• Welcome to Crohn's Forum, a support group for people with all forms of IBD. While this community is not a substitute for doctor's advice and we cannot treat or diagnose, we find being able to communicate with others who have IBD is invaluable as we navigate our struggles and celebrate our successes. We invite you to join us.

Comparative effectiveness of biologics

crohnsinct

Well-known member

Interesting that after all these years the anti tif drugs still come out on top. Still nice to have the new drugs for when you need to move on. Also, Jak inhibitors too new for this study. Interested to see how they perform.
 

my little penguin

Moderator
Staff member
So the thing of note which was weird imo
They compared ileal disease ulcer treatment of remicade to entyvio. Entivyio is known to be better in the large colon and NOT the terminal ileum so why pick that combo

Second the pick was also strange
Comparing Stelara in the large intestine to humira when it is known Stelara tends to not be as effective in the large intestine

Now if they had reviewed Stelara in the terminal ileum vs remicade
And entivyio vs humira in the large intestine
That would have been far more telling imo
 

Maya142

Moderator
Staff member
That is weird - I would also expect them to compare Entyvio with Humira or Remicade for colonic disease. And Stelara for ileal or even ileocolonic disease vs. Humira/Remicade.
That said, based on what we have heard from M's GIs, it doesn't surprise me that Humira and Remicade work better than Stelara and Entyvio. But I would also be interested to see how JAK inhibitors like Rinvoq compare.
 

crohnsinct

Well-known member
Yeah I read that also but then took a second look. They say compared to vedo Humira and Remicade are superior but then go on to say there was no statistical difference between veto and Stelara….so I would assume that means they are superior to Stelara as well. But I think this was across the whole population. They further break it down.

For only large ileal ulcers do they point out that inflixinab was superior to vedo and then say no other differences noted. So does that mean that Stelara did equally as well as the anti tif's?

For colonic they did the same thing. Compared the anti tif drugs to Stelara and said no other differences noted. So does that mean that veto was as good in this population?

I think we need access to the full study report.

Either way, it does jive with what I see over and over again on medtwitter, conference presentations and such…that the anti tif's are the best shot at getting into remission especially when biologic naive.
 

Maya142

Moderator
Staff member
Perks of having a kiddo doing a PhD - she has access to all sorts of research!
Endoscopic Healing Overall
The relative ability of infliximab, vedolizumab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab to achieve overall EH, defined using a definition of total SES-CD < 3, was assessed. Results from this analysis are presented in Table 2. Patients treated with adalimumab [17/61 (27.9%)] and infliximab [39/141 (27.7%)] had the highest rate of one-year EH, followed by ustekinumab [7/41 (17.1%)] and vedolizumab [4/56 (7.1%)]. Compared to vedolizumab-treated patients, adalimumab-treated patients had a greater than fivefold likelihood of achieving one-year EH, which remained significant after adjustment for covariates [aOR: 5.79 (95% CI: 1.77-18.95), p=0.004] (Table 4). Similarly, after adjustment, patients treated with infliximab had a greater likelihood of achieving one-year EH compared to those treated with vedolizumab [aOR: 4.59 (95% CI: 1.48-14.22, p=0.008]. No significant differences were observed between ustekinumab and vedolizumab. Of the 299 patients included in this analysis, a total of 242 patients had large ulcers at baseline. Vedolizumab [2/47 (4.3%)] and ustekinumab [5/34 (14.7%)] demonstrated the lowest rates of one-year EH in patients with large ulcers, while adalimumab [11/51 (21.6%)] and infliximab [27/110 (24.6%)] had higher rates of one-year EH. Compared to vedolizumab, adalimumab demonstrated a significantly greater ability to achieve one-year EH in those with large ulcers at baseline after adjustment for covariates [aOR: 6.45 (95% CI: 1.32-31.38), p=0.021]. Similarly, this was observed among patients treated with infliximab [aOR: 6.04 (95% CI: 1.31-27.82), p=0.021]. To evaluate whether a higher SES-CD enrollment threshold would impact the relative positioning of therapies, sensitivity analyses were performed on the study population restricted to 250 patients with baseline SES-CD ≥ 7, of which 108 were treated with infliximab, 32 with ustekinumab, 54 with adalimumab, and 56 with vedolizumab. Similar rates of one-year EH were observed in this sensitivity analysis, with infliximab-treated patients achieving the highest rate of one year EH [28/108 (25.9%)],followed closely by adalimumab [12/54 (22.2%)], while ustekinumab [5/32 (15.6%)] and vedolizumab [4/56 (7.1%)] were the worst performing (p=0.035). No difference was observed between ustekinumab and vedolizumab for achieving one-year EH in patients with large ulcers at baseline. Similar trends were observed for those with very large ulcers at baseline (n=90) and also presented in Table 2.

