Alimentary TractThe effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab as third-line biologic therapy in patients with Crohn's disease
Introduction
Relevant improvements in the understanding of the molecular mechanisms of Crohn's disease (CD) have been achieved over the past years, leading to the development of novel targeted therapies [1]. Two biologics have been recently introduced in clinical practice for the treatment of CD, namely Ustekinumab (UST) [2] – a monoclonal antibody targeting the p40 subunit of IL-12 and IL-23 – and Vedolizumab (VDZ) [3] - a monoclonal antibody that targets the α4β7 integrin, typically expressed by gut-homing lymphocytes. Both drugs have joined to the already available inhibitors of TNF-α. This enlargement of the medical options led to the demand of a better understanding of the efficacy of these drugs among different lines of treatment. In other words, comparative data between drugs are needed, but this has clashed with the current paucity of head-to-head randomized controlled trials comparing different treatments. As a consequence, data from real-world experience are becoming more and more relevant to better clarify the positioning of drugs inside the therapeutic algorithms for CD [4].
Inhibitors of TNF-α are currently employed in CD mostly as first-line biologic therapy due to the current availability of effective and low-cost biosimilars of infliximab and adalimumab [5], [6], [7], while VDZ and UST are mainly used as second- or third-line therapies. The comparison between VDZ and UST as second-line agents in patients witch CD has been investigated by recent studies [8]. While most of the papers suggested that UST may be associated with higher long-term effectiveness than VDZ [9], [10], [11], [12], other studies did not find significant differences [13,14], or even favored the use of VDZ [15]. Conversely, the effectiveness of UST and VDZ as third-line biologic agents - i.e. after failure with at least one TNF-α inhibitor plus failure with either VDZ or UST - has been poorly investigated. In this regard, a recent multicentric study showed that both drugs were effective in more than half of the patients with CD as third-line treatment [16], and these encouraging results were confirmed by a French study assessing the effectiveness of third-line biological therapies among patients with CD [17].
On these premises, web-based data from the cohort of the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SN-IBD) were extracted to perform a multicentre, real-world assessment of the effectiveness of UST and VDZ as third-line biologic treatment for CD.
Section snippets
Patients and treatment strategies
The SN-IBD is a regional group composed of all 16 centers licensed to prescribe biologics in Sicily (Italy). Since January 2013, these centers collect real-world, prospective data on patients with IBD treated with biologics via a web-based software, with the aim of monitoring efficacy and safety of these drugs. Each physician of the Network has its own access to the software, where the upload of the clinical data of the patients at the time of the clinical visit is required. This platform
Patients
One hundred forty-three patients were included: 113 were treated with UST, while 30 were treated with VDZ, with a median follow-up of 54.0 weeks (I.Q.R. 24.0–102.0 weeks). All patients in the VDZ group had been previously treated with one or two anti-TNFs as first-line biologic therapy and with UST as second-line agent. Regarding those in the UST group, 110 out of 113 (97.3%) had been treated with one or two anti-TNFs as first-line biologic therapy and with VDZ as second-line agent, while 3
Discussion
As therapeutic options for CD expand, there is an increased need to understand the effectiveness of the various drugs across different lines of treatment. This applies to first-line treatments but it's even more important for the biologic-experienced patients, when the surgical option should also be taken into account. In this regard, our study attempted to better clarify the real effectiveness of UST and VDZ as third-line biologic therapies. Overall, the results of our multicentre, real-world
Funding
None.
Disclosures
Fabio Salvatore Macaluso served as an advisory board member and/or received lecture grants from Biogen, Ferring, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Maria Cappello served as an advisory board member for AbbVie, MSD, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and received lecture grants from AbbVie, MSD, Chiesi, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Sara Renna served as an advisory board member/and or received lecture grants from AbbVie, Janssen, MSD, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Walter Fries served
References (18)
- et al.
Positioning biologics in the treatment of IBD: a practical guide - which mechanism of action for whom?
Curr Res Pharmacol Drug Discov
(2022) - et al.
The outcome of Crohn's disease patients refractory to anti-TNF and either vedolizumab or ustekinumab
Dig Liver Dis
(2020) - et al.
Comparative efficacy and safety of biologic therapies for moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol
(2021) - et al.
Effectiveness and safety of Ustekinumab for the treatment of Crohn's disease in real-life experiences: a meta-analysis of observational studies
Expert Opin Biol Ther
(2020) - et al.
Systematic review with meta-analysis: real-world effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease
J Gastroenterol
(2018) - et al.
Head-to-head comparison of biological drugs for inflammatory bowel disease: from randomized controlled trials to real-world experience
Therap Adv Gastroenterol
(2021) - et al.
The PROSIT cohort of infliximab biosimilar in IBD: a prolonged follow-up on the effectiveness and safety across Italy
Inflamm Bowel Dis
(2019) - et al.
The SPOSIB SB2 sicilian cohort: safety and effectiveness of infliximab biosimilar SB2 in inflammatory bowel diseases, including multiple switches
Inflamm Bowel Dis
(2021) - et al.
SPOSAB ABP 501: a sicilian prospective observational study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with adalimumab biosimilar ABP 501
J Gastroenterol Hepatol
(2021)