| Autor: |
Laurent Peyrin‐Biroulet, Perttu Arkkila, Alessandro Armuzzi, Silvio Danese, Marc Ferrante, Jordi Guardiola, Jørgen Jahnsen, Edouard Louis, Milan Lukáš, Walter Reinisch, Xavier Roblin, Philip J Smith, Taek Kwon, Jeeyoung Kim, Sangwook Yoon, Dong-Hyeon Kim, Raja Atreya |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2024 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
BMC Gastroenterology, Vol 24, Iss 1, Pp 1-12 (2024) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
1471-230X |
| DOI: |
10.1186/s12876-024-03163-5 |
| Popis: |
Abstract Background While indirect comparison of infliximab (IFX) and vedolizumab (VDZ) in adults with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) shows that IFX has better effectiveness during induction, and comparable efficacy during maintenance treatment, comparative data specific to subcutaneous (SC) IFX (i.e., CT-P13 SC) versus VDZ are limited. Aim Pooled analysis of randomised studies to compare efficacy and safety with IFX SC and VDZ in moderate-to-severe inflammatory bowel disease. Methods Parallel-group, randomised studies evaluating IFX SC and VDZ in patients with moderate-to-severe CD or UC were identified. Eligible studies reported ≥ 1 prespecified outcome of interest at Week 6 (reflecting treatment during the induction phase) and/or at 1 year (Weeks 50-54; reflecting treatment during the maintenance phase). Prespecified efficacy and safety outcomes considered in this pooled analysis included the proportions of patients achieving disease-specific clinical responses, clinical remission, or discontinuing due to lack of efficacy, and the proportions of patients experiencing adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, infections, serious infections, or discontinuing due to AEs. Data from multiple studies or study arms were extracted and pooled using a random-effect model; comparative analyses were performed separately for patients with CD and UC. Results We identified three eligible CD trials and four eligible UC trials that assigned over 1200 participants per disease cohort to either IFX SC or VDZ. In patients with CD, intravenous induction therapy with IFX demonstrated better efficacy (non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) compared with VDZ; during the maintenance phase, IFX SC showed numerically better efficacy (overlapping 95% CIs) than VDZ. A lower proportion of IFX SC-treated patients discontinued therapy due to lack of efficacy over 1 year. In patients with UC, efficacy profiles were similar with IFX SC and VDZ during the induction and maintenance phases, and a lower proportion of IFX SC-treated patients discontinued therapy due to lack of efficacy over 1 year. In both cohorts, safety profiles for IFX SC and VDZ were generally comparable during 1 year. Conclusion IFX SC demonstrated better efficacy than VDZ in patients with CD, and similar efficacy to VDZ in patients with UC; 1-year safety was comparable with IFX SC and VDZ. |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
|
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje |
K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit.
|
