Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Lee YI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7960969 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Lee Yong Il YI Park Yehyun Y Park Soo Jung SJ Kim Tae Il TI Kim Won Ho WH Cheon Jae Hee JH

Gut and liver 20210301 2

<h4>Background/aims</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>We retrospectively analyzed the records of 113 biologic-naïve p ...[more]

PMID: 32616683

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: In steroid-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC), cyclosporine (CYS) or infliximab (IFX) may be considered as a second-line alternative to avoid colectomy. There are short-term data reported, but until now, there is no meta-analysis regarding long-term outcomes of CYS and IFX in patients with ASUC. Aim: To compare long-term efficacy and safety of CYS and IFX in a meta-analysis. Methods: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for studies which compared CYS vs. IFX in adults with ASUC. Long-term colectomy-free rate from 1 to 10 years during CYS or IFX therapy was collected, last updated up to 22nd May 2019. Primary outcome was long-term colectomy-free rate, secondary outcomes were adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), and mortality. Long-term colectomy-free survival and safety measures were pooled with the random-effect model. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results: Data from 1,607 patients in 15 trials were extracted. In the first 3 years, pooled OR for colectomy-free survival was higher with IFX than with CYS (OR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.11-2.29, p = 0.012; OR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.14-2.18, p = 0.006; and OR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.08-2.84, p = 0.024; at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively). However, the significant difference remained undetected from the fourth year of follow-up and in subgroup of RCTs (OR = 1.35, 95% CI: 0.90-2.01, p = 0.143; OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.94-2.12, p = 0.096; and OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.89-2.00, p = 0.157; at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively). No significant difference was detected regarding adverse events, serious adverse events and mortality between the groups. The neutral associations proved to be underpowered with trial sequential analysis. Conclusion: However observational studies show IFX as a better choice, according to the RCTs, choosing either CYS or IFX as rescue therapy for ASUC, the long-term outcomes are not different, although further large RCTs are warranted.