First- and Second-Line Pharmacotherapies for Patients With Moderate to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis.
We compared the efficacy and safety of different first-line (biologic-naïve) and second-line (prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor [TNF] antagonists) agents for treatment of moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis in a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
We searched publication databases through September 30, 2019, for randomized trials of adults with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis treated with TNF antagonists, vedolizumab, tofacitinib, or ustekinumab, as first-line or second-line agents, compared with placebo or another active agent. Efficacy outcomes were induction and maintenance of remission and endoscopic improvement; safety outcomes were serious adverse events and infections. We performed a fixed-effects network meta-analysis using the frequentist approach, and calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI values. Agents were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Overall quality of evidence was rated using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
In biologic-naïve patients, infliximab was ranked highest for induction of clinical remission (OR vs placebo, 4.07; 95% CI, 2.67-6.21; SUCRA, 0.95) and endoscopic improvement (SUCRA, 0.95) (moderate confidence in estimates [CE]). In patients with prior exposure to TNF antagonists, ustekinumab (SUCRA, 0.87) and tofacitinib (SUCRA, 0.87) were ranked highest for induction of clinical remission and were superior to vedolizumab (ustekinumab vs vedolizumab: OR, 5.99; 95% CI, 1.13-31.76 and tofacitinib vs vedolizumab: OR, 6.18; 95% CI, 1.003-8.00; moderate CE) and adalimumab (ustekinumab vs adalimumab: OR, 10.71; 95% CI, 2.01-57.20 and tofacitinib vs adalimumab: OR, 11.05; 95% CI, 1.79-68.41; moderate CE). Vedolizumab had the lowest risk of infections (SUCRA, 0.81), followed by ustekinumab (SUCRA, 0.63) in maintenance trials.
In a systematic review and network meta-analysis, we found infliximab to be ranked highest in biologic-naïve patients, and ustekinumab and tofacitinib were ranked highest in patients with prior exposure to TNF antagonists, for induction of remission and endoscopic improvement in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. More trials of direct comparisons are needed to inform clinical decision making with greater confidence.
Singh S
，Murad MH
，Fumery M
，Dulai PS
，Sandborn WJ
... -
《-》
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib vs. Vedolizumab, Ustekinumab, and Tofacitinib After Induction and Maintenance for Ulcerative Colitis: Three Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons.
Evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of approved therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) during induction and maintenance, including upadacitinib (UPA), vedolizumab (VEDO), ustekinumab (UST), and tofacitinib (TOFA), is limited.
Using data from phase 3 trials, three placebo (PBO)-anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of the efficacy and safety of UPA versus VEDO, UST, and TOFA (U-ACHIEVE and U-ACCOMPLISH, GEMINI-1, UNIFI, and OCTAVE induction and maintenance trials) have been conducted. Baseline characteristics from UPA trials were weighted separately to match each comparator trial. Induction responders were re-randomized to oral UPA 15 or 30 mg, VEDO 300 mg intravenously every 8 weeks (Q8W), UST 90 mg SC Q8W, or oral TOFA 5 mg, or PBO in maintenance. Treat-through efficacy outcomes at weeks 44(UST)/46(VEDO)/52(UPA/TOFA) were adjusted by the likelihood of induction response and included clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic improvement. Safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and AEs leading to discontinuation (except UPA vs. VEDO). Benefit-risk was assessed by numbers needed to treat (NNT)/harm, calculated as the inverse of the difference in proportions of patients achieving each efficacy/safety outcome for UPA versus comparator.
The proportions of patients who demonstrated clinical response or endoscopic improvement was greater with UPA 15 mg versus VEDO and TOFA (p < 0.05). The proportions of patients demonstrating all treat-through efficacy outcomes were significantly greater with UPA 30 mg versus VEDO, UST, or TOFA with NNTs 3.2-8.7. No significant differences in proportions of AEs, SAEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation were observed between the two doses of UPA and comparators.
In patients with active UC, greater clinical efficacy, and similar safety after 1 year of maintenance were observed with UPA versus VEDO, UST, and TOFA, suggesting a favorable benefit-risk profile for UPA. Despite matched baseline characteristics, differences in trial design and endpoints may persist.
Reinisch W
，Melmed GY
，Nakase H
，Seidelin J
，Ma C
，Xuan S
，Tran J
，Remple V
，Wegrzyn L
，Levy G
，Sanchez Gonzalez Y
，Panaccione R
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
