Comparison of Short- and Long-Term Effectiveness between Anti-TNF and Ustekinumab after Vedolizumab Failure as First-Line Therapy in Crohn's Disease: A Multi-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.
Crohn’s disease
anti-TNF
drug positioning
treatment failure
treatment response
ustekinumab
vedolizumab
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Mar 2023
26 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
29
01
2023
revised:
14
03
2023
accepted:
24
03
2023
medline:
14
4
2023
entrez:
13
4
2023
pubmed:
14
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The effectiveness of anti-TNF or ustekinumab (UST) as a second-line biologic after vedolizumab (VDZ) failure has not yet been described. In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, We aim to investigate the effectiveness of anti-TNF and UST as second-line therapy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) who failed VDZ as a first-line treatment. The primary outcome was clinical response at week 16-22. Secondary outcomes included the rates of clinical remission, steroid-free clinical remission, CRP normalization, and adverse events. Fifty-nine patients who failed on VDZ as a first-line treatment for CD were included; 52.8% patients received anti-TNF and 47.2% UST as a second-line therapy. In initial period (Week 16-22), the clinical response and remission rate was similar between both groups: 61.2% vs. 68%, Second-line biological therapy after VDZ failure therapy was effective in >60% of the patients with CD. No differences in effectiveness were detected between the use of anti-TNF and UST as a second line.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The effectiveness of anti-TNF or ustekinumab (UST) as a second-line biologic after vedolizumab (VDZ) failure has not yet been described.
AIMS AND METHODS
OBJECTIVE
In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, We aim to investigate the effectiveness of anti-TNF and UST as second-line therapy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) who failed VDZ as a first-line treatment. The primary outcome was clinical response at week 16-22. Secondary outcomes included the rates of clinical remission, steroid-free clinical remission, CRP normalization, and adverse events.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fifty-nine patients who failed on VDZ as a first-line treatment for CD were included; 52.8% patients received anti-TNF and 47.2% UST as a second-line therapy. In initial period (Week 16-22), the clinical response and remission rate was similar between both groups: 61.2% vs. 68%,
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Second-line biological therapy after VDZ failure therapy was effective in >60% of the patients with CD. No differences in effectiveness were detected between the use of anti-TNF and UST as a second line.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37048587
pii: jcm12072503
doi: 10.3390/jcm12072503
pmc: PMC10095015
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 May;51(10):948-957
pubmed: 32249966
J Crohns Colitis. 2017 Apr 01;11(4):412-424
pubmed: 27683798
Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2016 Jul;9(4):513-26
pubmed: 27366220
Am J Gastroenterol. 2011 Apr;106(4):674-84
pubmed: 21407178
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Apr;8(4):357-63
pubmed: 20096379
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Apr;17(5):838-846.e2
pubmed: 29935327
Gastroenterology. 2014 Sep;147(3):618-627.e3
pubmed: 24859203
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016 May;43(10):1090-102
pubmed: 27038247
Curr Health Sci J. 2016 Apr-Jun;42(2):115-124
pubmed: 30568821
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017 Jun - Jul;52(6-7):722-729
pubmed: 28362144
Gastroenterology. 2015 Feb;148(2):344-54.e5; quiz e14-5
pubmed: 25448924
Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2019 Feb - Apr;38-39:101614
pubmed: 31327401
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Aug;48(4):394-409
pubmed: 29920733
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2021 Sep;56(9):1040-1048
pubmed: 34224299
N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 17;375(20):1946-1960
pubmed: 27959607
J Clin Med. 2021 Jun 29;10(13):
pubmed: 34209880
Dig Dis Sci. 2017 Jun;62(6):1590-1596
pubmed: 28357697
J Clin Med. 2019 Dec 04;8(12):
pubmed: 31817134
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Feb;47(3):346-355
pubmed: 29226370
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017 Aug;23(8):1394-1402
pubmed: 28671873
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2018 Oct 12;24(11):2461-2467
pubmed: 29788240
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017 Jan;23(1):97-106
pubmed: 27930408
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Nov;14(11):1593-1601.e2
pubmed: 26917043
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014 Jun;39(12):1349-62
pubmed: 24749763
Dig Liver Dis. 2019 Jan;51(1):68-74
pubmed: 30172649
J Crohns Colitis. 2019 Oct 28;13(11):1401-1409
pubmed: 30989232
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Aug;50(3):278-288
pubmed: 31222872
N Engl J Med. 2013 Aug 22;369(8):711-21
pubmed: 23964933
United European Gastroenterol J. 2020 Nov;8(9):1045-1055
pubmed: 32772830
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2018 Oct 12;24(11):2442-2451
pubmed: 29788318
Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 Mar;104(3):760-7
pubmed: 19174781
J Crohns Colitis. 2018 Jan 24;12(2):245-257
pubmed: 29077833
Int J Mol Sci. 2018 Jul 31;19(8):
pubmed: 30065229
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Nov;48(9):1029-1030
pubmed: 30318686
Dig Liver Dis. 2019 Sep;51(9):1232-1240
pubmed: 31202609
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2021 Jul 27;27(8):1294-1301
pubmed: 33146703