Comparative of the Effectiveness and Safety of Biological Agents, Tofacitinib, and Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Ulcerative Colitis: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Zhou HY ，Guo B ，Lufumpa E ，Li XM ，Chen LH ，Meng X ，Li BZ ... -  《-》

Oral Janus kinase inhibitors for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor which blocks cytokine signaling involved in the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases including ulcerative colitis (UC). The etiology of UC is poorly understood, however research suggests the development and progression of the disease is due to a dysregulated immune response leading to inflammation of the colonic mucosa in genetically predisposed individuals. Additional medications are currently required since some patients do not respond to the available medications and some medications are associated with serious adverse events (SAEs). JAK inhibitors have been widely studied in diseases including rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease and may represent a promising and novel therapeutic option for the treatment of UC. The primary objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of oral JAK inhibitors for the maintenance of remission in participants with quiescent UC. We searched the following databases from inception to 20 September 2019: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, WHO trials registry and clinicaltrials.gov. References and conference abstracts were searched to identify additional studies. Randomized control trial (RCTs) in which an oral JAK inhibitor was compared with placebo or active comparator in the treatment of quiescent UC were eligible for inclusion. Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extraction. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who failed to maintain remission as defined by any included studies. Secondary outcomes included failure to maintain clinical response, failure to maintain endoscopic remission, failure to maintain endoscopic response, disease-specific quality of life, adverse events (AEs), withdrawal due to AEs and SAEs. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each dichotomous outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The overall certainty of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. One RCT (593 participants) including patients with moderately to severely active UC met the inclusion criteria. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive maintenance therapy with tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily, 10 mg twice daily or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was remission at 52 weeks and the secondary endpoints included mucosal healing at 52 weeks, sustained remission at 24 and 52 weeks and glucocorticosteroid-free remission. This study was rated as low risk of bias. The study reported on most of the pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes for this review including clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic remission, AEs, SAEs and withdrawal due to AEs. However, the included study did not report on endoscopic response or disease-specific quality of life. Sixty-three per cent (247/395) of tofacitinib participants failed to maintain clinical remission at 52 weeks compared to 89% (176/198) of placebo participants (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.77; high-certainty evidence). Forty-three per cent (171/395) of tofacitinib participants failed to maintain clinical response at 52 weeks compared to 80% (158/198) of placebo participants (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.62; high-certainty evidence). Eighty-four per cent (333/395) of tofacitinib participants failed to maintain endoscopic remission at 52 weeks compared to 96% (190/198) of placebo participants (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.92; high-certainty evidence). AEs were reported in 76% (299/394) of tofacitinib participants compared with 75% (149/198) of placebo participants (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). Commonly reported AEs included worsening UC, nasopharyngitis, arthralgia (joint pain)and headache. SAEs were reported in 5% (21/394) of tofacitinib participants compared with 7% (13/198) of placebo participants (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.59; low-certainty evidence). SAEs included non-melanoma skin cancers, cardiovascular events, cancer other than non-melanoma skin cancer, Bowen's disease, skin papilloma and uterine leiomyoma (a tumour in the uterus). There was a higher proportion of participants who withdrew due to an AE in the placebo group compared to the tofacitinib group. Nine per cent (37/394) of participants taking tofacitinib withdrew due to an AE compared to 19% (37/198) of participants taking placebo (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.77; moderate-certainty evidence). The most common reason for withdrawal due to an AE was worsening UC. The included study did not report on endoscopic response or on mean disease-specific quality of life scores. High-certainty evidence suggests that tofacitinib is superior to placebo for maintenance of clinical and endoscopic remission at 52 weeks in participants with moderate-to-severe UC in remission. The optimal dose of tofacitinib for maintenance therapy is unknown. High-certainty evidence suggests that there is no increased risk of AEs with tofacitinib compared to placebo. However, we are uncertain about the effect of tofacitinib on SAEs due to the low number of events. Further studies are required to look at the long-term effectiveness and safety of using tofacitinib and other oral JAK inhibitors as maintenance therapy in participants with moderate-to-severe UC in remission.

Davies SC ，Hussein IM ，Nguyen TM ，Parker CE ，Khanna R ，Jairath V ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Efficacy and safety of biologic agents and tofacitinib in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: A systematic overview of meta-analyses.

