Real-world effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in TNF-exposed pediatric patients with ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVES: Vedolizumab (VDZ) and ustekinumab (UST) are second-line treatments in pediatric patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) refractory to antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy. Pediatric studies comparing the effectiveness of these medications are lacking. Using a registry from ImproveCareNow (ICN), a global research network in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease, we compared the effectiveness of UST and VDZ in anti-TNF refractory UC. METHODS: We performed a propensity-score weighted regression analysis to compare corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CFCR) at 6 months from starting second-line therapy. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of our findings to different ways of handling missing outcome data. Secondary analyses evaluated alternative proxies of response and infection risk. RESULTS: Our cohort included 262 patients on VDZ and 74 patients on UST. At baseline, the two groups differed on their mean pediatric UC activity index (PUCAI) (p = 0.03) but were otherwise similar. At Month 6, 28.3% of patients on VDZ and 25.8% of those on UST achieved CFCR (p = 0.76). Our primary model showed no difference in CFCR (odds ratio: 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-1.59) (p = 0.54). The time to biologic discontinuation was similar in both groups (hazard ratio: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.76-2.08) (p = 0.36), with the reference group being VDZ, and we found no differences in clinical response, growth parameters, hospitalizations, surgeries, infections, or malignancy risk. Sensitivity analyses supported these findings of similar effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: UST and VDZ are similarly effective for inducing clinical remission in anti-TNF refractory UC in pediatric patients. Providers should consider safety, tolerability, cost, and comorbidities when deciding between these therapies.

Personalizing treatment selection in Crohn's disease: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from fifteen randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses have found anti-TNF drugs to be the best treatment, on average, for Crohn's disease. We performed a subgroup analysis to determine if it is possible to achieve more efficacious outcomes by individualizing treatment selection. METHODS: We obtained participant-level data from 15 trials of FDA-approved treatments (N=5703). We used sequential regression and simulation to model week six disease activity as a function of drug class, demographics, and disease-related features. We performed hypothesis testing to define subgroups based on rank-ordered preferences for treatments. We queried health records from University of California Health (UCH) to estimate the impacts these models could have on practice. We computed the sample size needed to prospectively test a prediction of our models. RESULTS: 45% of the participants (N=2561) showed greater efficacy with at least one drug class (anti-TNF, anti-IL-12/23, anti-integrin) over another. They were classifiable into 6 subgroups, two showing greatest efficacy with anti-TNFs (36%, N=2064). Women over 50 showed superior responses with anti-IL-12/23s. Although they represented only 2% of the trial-based cohort, 25% of Crohn's patients at UCH are women over 50 (N=5,647), consistent with potential selection bias in trials. Moreover, 75% of biologic-exposed women over 50 did not receive an anti-IL12/23 first-line, supporting the potential value of these models. A future trial with 250 patients per arm will have 97% power to confirm the superiority of anti-IL-12/23s over anti-TNFs in these patients. A treatment recommendation tool is available at https://crohnsrx.org. CONCLUSIONS: Personalizing treatment can improve outcomes in Crohn's disease. Future work is needed to confirm these findings, and improve representativeness in Crohn's trials.

Sequential regression and simulation: a method for estimating causal effects from heterogeneous clinical trials without a common control group.

BACKGROUND: The advent of clinical trial data sharing platforms has created opportunities for making new discoveries and answering important questions using already collected data. However, existing methods for meta-analyzing these data require the presence of shared control groups across studies, significantly limiting the number of questions that can be confidently addressed. We sought to develop a method for meta-analyzing potentially heterogeneous clinical trials even in the absence of a common control group. METHODS: This work was conducted within the context of a broader effort to study comparative efficacy in Crohn's disease. Following a search of clnicaltrials.gov we obtained access to the individual participant data from nine trials of FDA-approved treatments in Crohn's Disease (N = 3392). We developed a method involving sequences of regression and simulation to separately model the placebo- and drug-attributable effects, and to simulate head-to-head trials against an appropriately normalized background. We validated this method by comparing the outcome of a simulated trial comparing the efficacies of adalimumab and ustekinumab against the recently published results of SEAVUE, an actual head-to-head trial of these drugs. This study was pre-registered on PROSPERO (#157,827) prior to the completion of SEAVUE. RESULTS: Using our method of sequential regression and simulation, we compared the week eight outcomes of two virtual cohorts subject to the same patient selection criteria as SEAVUE and treated with adalimumab or ustekinumab. Our primary analysis replicated the corresponding published results from SEAVUE (p = 0.9). This finding proved stable under multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This new method may help reduce the bias of individual participant data meta-analyses, expand the scope of what can be learned from these already-collected data, and reduce the costs of obtaining high-quality evidence to guide patient care.