Comparison of two adalimumab treatment schedule strategies for moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease: results from the CHARM trial.

Objectives: To compare outcomes of induction dosing followed by continuous adalimumab treatment with those of induction dosing with reinitiation of adalimumab (in the event of clinical deterioration) for patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease (CD) who participated in the Crohn's Trial of the Fully Human Antibody Adalimumab for Remission Maintenance (CHARM).
Methods: In the CHARM trial, all patients received open-label induction therapy with adalimumab 80 mg and 40 mg at weeks 0 and 2, respectively. In total, 778 patients were randomized at week 4 to one of three groups: (1) placebo after initial induction doses (followed by reinitiation of adalimumab therapy); (2) continuous maintenance treatment with adalimumab 40 mg every other week (e.o.w.); and (3) continuous maintenance treatment with adalimumab 40 mg every week. At/after week 12, patients receiving placebo with flare or non-response could reinitiate open-label adalimumab 40 mg e.o.w., and patients receiving continuous blinded adalimumab therapy could switch to open-label 40 mg e.o.w. Patients in all groups could switch to weekly therapy with continued flare/non-response. In the previously published primary analysis, results for only those patients who had responded at week 4 (decrease in Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) of > or = 70 points, referred to as "randomized responders") and remained on blinded therapy were analyzed. In this analysis, data from all randomized patients were analyzed based on original randomized treatment using an intention-to-treat analysis, regardless of whether they subsequently switched to open-label therapy. Disease activity, clinical remission, number of flares, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) score, number of CD-related surgeries, and hospitalization incidence were compared between the continuous and induction only/reinitiation adalimumab groups.
Results: Results for all outcome measures were superior for both continuous groups compared with the induction only/reinitiation group. On the basis of median CDAI and IBDQ results, patients in both continuous treatment groups achieved statistically significantly greater improvements vs. the induction only/reinitiation group (P < 0.05). At week 56, a significantly greater percentage of patients who had received continuous adalimumab (51% for e.o.w. and 49% for weekly) were in clinical remission vs. the induction only/reinitiation group (38%, P < 0.05). Continuous adalimumab therapy was also associated with fewer flares and fewer CD-related surgeries (P < 0.05). Patients in both continuous adalimumab groups had significantly lower risks of CD-related and all-cause hospitalizations than did patients in the induction only/reinitiation group (P < 0.05).
Conclusions: For patients with active CD, continuous treatment with adalimumab was more effective than a strategy of induction dosing followed by reinitiation of adalimumab with clinical deterioration for maintenance of clinical remission, improved quality-of life outcomes, reduced flares, and a decrease in number of surgeries and risk of hospitalization.