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an inflammatory disease of the colon and rectum. Treatment options include biologics and tofacitinib. We aim to summarize the evidence on efficacy and safety of biologics and tofacitinib in moderate-to-severe UC. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials assessing adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, vedolizumab, and tofacitinib in UC. Efficacy outcomes included induction and maintenance of clinical response, clinical remission and mucosal healing. Safety outcomes included adverse events and serious adverse events. The overview involved 31 meta-analyses. All four biologics and tofacitinib were superior to placebo regarding efficacy. Indirect comparisons suggested that infliximab may be better than adalimumab and golimumab to induce clinical response and mucosal healing. Safety analyses indicated no increased rates of adverse events, except for infliximab. Biologics and tofacitinib are efficacious and safe for treating UC. These findings can support clinical decision-making.

Pantavou K ，Yiallourou AI ，Piovani D ，Evripidou D ，Danese S ，Peyrin-Biroulet L ，Bonovas S ，Nikolopoulos GK ... -  《-》

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: comparative assessment of tofacitinib and biological therapies for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.

Biological therapies have improved the care of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Tofacitinib, an oral small-molecule Janus kinase inhibitor, is potentially a new treatment option. To comparatively assess efficacy and harm of tofacitinib and biologics (infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab and vedolizumab) in adult patients not previously exposed to TNF antagonists. We performed a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, clinical trial registries, regulatory authorities' websites and major conference proceedings, through August 2017, to identify randomised, placebo-controlled or head-to-head trials assessing tofacitinib or biologics as induction and/or maintenance therapy in moderate-to-severe UC. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and outcomes, and investigated each trial's risk-of-bias. We used conventional meta-analysis to synthesise direct evidence, and network meta-analysis for adjusted indirect treatment comparisons. Fifteen randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (n = 3130) contributed data for induction: All treatments are superior to placebo. Indirect treatment comparisons showed that infliximab is better than adalimumab (OR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.36-2.98) and golimumab (1.67, 1.08-2.59) in clinical response, better than adalimumab (2.10, 1.21-3.64) in clinical remission, and better than adalimumab (1.87, 1.26-2.79) and golimumab (1.75, 1.13-2.73) in mucosal healing. No indirect comparisons between tofacitinib and biologics reached statistical significance. Nine studies (n = 1776) contributed maintenance data showing that all treatments have higher clinical efficacy than placebo. Safety analyses indicated no increased rates of adverse events for the treatments under evaluation (except for infliximab), while vedolizumab may have an advantage regarding the occurrence of serious adverse events. Tofacitinib and biologics are efficacious and safe for UC. Further high-quality research is warranted to establish the best therapeutic option.

Bonovas S ，Lytras T ，Nikolopoulos G ，Peyrin-Biroulet L ，Danese S ... -  《-》

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: first- and second-line pharmacotherapy for moderate-severe ulcerative colitis.

There are limited data to inform positioning of agents for treating moderate-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). To assess comparative efficacy and safety of different therapies as first-line (biologic-naïve) and second-line (prior exposure to anti-tumour necrosis factor(TNF)-α) agents for moderate-severe UC, through a systematic review and network meta-analysis, and appraise quality of evidence (QoE) using grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with moderate-severe UC treated with anti-TNF agents, anti-integrin agents and janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as first-line or second-line agents, and compared with placebo or another active agent. Efficacy outcomes were induction/maintenance of remission and mucosal healing; and safety outcomes were serious adverse events and infections. Network meta-analyses were performed, and ranking was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. In biologic-naïve patients (12 trials, no head-to-head comparisons), infliximab and vedolizumab were ranked highest for induction of clinical remission (infliximab: odds ratio [OR], 4.10 [95% confidence intervals [CI], 2.58-6.52]; SUCRA,0.85; vedolizumab:SUCRA,0.82) and mucosal healing (infliximab:SUCRA,0.91; vedolizumab:SUCRA,0.81) (moderate QoE). In patients with prior anti-TNF exposure (4 trials, no head-to-head comparisons), tofacitinib was ranked highest for induction of clinical remission (OR, 11.88 [2.32-60.89]; SUCRA, 0.96) and mucosal healing (moderate QoE). Differences in trial design limited comparability of trials of maintenance therapy for efficacy. Vedolizumab was ranked safest in terms of serious adverse events (SUCRA, 0.91), and infection (SUCRA, 0.75) in maintenance trials. Infliximab and vedolizumab are ranked highest as first-line agents, and tofacitinib is ranked highest as second-line agent, for induction of remission and mucosal healing in patients with moderate-severe UC, based on indirect comparisons. Head-to-head trials are warranted to inform clinical decision-making with greater confidence.

Singh S ，Fumery M ，Sandborn WJ ，Murad MH ... -  《-》