Real-world Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Vedolizumab and Adalimumab in Biologic-naive Patients With Crohn's Disease: Results From the EVOLVE Study.
Andres J Yarur, Brian Bressler, Neil R Brett, Marielle Bassel, Shashi Adsul, Pravin Kamble, Gerassimos J Mantzaris
{"title":"Real-world Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Vedolizumab and Adalimumab in Biologic-naive Patients With Crohn's Disease: Results From the EVOLVE Study.","authors":"Andres J Yarur, Brian Bressler, Neil R Brett, Marielle Bassel, Shashi Adsul, Pravin Kamble, Gerassimos J Mantzaris","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Goals: </strong>This study evaluated the real-world effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab versus adalimumab over 12 months of treatment in biologic-naive patients with Crohn's disease (CD), using data from the EVOLVE study.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>A comparison of vedolizumab and adalimumab may help to better position them in the therapeutic algorithm for moderate-to-severe CD.</p><p><strong>Study: </strong>Data were collected from medical records of patients with CD aged ≥18 years initiating treatment with adalimumab or vedolizumab between May 2014 and July 2017. Adjusted analyses were performed using inverse probability weighting to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Cumulative rates for clinical effectiveness outcomes and treatment persistence were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Disease-related exacerbations, serious adverse events (SAEs), and serious infections (SIs) were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 218 vedolizumab- and 144 adalimumab-treated patients were analyzed. Adjusted cumulative rates of clinical remission were greater with vedolizumab than with adalimumab (66.3% vs. 46.4%; P=0.006). Probability of treatment persistence was higher with vedolizumab (89.3% vs. 77.5%; P=0.024); probabilities of clinical response (68.5% vs. 61.1%; P=0.586) and mucosal healing (67.7% vs. 56.0%; P=0.562) were similar. SAEs were less likely to occur with vedolizumab [hazard ratio, 0.45 (95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.93)]; however, the likelihood of SIs [0.27 (0.06-1.20)], CD exacerbations [0.91 (0.56-1.47)], and CD-related surgeries [1.55 (0.21-11.15)] was comparable between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a real-world setting, biologic-naive patients with CD treated with vedolizumab demonstrated a greater likelihood of drug persistence and achieving clinical remission, with equivalent rates of response and mucosal healing versus adalimumab-treated patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002056","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Goals: This study evaluated the real-world effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab versus adalimumab over 12 months of treatment in biologic-naive patients with Crohn's disease (CD), using data from the EVOLVE study.
Background: A comparison of vedolizumab and adalimumab may help to better position them in the therapeutic algorithm for moderate-to-severe CD.
Study: Data were collected from medical records of patients with CD aged ≥18 years initiating treatment with adalimumab or vedolizumab between May 2014 and July 2017. Adjusted analyses were performed using inverse probability weighting to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Cumulative rates for clinical effectiveness outcomes and treatment persistence were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Disease-related exacerbations, serious adverse events (SAEs), and serious infections (SIs) were also assessed.
Results: Data from 218 vedolizumab- and 144 adalimumab-treated patients were analyzed. Adjusted cumulative rates of clinical remission were greater with vedolizumab than with adalimumab (66.3% vs. 46.4%; P=0.006). Probability of treatment persistence was higher with vedolizumab (89.3% vs. 77.5%; P=0.024); probabilities of clinical response (68.5% vs. 61.1%; P=0.586) and mucosal healing (67.7% vs. 56.0%; P=0.562) were similar. SAEs were less likely to occur with vedolizumab [hazard ratio, 0.45 (95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.93)]; however, the likelihood of SIs [0.27 (0.06-1.20)], CD exacerbations [0.91 (0.56-1.47)], and CD-related surgeries [1.55 (0.21-11.15)] was comparable between the 2 groups.
Conclusions: In a real-world setting, biologic-naive patients with CD treated with vedolizumab demonstrated a greater likelihood of drug persistence and achieving clinical remission, with equivalent rates of response and mucosal healing versus adalimumab-treated patients.
研究目标这项研究利用EVOLVE研究的数据,评估了维多珠单抗与阿达木单抗在克罗恩病(CD)患者中治疗12个月的实际有效性和安全性:背景:对维多利珠单抗和阿达木单抗进行比较有助于更好地确定它们在中重度克罗恩病治疗方案中的位置:数据来自2014年5月至2017年7月期间开始接受阿达木单抗或维多单抗治疗的年龄≥18岁的CD患者的医疗记录。使用反概率加权法进行了调整分析,以考虑基线特征的差异。临床疗效和治疗持续率的累积率采用卡普兰-梅耶分析法进行估算。还评估了疾病相关的恶化、严重不良事件(SAE)和严重感染(SI):结果:分析了218名接受过韦多珠单抗治疗的患者和144名接受过阿达木单抗治疗的患者的数据。调整后的临床缓解累积率,维多珠单抗高于阿达木单抗(66.3%对46.4%;P=0.006)。维多珠单抗的治疗持续概率更高(89.3% vs. 77.5%;P=0.024);临床反应概率(68.5% vs. 61.1%;P=0.586)和粘膜愈合概率(67.7% vs. 56.0%;P=0.562)相似。韦多珠单抗发生SAE的可能性较低[危险比为0.45(95%置信区间为0.22-0.93)];然而,两组患者发生SI[0.27(0.06-1.20)]、CD加重[0.91(0.56-1.47)]和CD相关手术[1.55(0.21-11.15)]的可能性相当:结论:在现实世界中,接受维多珠单抗治疗的无生物制品抗体CD患者更有可能坚持用药并获得临床缓解,与接受阿达木单抗治疗的患者相比,其反应率和粘膜愈合率相当。
期刊介绍:
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.