Endoscopic Healing Overall Among Biologic Naïve Patients
Among the 299 participants included in this analysis, a total of 240 participants were biologic naïve.Table 3 demonstrates the one-year endoscopic outcomes of these participants. Adalimumab demonstrated the highest rate of one-year EH [12/36 (33.3%)], followed by infliximab [39/141 (27.7%)],ustekinumab [5/22 (22.7%)], and vedolizumab [4/41 (9.8%)]. Compared to vedolizumab, again, adalimumab demonstrated a significantly greater ability to achieve one-year EH after adjustment for covariates [aOR: 4.68 (95% CI: 1.34-16.30), p=0.015] (Supplementary Table 1,http://links.lww.com/AJG/C508). Similar findings were observed for infliximab [aOR: 3.99 (95% CI: 1.27-12.51), p=0.018]. No significant differences were observed between vedolizumab and ustekinumab. Similar trends were observed among biologic naïve patients with very large or large ulcers.

Endoscopic Healing of the Ileum Supplementary Table 2,http://links.lww.com/AJG/C508 demonstrates the number of patients with ileal involvement at baseline and the proportion achieving endoscopic outcomes at one-year. In total, 184 patients had a SES-CD ≥ 3 in the ileum. Vedolizumab demonstrated the lowest rate of ileal EH at one-year [8/43 (18.6%)]. Compared to vedolizumab, infliximab demonstrated the highest rate of ileal EH at one-year [29/79 (36.7%)], followed by adalimumab [12/40 (30%)], and ustekinumab [5/22 (22.7%)]. After adjustment for covariates, no significant difference in the rate of ileal EH was observed between vedolizumab and infliximab [aOR: 2.25 (95% CI: 0.85-5.96), p=0.102], adalimumab [aOR: 2.02 (95% CI: 0.69-5.97), p=0.202], or ustekinumab [aOR: 1.81 (95% CI: 0.47-6.91), p=0.389] (Table 4). Sensitivity analysis using the outcome of absence of ileal ulcers were performed on 119 patients with large ileal ulcers at baseline. Vedolizumab had the lowest rate of absent ileal ulcers at one-year [2/23 (8.7%)].Compared to vedolizumab, infliximab demonstrated the highest rate of absence of ileal ulcers at one-year [20/49 (40.8%), aOR: 5.39 (95% CI: 1.03-28.05), p=0.045]. This was followed by adalimumab [9/30 (30%)] and ustekinumab [3/17 (17.7%)], which were not significant after adjustment for covariates (p=0.077 and p=0.259, respectively). Among 24 participants with very large ulcers at baseline, none of the 7 participants who were treated with vedolizumab achieved absence of ileal ulcers at one-year. In contrast, 3/5 (60%) of infliximab-treated patients and 1/6 (16.7%) of adalimumab-treated patients with very large ileal ulcers had clearance of ileal ulcers.

Endoscopic Healing of the Ileum Among Biologic Naïve Patients
Outcomes of the 145 patients with ileal disease at baseline who were biologic naïve are presented in Supplementary Table 3,http://links.lww.com/AJG/C508. Vedolizumab demonstrated the lowest rate of ileal EH at one-year [7/32 (21.9%)]. Ustekinumab demonstrated the highest rate of ileal EH at one-year[4/10 (40%), aOR: 2.13 (95% CI: 0.43-10.46), p=0.354] followed by adalimumab [9/24 (37.5%), aOR: 1.88 (95% CI: 0.55-6.38), p=0.313], and infliximab [29/79 (36.7%), aOR: 1.96 (95% CI: 0.59-6.45), p=0.270].When biologics among biologic naïve patients with large ileal ulcers were compared, again, vedolizumab had the lowest rate of absence of ileal ulcers at one-year [2/17 (11.8%)]. Adalimumab demonstrated the highest rate of absence of ileal ulcers at one-year [7/17 (42.3%), aOR: 3.75 (95% CI: 0.60-23.30), p=0.156] compared to infliximab [20/49 (40.8%), aOR: 3.10 (95% CI: 0.48-20.04), p=0.234], and ustekinumab [2/7 (28.6%), aOR: 1.92 (95% CI: 0.18-20.24), p=0.589]. Similar trends were observed among the 14 biologic naïve participants with very large ileal ulcers. Once adjusted for covariates, no significant differences were observed between biologics for any of the ileal outcomes above among biologic naïve patients.

