ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Clinicians face difficulty in when and in what order to position biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab and tofacitinib in anti-TNF-exposed patients with UC in our prospective nationwide Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry. METHODS: Patients with UC who failed anti-TNF treatment and initiated vedolizumab or tofacitinib treatment were identified in the Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry in the Netherlands. We selected patients with both clinical as well as biochemical or endoscopic disease activity at initiation of therapy. Patients previously treated with vedolizumab or tofacitinib were excluded. Corticosteroid-free clinical remission (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index ≤2), biochemical remission (C-reactive protein ≤5 mg/L or fecal calprotectin ≤250 µg/g), and safety outcomes were compared after 52 weeks of treatment. Inverse propensity score-weighted comparison was used to adjust for confounding and selection bias. RESULTS: Overall, 83 vedolizumab- and 65 tofacitinib-treated patients were included. Propensity score-weighted analysis showed that tofacitinib-treated patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission and biochemical remission at weeks 12, 24, and 52 compared with vedolizumab-treated patients (odds ratio [OR], 6.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.81-10.50; P < .01; OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.89-4.84; P < .01; and OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.15-2.99; P = .01; and OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.96-5.45; P < .01; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.14-3.07; P = .01; and OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.06-3.09; P = .03, respectively). There was no difference in infection rate or severe adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib was associated with superior effectiveness outcomes compared with vedolizumab in anti-TNF-experienced patients with UC along with comparable safety outcomes.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous (SC) vedolizumab is effective in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) when administered after induction with two infusions. AIM: To assess the effectiveness, safety and pharmacokinetics of a switch from intravenous (IV) to SC maintenance vedolizumab in patients with IBD METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, patients with IBD who had ≥4 months IV vedolizumab were switched to SC vedolizumab. We studied the time to discontinuation of SC vedolizumab, adverse events (AEs), changes in clinical and biochemical outcomes and vedolizumab concentrations at baseline, and weeks 12 and 24. RESULTS: We included 82 patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and 53 with ulcerative colitis (UC). Eleven (13.4%) patients with CD and five (9.4%) with UC discontinued SC vedolizumab after a median of 18 (IQR 8-22) and 6 weeks (IQR 5-10), respectively. Four patients with CD switched to a different drug due to loss of response, nine switched back to IV vedolizumab due to adverse events, and three due to needle fear. Common AEs were injection site reactions (n = 15) and headache (n = 6). Median clinical and biochemical disease activity remained stable after the switch. Median serum vedolizumab concentrations increased from 19 µg/ml at the time of the switch to 31 µg/ml 12 weeks after the switch (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Switching from IV to SC vedolizumab maintenance treatment is effective in patients with CD or UC. However, 9% of patients were switched back to IV vedolizumab due to adverse events or fear of needles.
Subject(s)
Colitis, Ulcerative , Crohn Disease , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Colitis, Ulcerative/chemically induced , Colitis, Ulcerative/drug therapy , Crohn Disease/chemically induced , Crohn Disease/drug therapy , Gastrointestinal Agents/therapeutic use , Humans , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/drug therapy , Phobic Disorders , Prospective Studies , Remission Induction , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The COVID-19 risk and disease course in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] patients remains uncertain. Therefore, we aimed to assess the clinical presentation, disease course, and outcomes of COVID-19 in IBD patients. Second, we determined COVID-19 incidences in IBD patients and compared this with the general population. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, nationwide IBD cohort study in The Netherlands and identified patients with COVID-19. First, we assessed the COVID-19 disease course and outcomes. Second, we compared COVID-19 incidences between our IBD study cohort and the general Dutch population. RESULTS: We established an IBD cohort of 34 763 patients. COVID-19 was diagnosed in 100/34 763 patients [0.29%]; 20/100 of these patients [20%] had severe COVID-19 defined as admission to the intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, and/or death. Hospitalisation occurred in 59/100 [59.0%] patients and 13/100 [13.0%] died. All patients who died had comorbidities and all but one were ≥65 years old. In line, we identified ≥1 comorbidity as an independent risk factor for hospitalisation (odds ratio [OR] 4.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-11.17,; p = 0.004). Incidences of COVID-19 between the IBD study cohort and the general population were comparable (287.6 [95% CI 236.6-349.7] versus 333.0 [95% CI 329.3-336.7] per 100000 patients, respectively; p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Of 100 cases with IBD and COVID-19, 20% developed severe COVID-19, 59% were hospitalised and 13% died. A comparable COVID-19 risk was found between the IBD cohort [100/34 763 = 0.29%] and the general Dutch population. The presence of ≥1 comorbidities was an independent risk factor for hospitalisation due to COVID-19.