维多珠单抗和英夫利昔单抗对生物无效溃疡性结肠炎患者的临床和内镜疗效比较:一项多中心真实世界研究。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-10-13 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/17562848241281218
Zhaopeng Huang, Jian Tang, Ruibin Wu, Shunhua Long, Wenke Chen, Tingna Lu, Qiuyue Xia, Yanhui Wu, Hongsheng Yang, Qingfan Yang, Zicheng Huang, Qin Guo, Miao Li, Xiang Gao, Kang Chao
{"title":"维多珠单抗和英夫利昔单抗对生物无效溃疡性结肠炎患者的临床和内镜疗效比较:一项多中心真实世界研究。","authors":"Zhaopeng Huang, Jian Tang, Ruibin Wu, Shunhua Long, Wenke Chen, Tingna Lu, Qiuyue Xia, Yanhui Wu, Hongsheng Yang, Qingfan Yang, Zicheng Huang, Qin Guo, Miao Li, Xiang Gao, Kang Chao","doi":"10.1177/17562848241281218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>No head-to-head trial directly compares the effectiveness of vedolizumab (VDZ) and infliximab (IFX) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who were naïve to biologic therapy.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to compare the clinical and endoscopic effectiveness of VDZ and IFX in biologic-naïve patients with UC in real-world settings.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>It was a multicenter, observational, real-world cohort study conducted at five centers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients diagnosed with UC and treated with either IFX or VDZ as their first-line biologic therapy were retrospectively enrolled. Steroid-free remission, clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic healing at week 14 and week 52 were compared between the two groups after propensity score weighting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 199 patients (117 VDZ and 82 IFX) were included in the study. There were no significant differences in steroid-free remission (64.6% vs 56.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.224), clinical response (83.4% vs 73.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.086), or clinical remission (69.4% vs 60.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.174) at week 14. However, VDZ showed better results in steroid-free remission (67.5% vs 44.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.004), clinical response (69.7% vs 47.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.005), and clinical remission (67.5% vs 44.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.004) at week 52. In terms of endoscopic healing, VDZ was similar to IFX at week 14 (25.7% vs 17.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.185), but VDZ had a significantly higher rate at week 52 (29.5% vs 11.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.027). VDZ was found to be superior to IFX in therapeutic continuation (hazard ratio = 0.339, 95% CI: 0.187-0.614, <i>p</i> < 0.001). The rate of adverse events was similar between the two groups (6.8% vs 8.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.655).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>VDZ demonstrated similar clinical and endoscopic effectiveness to IFX at week 14 in biologic-naïve patients with UC, but appeared to be superior at week 52. The safety outcomes were comparable between the groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":48770,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology","volume":"17 ","pages":"17562848241281218"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11483708/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of clinical and endoscopic efficacy between vedolizumab and infliximab in bio-naïve patients with ulcerative colitis: a multicenter, real-world study.\",\"authors\":\"Zhaopeng Huang, Jian Tang, Ruibin Wu, Shunhua Long, Wenke Chen, Tingna Lu, Qiuyue Xia, Yanhui Wu, Hongsheng Yang, Qingfan Yang, Zicheng Huang, Qin Guo, Miao Li, Xiang Gao, Kang Chao\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17562848241281218\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>No head-to-head trial directly compares the effectiveness of vedolizumab (VDZ) and infliximab (IFX) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who were naïve to biologic therapy.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to compare the clinical and endoscopic effectiveness of VDZ and IFX in biologic-naïve patients with UC in real-world settings.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>It was a multicenter, observational, real-world cohort study conducted at five centers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients diagnosed with UC and treated with either IFX or VDZ as their first-line biologic therapy were retrospectively enrolled. Steroid-free remission, clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic healing at week 14 and week 52 were compared between the two groups after propensity score weighting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 199 patients (117 VDZ and 82 IFX) were included in the study. There were no significant differences in steroid-free remission (64.6% vs 56.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.224), clinical response (83.4% vs 73.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.086), or clinical remission (69.4% vs 60.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.174) at week 14. However, VDZ showed better results in steroid-free remission (67.5% vs 44.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.004), clinical response (69.7% vs 47.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.005), and clinical remission (67.5% vs 44.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.004) at week 52. In terms of endoscopic healing, VDZ was similar to IFX at week 14 (25.7% vs 17.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.185), but VDZ had a significantly higher rate at week 52 (29.5% vs 11.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.027). VDZ was found to be superior to IFX in therapeutic continuation (hazard ratio = 0.339, 95% CI: 0.187-0.614, <i>p</i> < 0.001). The rate of adverse events was similar between the two groups (6.8% vs 8.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.655).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>VDZ demonstrated similar clinical and endoscopic effectiveness to IFX at week 14 in biologic-naïve patients with UC, but appeared to be superior at week 52. The safety outcomes were comparable between the groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\"17 \",\"pages\":\"17562848241281218\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11483708/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848241281218\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848241281218","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目前还没有头对头试验直接比较维多珠单抗(VDZ)和英夫利昔单抗(IFX)对接受过生物治疗的溃疡性结肠炎(UC)患者的疗效:我们旨在比较VDZ和IFX在现实世界中对生物制剂治疗无效的UC患者的临床和内镜疗效:这是一项多中心、观察性、真实世界队列研究,在五个中心进行:方法:回顾性纳入被诊断为UC并接受IFX或VDZ作为一线生物治疗的患者。经过倾向得分加权后,比较了两组患者在第14周和第52周的无类固醇缓解、临床反应、临床缓解和内镜愈合情况:研究共纳入199名患者(117名VDZ患者和82名IFX患者)。第14周时,无类固醇缓解率(64.6% vs 56.1%,P = 0.224)、临床反应率(83.4% vs 73.4%,P = 0.086)或临床缓解率(69.4% vs 60.1%,P = 0.174)均无明显差异。然而,在第52周时,VDZ在无类固醇缓解(67.5% vs 44.4%,p = 0.004)、临床反应(69.7% vs 47.1%,p = 0.005)和临床缓解(67.5% vs 44.4%,p = 0.004)方面显示出更好的效果。在内镜愈合方面,第14周时VDZ与IFX相似(25.7% vs 17.4%,p = 0.185),但第52周时VDZ的愈合率明显更高(29.5% vs 11.8%,p = 0.027)。VDZ在继续治疗方面优于IFX(危险比=0.339,95% CI:0.187-0.614,P=0.655):结论:在第14周时,VDZ对生物制剂无效的UC患者的临床和内镜疗效与IFX相似,但在第52周时似乎更胜一筹。两组的安全性结果相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of clinical and endoscopic efficacy between vedolizumab and infliximab in bio-naïve patients with ulcerative colitis: a multicenter, real-world study.

