OP02 Ustekinumab versus adalimumab for induction and maintenance therapy in Moderate-to-Severe Crohn’s Disease: The SEAVUE study
| Autor: | A Greenspan, W J Sandborn, Mathieu Allez, O Shchukina, Remo Panaccione, Stephen B. Hanauer, Long-Long Gao, Tanja Kuehbacher, Ellen Scherl, Peter M. Irving, J Izanec, Bruce E. Sands, Christopher Gasink, Silvio Danese, Edward V. Loftus, Vipul Jairath, James D. Lewis, T Hoops, Emese Mihály |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Abdominal pain Crohn's disease Surrogate endpoint business.industry Gastroenterology General Medicine medicine.disease Crohn's Disease Activity Index Maintenance therapy Internal medicine Ustekinumab medicine Adalimumab medicine.symptom Adverse effect business medicine.drug |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Crohn's and Colitis. 15:S001-S002 |
| ISSN: | 1876-4479 1873-9946 |
| DOI: | 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab075.001 |
| Popis: | Background We studied the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab (UST) vs adalimumab (ADA) through 1 year in biologic-naïve patients (pts) with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. Methods SEAVUE was a multicenter, randomized, blinded, parallel-group, active-controlled study in adults with CD Activity Index (CDAI) scores ≥220/≤450. Biologic-naïve pts failing/intolerant to conventional therapy with any size ulcer on baseline (BL) ileocolonoscopy were eligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 to UST (⁓6mg/kg IV at BL then 90mg SC every 8 weeks [Ws]) or ADA (160/80mg SC at BL/W2, then 40mg SC every 2 Ws) per US-approved regimens (no dose modifications). Primary endpoint was clinical remission at W52 (CDAI Results 386 pts were randomized to UST or ADA. BL demographics and disease characteristics were balanced between groups and indicative of pts with early, moderate-to-severe CD (median CD duration, 2.58 years; CDAI, 289.5; SES-CD, 8.0). At W52, 65% of UST-treated and 61% of ADA-treated pts achieved clinical remission (Δ=4.0%; 95% CI, -5.5%, 13.5%; p=0.417). Major secondary endpoints, including endoscopic remission, were similar between groups (Table 1), as were remission rates at assessment points through W52. Some other secondary endpoints showed numerical (not statistical) differences between UST and ADA (Table 1). Key safety events are summarized in Table 2. Among UST-treated and ADA-treated pts, 34.0% and 40.5% had infections, 2.6% and 7.2% had serious adverse events (AEs) of worsening CD, and 6.3% and 11.3% had AEs that led to discontinuation (DC) of study drug, respectively. One ADA-treated pt had active pulmonary TB. Injection-site reactions associated with active treatment occurred in 1.0% of UST-treated and 10.3% of ADA-treated pts. Overall, 15.2% of UST-treated and 23.6% of ADA-treated pts DC before W52. Reasons for DC were primarily lack of efficacy (UST, 2.1% vs ADA, 5.1%), AEs (UST, 5.7% vs ADA, 10.7%), and withdrawal of consent (UST, 5.8% vs ADA, 5.1%). Time to treatment DC was longer with UST vs ADA (post hoc analysis). Conclusion Both UST and ADA were highly effective in this population of biologic-naïve pts. Rates of clinical remission at W52 were not statistically significantly different between treatment groups. DC rates were numerically lower for UST. Safety results were consistent with prior experience for both treatments. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|