Search

Introduction: Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) receiving immunosuppressive drugs are at substantial risk of colectomy. We aimed to assess the risk of postoperative complications of tofacitinib exposure before colectomy in comparison with biologics., Methods: A multicenter, retrospective, observational study was conducted in patients with UC who underwent total colectomy for medically refractory disease, exposed to tofacitinib or a biologic before surgery. Primary outcome was the occurrence of any complication within 30 (early) and 90 (late) days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of infections, sepsis, surgical site complications, venous thromboembolic events (VTE), hospital readmissions, and redo surgery within the same timepoints., Results: Three hundred one patients (64 tofacitinib, 162 anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents, 54 vedolizumab, and 21 ustekinumab) were included. No significant differences were reported in any outcome, except for a higher rate of early VTE with anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents ( P = 0.047) and of late VTE with vedolizumab ( P = 0.03). In the multivariate analysis, drug class was not associated with a higher risk of any early and late complications. Urgent colectomy increased the risk of any early (odds ratio [OR] 1.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-3.48) complications, early hospital readmission (OR 4.79, 95% CI 1.12-20.58), and early redo surgery (OR 7.49, 95% CI 1.17-47.85). A high steroid dose increased the risk of any early complications (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.08-3.57), early surgical site complications (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.01-4.09), and early redo surgery (OR 7.52, 95% CI 1.42-39.82). Laparoscopic surgery decreased the risk of any early complications (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-1.00), early infections (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.85), and late hospital readmissions (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12-1.00)., Discussion: Preoperative tofacitinib treatment demonstrated a postoperative safety profile comparable with biologics in patients with UC undergoing colectomy., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background/aims: This real-world analysis evaluated the persistence and direct healthcare costs of Crohn's Disease (CD) patients treated with biologics in Italy., Methods: A retrospective analysis on administrative databases of Italian healthcare entities, covering 10.4 million residents, was performed. Adult CD patients under biologics between 2015 and 2020 were included and attributed to first/second treatment line based on absence/presence of biologic prescriptions 5-years before index-date (first biologic prescription)., Results: Of 16,374 CD patients identified, 1,398 (8.5%) were biologic-treated: 1,256 (89.8%) in first line and 135 (9.7%) in second line. Kaplan-Meier curves estimated a higher persistence for ustekinumab-treated patients followed by vedolizumab, infliximab and adalimumab, in both lines. Considering baseline variables and adalimumab as reference, infliximab in first line (HR: 0.537) and ustekinumab in first (HR: 0.057) and second line (HR: 0.213) were associated with significantly reduced risk of drug-discontinuation. First line total/average healthcare direct-costs were €13,637, €11,201, €17,104 and €18,340 in patients persistent on adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab and vedolizumab, respectively., Conclusions: This real-world analysis showed differences in persistence over 12-months between biologic treatments, being higher in ustekinumab-treated group, followed by vedolizumab, infliximab and adalimumab. Patients' management was associated with comparable direct healthcare costs among treatment lines, mainly driven by drug-related expenses., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Janssen-Cilag SpA purchased the study report that is the basis for this manuscript. This manuscript was developed with Janssen-Cilag SpA and CliCon S.r.l. Società Benefit. The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the supporters. The agreement signed by CliCon S.r.l. and Janssen-Cilag SpA does not create any entity, joint venture or any similar relationship between parties. CliCon S.r.l. is an independent company. Neither CliCon S.r.l. nor any of their representatives are employees of Janssen-Cilag SpA for any purpose. Andrea Franchi, Ottavio Secchi and Andrea Serra are employees of Janssen-Cilag SpA. Marco Daperno served as member of boards, lecturer and/or received grants for participation to congresses from Abbvie, Takeda, Jannsen, Pfizer, Celltrion, Galapagos, SOFAR, Chiesi, Zambon, Ferring; he acts as consultant for Bioclinica-Clario. Edoardo Vincenzo Savarino has served as speaker for Abbvie, AGPharma, Alfasigma, Dr Falk, EG Stada Group, Fresenius Kabi, Grifols, Janssen, Innovamedica, Malesci, Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, Sandoz, SILA, Sofar, Takeda, Unifarco; has served as consultant for Alfasigma, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Diadema Farmaceutici, Dr. Falk, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Merck & Co, Reckitt Benckiser, Regeneron, Sanofi, Shire, SILA, Sofar, Synformulas GmbH, Takeda, Unifarco; he received research support from Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, SILA, Sofar, Unifarco. Franco Scaldaferri received fees for consultancy or other activities form MSD, Janseen, Takeda, Sandoz, Ferring, Pfizer. or other activities. Alessandro Armuzzi has received consulting fees from: AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda; speaker's fees from: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, Tigenix; research support from: MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Biogen. All the other authors have no competing interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Head-to-head comparison studies evaluating the effectiveness and tolerability of anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs in inflammatory bowel disease patients are lacking., Aim: To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of anti-TNF-α drugs used in clinical practice in a cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC)., Methods: Retrospectively, 122 UC patients treated with infliximab (IFX) originator and biosimilar, adalimumab (ADA), and golimumab (GOL) were included. We performed an ITT analysis to evaluate clinical response and remission, steroid-free clinical remission, and endoscopy response according to the different time points of the follow-up. Baseline and post induction predictor factors of these outcomes were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression models. Moreover, a propensity score-based weighting analysis was performed. Data were analyzed using R and STATA11 software., Results: The overall clinical response was 77% after induction, 81.4% at 30 weeks, and 76.9% at 52 weeks, while the steroid-free clinical remission was 39.7, 46, and 54.6%, respectively. After induction, a higher rate of treatment failure was observed in the GOL group. At the end of follow-up, lower rates of steroid-free clinical remission and clinical response were obtained by GOL. At week 52, endoscopic response was achieved by 46.5% of the population., Conclusions: Among the different anti-TNF treatments, moderate-to-severe UC seems to respond better to IFX and ADA, whereas GOL seems to be less effective, despite a similar good safety profile., (© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Introduction: There are no real-life studies comparing the efficacy and safety of the different antitumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α drugs available in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). To verify the effectiveness and tolerability of different anti-TNF-α agents (infliximab [IFX] originator, biosimilar CTP13, and adalimumab [ADA]) in patients with moderate-to-severe CD and UC., Methods: Retrospectively, patients with moderate-to-severe inflammatory bowel disease who completed induction with either ADA, IFX originator, or biosimilar from 2015 to 2017 were included. Patients were evaluated after induction at 30 and 52 weeks. We performed an intention-to-treat analysis to evaluate clinical response and remission, steroid-free clinical remission, and endoscopy response according to different time points. At every time point, the need for dose escalation and occurrence of adverse events have been reported., Results: Eighty-nine patients with UC (31 ADA, 30 IFX originator, and 28 IFX biosimilar) and 90 patients with CD (30 for each drug groups) were enrolled. After induction at week 30 and 52, clinical response was obtained by the following: 84.3%, 86.5%, and 82% of UC and 93.3%, 88.9%, and 80% of CD. Clinical steroid-free remission rates were significantly higher in the CD group compared with the UC group at every time point (P < 0.05). At week 52, 31.1% of ADA, 16.7% of IFX originator, and 36.2% of biosimilar patients needed treatment optimization. At week 52, 13 patients had suspended therapy because of severe adverse events, including 3 cases of malignant disease., Discussion: Anti-TNF-α treatment was more effective in patients with CD compared to patients with UC, independently of the drug used.