Background: No head-to-head trial directly compares the effectiveness of vedolizumab (VDZ) and infliximab (IFX) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who were naïve to biologic therapy.

Objectives: We aimed to compare the clinical and endoscopic effectiveness of VDZ and IFX in biologic-naïve patients with UC in real-world settings.

Design: It was a multicenter, observational, real-world cohort study conducted at five centers.

Methods: Patients diagnosed with UC and treated with either IFX or VDZ as their first-line biologic therapy were retrospectively enrolled. Steroid-free remission, clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic healing at week 14 and week 52 were compared between the two groups after propensity score weighting.

Results: A total of 199 patients (117 VDZ and 82 IFX) were included in the study. There were no significant differences in steroid-free remission (64.6% vs 56.1%, p = 0.224), clinical response (83.4% vs 73.4%, p = 0.086), or clinical remission (69.4% vs 60.1%, p = 0.174) at week 14. However, VDZ showed better results in steroid-free remission (67.5% vs 44.4%, p = 0.004), clinical response (69.7% vs 47.1%, p = 0.005), and clinical remission (67.5% vs 44.4%, p = 0.004) at week 52. In terms of endoscopic healing, VDZ was similar to IFX at week 14 (25.7% vs 17.4%, p = 0.185), but VDZ had a significantly higher rate at week 52 (29.5% vs 11.8%, p = 0.027). VDZ was found to be superior to IFX in therapeutic continuation (hazard ratio = 0.339, 95% CI: 0.187-0.614, p < 0.001). The rate of adverse events was similar between the two groups (6.8% vs 8.5%, p = 0.655).

Conclusion: VDZ demonstrated similar clinical and endoscopic effectiveness to IFX at week 14 in biologic-naïve patients with UC, but appeared to be superior at week 52. The safety outcomes were comparable between the groups.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.40%
发文量
103
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology is an open access journal which delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed original research articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies in the medical treatment of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at an international audience of clinicians and researchers in gastroenterology and related disciplines, providing an online forum for rapid dissemination of recent research and perspectives in this area. The editors welcome original research articles across all areas of gastroenterology and hepatology. The journal publishes original research articles and review articles primarily. Original research manuscripts may include laboratory, animal or human/clinical studies – all phases. Letters to the Editor and Case Reports will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
Real-world safety of linaclotide in Chinese patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation: a multicenter, single-arm, prospective observational study. Burden of coeliac disease in Germany: real-world insights from a large retrospective health insurance claims database analysis. Efficacy of alternate mucosa-submucosa clip closure in preventing postoperative adverse events for patients with gastric mucosal lesions after endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter retrospective study. Innovative approaches in colorectal cancer screening: advances in detection methods and the role of artificial intelligence. The efficacy and safety of Vonoprazan and Tegoprazan in Helicobacter pylori eradication: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1