utilization, and use of UC-related medications.

RESULTS

As compared with infliximab-treated patients, adalimumab-treated patients had higher rate of all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 1.84; 95% CI, 1.18-2.85) and a trend toward higher rate of UC-related hospitalization (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.95-3.07), particularly in a stratum of patients on concomitant immunomodulator therapy. However, risk of abdominal surgery (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.62-2.94) was not different between the 2 treatment groups. Risk of serious infection requiring hospitalization was significantly higher in adalimumab-treated patients (HR, 5.11; 95% CI, 1.20-21.80).

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationwide propensity score matched-cohort study of biologic-naive adults with UC, use of adalimumab as first-line biologic over infliximab was associated with higher risk of hospitalization and serious infections, although risk of surgery was not different. In the absence of head-to-head trials, this evidence may assist patients, health care providers, purchasers, and policy makers to make informed decisions that may improve health care in UC.

Adalimumab in ulcerative colitis - efficacy, safety and optimization in the era of treat-to target

INTRODUCTION

Active ulcerative colitis is associated with significant morbidity and impairment to quality of life. Adalimumab is a welcome addition to the therapeutic armamentarium for clinicians treating patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis refractory to conventional therapies, an indication with few prior treatment options. It offers the convenience of self-injection and is most appropriate for outpatients with moderate disease activity. Areas covered: This review briefly summarizes data from well-designed clinical trials and observational real-life studies that demonstrate the safety and efficacy of adalimumab in UC. Particular attention is paid to newer studies, including those with objective treatment endpoints and pharmacokinetic outcomes that incorporate a treat to target approach in inflammatory bowel disease. Expert opinion: Adalimumab is effective for the induction and maintenance of remission in patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis refractory to conventional therapies. At currently approved doses, it is most suitable for use in outpatients with moderate disease activity; higher doses may be required for patients with more severe disease. The convenience of self-injection will make it popular for remote patients and it may be an appropriate option in patients in whom monotherapy, rather than combination therapy with an immunomodulator, is preferred.