Recent evidence has demonstrated that large ulcers of the ileum and rectum are less likely to heal with infliximab compared with other biologic therapies. In addition, no trials have been conducted to compare biologic therapies for ileal and colonic healing in patients with CD.
Dr Neeraj Narula (McMaster University, Canada) and colleagues performed a pooled analysis that included 344 participants with CD who were enrolled in clinical trials [1]. All participants had received continuous adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, or vedolizumab. The primary endpoint was 1-year endoscopic healing, defined as a simple endoscopic score for Crohn's disease (SES-CD) of 0. Results were adjusted for potential confounders including disease duration, concomitant corticosteroid use, and prior anti-TNF failure.
In participants with ileal involvement, vedolizumab showed the lowest proportion of patients achieving one-year endoscopic healing (18.6%), whereas infliximab was associated with the highest proportion compared with vedolizumab (36.7%; P=0.038). In addition, adalimumab (30%; P=0.225) and ustekinumab (22.7%; P=0.694) demonstrated numerically higher rates of segment endoscopic healing than vedolizumab but were not significant. Similar results were obtained in participants who displayed ileal ulcers >5 mm. Notably, there was no significant difference between biologic therapies for endoscopic healing in biologic-naïve participants with ileal involvement: adalimumab (37.5%) versus vedolizumab (21.9%; P=0.200); infliximab (36.7%) versus vedolizumab (P=0.130); ustekinumab (40.0%) versus vedolizumab (P=0.255).
Among participants with colonic disease, ustekinumab showed the lowest rate of colonic endoscopic healing (29.0%). Adalimumab (62.5%; P<0.001) and infliximab (52.4%; P=0.041) demonstrated significantly higher rates of colonic endoscopic healing compared with ustekinumab. Vedolizumab was associated with an endoscopic healing rate of 31.3% and did not differ from ustekinumab (P=0.987). In participants with colonic ulcers >5 mm, infliximab and adalimumab had the highest colonic endoscopic healing rates, whereas ustekinumab had the lowest endoscopic healing rate. These results were similar in biologic-naïve participants.
“Despite that these results were confirmed in multivariate analysis, our study cannot compete with a true head-to-head study,” admitted Dr Narula. “Moreover, the rapidity of onset of the compared biologics may partially explain the results we have observed. Certain biologic treatments need to be continued for a longer time before endoscopic healing occurs. Nonetheless, TNF inhibitors were in general superior to vedolizumab and ustekinumab for reaching endoscopic healing of the ileum and colon in these participants.”
- Narula N, et al. Comparative Efficacy of Biologics for Endoscopic Healing of the Ileum and Colon in Crohn’s Disease. OP10, ECCO 2022, 16–19 February.
Copyright ©2022 Medicom Medical Publishers
Posted on
Previous Article
« Upadacitinib appears to be an efficacious therapy for moderately-to-severely ulcerative colitis Next Article
Primary endpoint of 5-hydroxytryptophan for fatigue in IBD not met »
« Upadacitinib appears to be an efficacious therapy for moderately-to-severely ulcerative colitis Next Article
Primary endpoint of 5-hydroxytryptophan for fatigue in IBD not met »
Table of Contents: ECCO 2022
Featured articles
Upadacitinib maintenance therapy delivers sustained improvements in active ulcerative colitis
Novel Treatment Modalities
Guselkumab shows encouraging safety and efficacy in ulcerative colitis
Guselkumab maintenance therapy achieved high efficacy rates in Crohn’s disease
Mirikizumab efficacious for active ulcerative colitis
Risankizumab more efficacious in colonic than in ileal Crohn’s disease
Guselkumab plus golimumab promising combination for ulcerative colitis
Combined endpoint may support personalised medicine in ulcerative colitis
Filgotinib seems promising for perianal fistulising Crohn’s disease
Upadacitinib maintenance therapy delivers sustained improvements in active ulcerative colitis
Upadacitinib counters extraintestinal manifestations in ulcerative colitis
Deucravacitinib does not meet primary endpoint for ulcerative colitis
Head-to-Head Comparisons
Anti-TNFs versus vedolizumab and ustekinumab in Crohn’s disease
Upadacitinib appears to be an efficacious therapy for moderately-to-severely ulcerative colitis
Subcutaneous infliximab versus subcutaneous vedolizumab in IBD
Vedolizumab outperforms anti-TNF in biologic-naïve ulcerative colitis
Short-Term and Long-Term Treatment Results
Ozanimod treatment shows maintained response in ulcerative colitis
Stopping infliximab but not antimetabolites leads to more relapses in Crohn’s disease
Vedolizumab first approved therapy for chronic pouchitis
VEDOKIDS: Vedolizumab seems effective in paediatric IBD
Primary endpoint of 5-hydroxytryptophan for fatigue in IBD not met
Specific Therapeutic Strategies
Positive outcomes with therapeutic drug monitoring during infliximab maintenance therapy
Segmental colectomy beneficial over total colectomy in Chrohn’s disease
Modified 2-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis versus 3-stage alternative
Similar results for different corticosteroid tapering protocols in UC
Miscellaneous Topics
Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic for IBD management
AI model distinguishes between histologic activity and remission in ulcerative colitis
Multi-Omic and dietary analysis of Crohn’s disease identifies pathogenetic factors
Novel classification system for perianal fistulising Crohn’s disease
Vaccination tool associated with improved vaccination coverage in IBD
Comparable safety profiles of biological therapies in elderly patients with IBD
Early biologic therapy induces larger effect than delayed treatment in Crohn’s disease
RESTORE-UC: No better outcomes with FMT superdonors than with autologous stools
Related Articles
November 6, 2024
Deucravacitinib treatment in lichen planopilaris
© 2024 Medicom Medical Publishers. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy
HEAD OFFICE
Laarderhoogtweg 25
1101 EB Amsterdam
The Netherlands
T: +31 85 4012 560
E: publishers@medicom-publishers.com