Endoscopic Healing of the Colon
Supplementary Table 4,http://links.lww.com/AJG/C508 demonstrates the outcomes of patients with disease in any of the colonic segments at baseline and the proportion achieving endoscopic outcomes atone-year. In total, 232 patients had at least one colonic segment with a SES-CD ≥ 3. Ustekinumab had the lowest rate of colonic EH [9/31 (29.0%)]. Compared to ustekinumab, the highest proportion of patients achieving segment EH at one-year were treated with adalimumab [30/48, (62.5%), aOR: 3.97 (95% CI: 1.45-10.90), p=0.007] followed by infliximab [55/105 (52.4%), aOR: 2.08 (95% CI: 0.82-5.27), p=0.121]. There was no significant difference in colonic EH between ustekinumab and vedolizumab [aOR: 1.00 (95% CI: 0.35-2.80), p=0.995]. Among the 176 patients with large colonic ulcers at baseline, ustekinumab again had the lowest rate of absence of colonic ulcers at one-year [8/27 (29.6%)]. Infliximab demonstrated the highest rate of absence of colonic ulcers at one-year [55/78 (70.5%), aOR:3.82 (95% CI: 1.35-10.81), p=0.012] followed by adalimumab (24/37 (64.9%), aOR: 4.27 (95% CI: 1.37-13.31), p=0.012]. There were no significant differences between vedolizumab and ustekinumab [aOR: 1.42 (95% CI: 0.46-4.41), p=0.540] (Table 4). Similar results were obtained when evaluating biologics and absence of colonic ulcers at one-year among patients with very large colonic ulcers at baseline.

Endoscopic Healing of the Colon Among Biologic Naïve Patients
Among the 184 biologic naïve patients with colonic ulcers at baseline, ustekinumab had the lowest rate of segment EH at one-year [5/17 (29.4%)]. Adalimumab demonstrated the highest rate of segment EH at one-year [18/27 (66.7%), aOR: 4.96 (95% CI: 1.29-19.03), p=0.020], followed by infliximab [55/105 (52.4%), aOR: 2.71 (95% CI: 0.89-8.27), p=0.081], and vedolizumab [13/35 (37.1%), aOR: 1.48 (95% CI: 0.41-5.38), p=0.548] (Supplementary Table 1/5,http://links.lww.com/AJG/C508). Sensitivity analyses among those with large colonic ulcers at baseline (n=133) using the outcome of absence of colonic ulcers at one-year demonstrated that again ustekinumab had the lowest rate of absence of colonic ulcers at one-year [5/14 (35.7%)]. Infliximab had the highest rate of absence of colonic ulcers at one-year [55/78 (70.5%), aOR: 4.73 (95% CI: 1.40-15.94), p=0.012], followed by adalimumab [13/19 (68.4%), aOR: 4.33 (95% CI: 0.96-19.55), p=0.057], and vedolizumab [12/22 (54.6%), aOR: 2.47 (95% CI: 0.59-10.27), p=0.213]. Among the 51 patients with very large colonic ulcers at baseline, compared to ustekinumab [2/9 (22.2%)], adalimumab [7/9 (77.8%)] demonstrated the highest rate of absence of colonic ulcers at one-year [aOR: 18.53 (95% CI: 1.68-204.51), p=0.017]. After adjustment for known confounders, infliximab [19/25 (76.0%)] also demonstrated a significantly higher rate of absence of colonic ulcers at one-year compared to ustekinumab [aOR: 15.71 (95% CI: 2.26-109.12), p=0.005]. No significant difference was observed when ustekinumab and vedolizumab were compared.

Endoscopic Healing of the Individual Colonic Segments
Endoscopic outcomes across individual colonic segments and among patients who were biologic naïve were also evaluated. Overall, adalimumab demonstrated the highest rate of segment EH in the ascending colon, transverse colon, and descending colon, while infliximab had the highest rate of segment EH in the rectum. Among patients who were biologic-naïve, adalimumab demonstrated the greatest ability to achieve segment EH across all colonic segments. Among patients with large ulcers, adalimumab continued to demonstrate the highest rate of absence of ulcers in the ascending colon [5/11 (45.5%)], transverse colon [6/14 (42.9%)], and descending colon [14/25 (56.0%)], although no significant differences were observed after adjustment for covariates. Similarly, infliximab continued to demonstrate the highest rate of absence of ulcers in the rectum among patients with large rectal ulcers at baseline, although this was not statistically significant compared to the worst performing biologic, ustekinumab [12/28 (42.9%) vs. 0/18 (0%)].
 
Top