Search

Background and Aim: Postoperative recurrence (POR) following ileocolonic resection is a major concern in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). The role of ustekinumab (UST) in this setting is poorly known. Methods: All consecutive CD patients with a baseline colonoscopy at 6–12 months from ileocolonic resection showing POR (Rutgeerts score ≥ i2) who were treated with UST after the baseline colonoscopy and with an available post‐treatment endoscopy, were extracted from the cohort of the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (SN‐IBD). The primary outcome was endoscopic success, defined as reduction of at least one point of Rutgeerts score. The secondary outcome was clinical success, assessed at the end of follow‐up. Reasons for clinical failure included mild clinical relapse (Harvey–Bradshaw index 5–7), clinically relevant relapse (Harvey–Bradshaw index > 7), and need for new resection. Results: Forty‐four patients were included (mean follow‐up: 17.8 ± 8.4 months). The baseline postoperative colonoscopy showed severe POR (Rutgeerts score i3 or i4) in 75.0% of patients. The post‐treatment colonoscopy was performed after a mean of 14.5 ± 5.5 months following initiation of UST. Endoscopic success was reported in 22 out of 44 (50.0%) patients, of whom 12 (27.3%) achieved a Rutgeerts score i0 or i1. Clinical success at the end of follow‐up was reported in 32 out of 44 patients (72.7%); none of the 12 patients with clinical failure had achieved endoscopic success at post‐treatment colonoscopy. Conclusions: Ustekinumab could be a promising option for the treatment of POR of CD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: There are few clinical data on Adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease. We aimed to perform a multicenter, observational, prospective study on safety and effectiveness of ADA biosimilar ABP 501 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Methods: All consecutive patients from the cohort of the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease treated with ADA biosimilar ABP 501 from February 2019 to February 2020 were enrolled. Patients were divided into three groups: group A, naïve to ADA and naïve to anti‐tumor necrosis factors; group B, naïve to ADA and previously exposed to anti‐tumor necrosis factors; and group C: switched from ADA originator to ABP 501. Results: A total of 559 patients (median age 39 years; Crohn's disease 88.0%, ulcerative colitis 12.0%) were included, with a follow‐up time of 403.4 patient‐years. Thirty‐six serious adverse events occurred in 36 patients (6.4%; incidence rate [IR]: 8.9 per 100 person‐years [PY]). The IR of serious adverse events was higher among patients in group A compared with group C (17.4 vs 4.8 per 100 PY; IR ratio = 3.61; P < 0.001) and among patients in group B compared with group C (16.4 vs 4.8 per 100 PY; IR ratio = 3.42; P = 0.041). Among ADA‐naïve patients (group A + B), 188 (85.8%) had a clinical response after 12 weeks, including 165 (75.3%) who achieved steroid‐free remission. Higher treatment persistence estimates were reported for patients in group C compared with groups A and B (log–rank P < 0.001). Conclusions: Safety and effectiveness of ABP 501 seem to be overall similar to those reported for ADA originator. Switching from originator to ABP 501 was safe and effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: There are no head‐to‐head randomized controlled trials between biologics in Crohn's disease (CD). We aimed to perform a multicenter, real‐life comparison of the effectiveness of vedolizumab (VDZ) and adalimumab (ADA) in CD. Methods: Data of consecutive patients with CD treated with VDZ and ADA from January 2016 to April 2019 were extracted from the cohort of the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. The effectiveness was evaluated at 12, 52 weeks, and as failure‐free survival at the end of follow up. Propensity score analysis was performed using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method. Results: Five hundred eighty‐five treatments (VDZ: n = 277; ADA: n = 308) were included (median follow‐up: 56.0 weeks). After 12 weeks, a clinical response was achieved in 64.3% patients treated with VDZ and in 83.1% patients treated with ADA (odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38–1.10, P = 0.107), while at 52 weeks, a clinical response was observed in 54.0% patients treated with VDZ and in 69.1% patients treated with ADA (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45–1.31, P = 0.336). Cox survival analysis weighted for propensity score showed no significant difference in the probability of failure‐free survival between the two drugs (hazard ratio = 1.20, 95% CI 0.83–1.74, P = 0.340). Post‐treatment endoscopic response and mucosal healing rates were similar between the two groups (endoscopic response: 35.3% for VDZ and 25.5% for ADA, P = 0.15; mucosal healing: 31.8% for VDZ and 33.8% for ADA, P = 0.85). Conclusions: In the first study comparing VDZ and ADA in CD via propensity score analysis, the drugs showed comparable effectiveness and a similar safety profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]