Dataset Information

A propensity score-matched, real-world comparison of ustekinumab vs vedolizumab as a second-line treatment for Crohn's disease. The Cross Pennine study II.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The optimal choice of biological agents after failure of anti-tumour-necrosis-factor-(TNF)α agent in Crohn's disease (CD) is yet to be defined.

Aims

To assess the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab compared to vedolizumab as second-line treatment in CD patients who failed anti-TNFα therapy.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of clinical response and remission at 14 and 52 weeks to ustekinumab by physician global assessment (PGA). A propensity score-matched analysis with a cohort treated with vedolizumab was performed.

Results

Of 282 patients (mean age 40 ± 15, F:M ratio 1.7:1) treated with ustekinumab, clinical response or remission was reached by 200/282 patients (70.9%) at 14 weeks, and 162/259 patients (62.5%) at 52 weeks. Overall, 74 adverse events occurred, of which 26 were labelled as serious (8.3 per 100 person-year). After exclusion of patients without prior anti-TNFα exposure and patients previously exposed to vedolizumab or ustekinumab, we analysed 275/282 patients (97.5%) on ustekinumab and 118/135 patients (87.4%) on vedolizumab. Propensity score analysis revealed that at 14 weeks, patients treated with ustekinumab were 38% (95% CI 25%-50%; P < 0.001) more likely to achieve clinical remission, while at 52 weeks, the difference of 9% (95% CI -15% to 33%; P = 0.462) was not significant.

Conclusions

Ustekinumab was effective and well tolerated in this real-world cohort. While ustekinumab proved more effective at 14-weeks, we found no statistically significant differences at 52 weeks compared to vedolizumab.

SUBMITTER: Lenti MV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9305775 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUstekinumab and vedolizumab are both effective for treating Crohn's disease (CD). However, no head-to-head trials have been conducted thus far. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in CD patients either naïve or exposed to tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFi).MethodsPatients treated with vedolizumab or ustekinumab for luminal CD were included from six centers in China from May 2020 to July 2023. Steroid-free remission, clinical remission, objective response, and remission at Weeks 26 and 52 were evaluated in a retrospective multicenter propensity score-weighted cohort.FindingsA total of 536 patients were included (386 ustekinumab, and 150 vedolizumab). After adjustment, ustekinumab showed higher rates of clinical remission (56.4% vs. 47.8%, P = 0.005), steroid-free remission (55.4% vs. 46.1%, P = 0.003), and objective response (67.8% vs. 42.7%, P < 0.001) than vedolizumab at Week 26. At Week 52, ustekinumab exhibited significantly higher rates of clinical remission (65.8% vs. 37.5%, P < 0.001), steroid-free remission (65.8% vs. 37.5%, P < 0.001), objective response (66.7% vs. 23.8%, P < 0.001), and objective remission (31.4% vs. 12.7%, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed that ustekinumab had higher rates of clinical remission, steroid-free remission, and objective response at Weeks 26 and 52, and objective remission at Week 52 in TNFi-exposed patients, while ustekinumab showed higher rates of objective response at Weeks 26 and 52 and clinical remission, steroid-free remission and objective remission at Week 52 in TNFi-naïve patients. Adverse event rates were similar between the groups (4.9% ustekinumab vs. 6.7% vedolizumab, P = 0.423).InterpretationUstekinumab showed superior clinical and objective outcomes compared to vedolizumab, with comparable safety outcomes. The therapeutic superiority was observed in both short-term and long-term phases in TNFi-exposed patients, and the long-term phase in TNFi-naïve patients.FundingNational Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, Key Research Projects of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, the program of Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, and National Key Clinical Discipline.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide despite correct antibiotic use. Corticosteroids have long been evaluated as a treatment option, but heterogeneous effects on survival have precluded their widespread implementation. We aimed to evaluate whether corticosteroids might improve clinical outcomes in patients with severe CAP and high inflammatory responses.Study design and methodsWe analyzed two prospective observational cohorts of patients with CAP in Barcelona and Rome who were admitted to intensive care with a high inflammatory response. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to obtain balance among the baseline variables in both groups, and we excluded patients with viral pneumonia or who received hydrocortisone.ResultsOf the 610 patients admitted with severe CAP, 198 (32%) received corticosteroids and 387 had major criteria for severe CAP. All patients had a baseline serum C-reactive protein above 15 mg/dL. Patients who received corticosteroids were more commonly male, had more comorbidities (e.g., cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and presented with significantly higher sequential organ failure assessment scores. Eighty-nine patients met major severity criteria (invasive mechanical ventilation and/or septic shock) and were matched per group. Twenty-eight-day mortality was lower among patients receiving corticosteroids (16 patients, 18%) than among those not receiving them (28 patients, 31%; p = 0.037). After PS matching, corticosteroid therapy reduced the 28-day mortality risk in patients who met major severity criteria (hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.98) (p = 0.043). In patients who did not meet major severity criteria, no benefits were observed with corticosteroid use (HR 0.88 (95%CI 0.32-2.36).ConclusionsCorticosteroid treatment may be of benefit for patients with CAP who have septic shock and/or a high inflammatory response and requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation. Corticosteroids appear to have no impact on mortality when these features are not present.