Safety profiles of biologic agents for inflammatory bowel diseases: a prospective pharmacovigilance study in Southern Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are a public health issue with over 3.5 million patients in Europe, but the advent of several biologic agents has completely changed their management. Pharmacovigilance is needed to early detect expected/unexpected adverse events (AEs) to assess the safety of drugs in a real-world setting. Aim of this prospective pharmacovigilance study was to evaluate the occurrence of AEs in patients treated with biologic drugs in gastroenterology units in Southern Italy. METHODS: All consecutive patients treated with one biologic drug during a 2-years period (2017-2018) in six gastroenterology tertiary units and satisfying inclusion criteria were enrolled. Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, type of treatment used, therapy discontinuation, failures, switch/swap to another biologic, and possible onset of AEs were collected. Adverse events have been compared to the number of AEs reported in the same centres in the two years before the protocol. RESULTS: Overall, 623 patients (253 females) with Crohn's disease (352; 56.5%) or ulcerative colitis (271; 43.5%) have been included. Infliximab (IFX) was the most commonly used (308, 49.4%), followed by adalimumab (ADA; 215, 34.5%), vedolizumab (VED; 73, 11.7%), golimumab (GOL; 26, 4.2%) and ustekinumab (UST; 0.2%). Ninety-two patients have experienced AEs (14.8%) and 10 serious adverse events (SAEs) (1.6%) were recorded. Adverse events and SAEs have been reported with GOL (7/26; p = .88), IFX (51/308; p = .54), ADA (28/125; p = .40) and VED (6/73; p = .11), no AEs occurred with UST (0/1). CONCLUSION: Overall, considering the low rate of AEs reported and discontinuation from therapy, our data seems to confirm the positive beneficial/risk ratio of biologic treatment for IBDs and provide useful data on biologic drugs in gastroenterology.

A real life comparison of the effectiveness of adalimumab and golimumab in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis, supported by propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adalimumab and golimumab are effective in the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. AIMS: We reported the comparative effectiveness of adalimumab and golimumab in ulcerative colitis. METHODS: 118 patients treated with adalimumab and 79 treated with golimumab were included and evaluated at 8 weeks and at the end of follow up. RESULTS: Overall clinical benefit was 72.6% at 8 weeks and 58.9% at the end of follow up. Patients with longer disease duration and those treated with adalimumab had a better outcome. Clinical benefit was 78.8% in adalimumab patients and 63.3% in golimumab patients (p = 0.026) after 8 weeks; it was 66.9% in adalimumab patients and 46.8% in golimumab patients (p = 0.008) at the end of follow up. These data were confirmed by propensity score analysis. A further analysis considering adalimumab optimization as treatment failure showed that the difference between adalimumab and golimumab was not significant. CONCLUSION: Adalimumab and golimumab are effective in the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Adalimumab seems to be more effective than golimumab. This difference is probably affected by the impossibility of golimumab to be optimized in Italy while adalimumab is.