Comparative Efficacy and Rapidity of Action for Infliximab vs Ustekinumab in Biologic Naïve Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Comparative effectiveness has become increasingly important to help position therapies for inflammatory bowel disease. We compared the efficacy and rapidity of onset of action of infliximab vs ustekinumab induction therapy for moderate to severe biologic-naïve Crohn's disease (CD) using patient-level data from randomized controlled trials. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of 2 large CD clinical trial programs that included data on 420 biologic-naïve CD patients. Differences in proportions of patients achieving week 6 clinical remission, clinical response, and normalization of calprotectin were compared. Multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for confounders. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using propensity scores to create a cohort of matched participants with similar distribution of baseline covariates. RESULTS: At week 6, a comparable number of patients achieved clinical remission with infliximab compared with patients treated with ustekinumab (44.9% vs 37.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.22; 95% CI, 0.79-1.89). Similarly, at week 6 the clinical response rates were not significantly different (58.4% infliximab vs 54.9% ustekinumab; aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.82-1.90). No significant difference was observed between treatment groups for achieving a week 6 fecal calprotectin level less than 250 mcg/L in those with increased values at baseline (42.3% infliximab vs 34.7% ustekinumab; aOR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.79-2.28). Similar results were seen for all analyses performed within the propensity matched cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this post hoc analysis, infliximab and ustekinumab appear to have similar efficacy and speed of onset in patients with CD who are biologic-naïve.

Interventional treatments for chronic, axial or radicular, non-cancer, spinal pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic, non-cancer, axial or radicular spinal pain is a common condition associated with considerable socioeconomic burden. Clinicians frequently offer patients various interventional procedures for the treatment of chronic spine pain; however, the comparative effectiveness and safety of available procedures remains uncertain. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that explores the effectiveness and harms of interventional procedures for the management of axial or radicular, chronic, non-cancer, spine pain. We will identify eligible studies through a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science from inception without language restrictions. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol primarily adult patients (≥18 years old) with axial or radicular, chronic, non-cancer, spine pain, (2) randomise patients to different, currently available, interventional procedures or to an interventional procedure and a placebo/sham procedure or usual care, and (3) measure outcomes at least 1 month after randomisation.Pairs of reviewers will independently screen articles identified through searches and extract information and assess risk of bias of eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. We will use frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses to assess the relative effects of interventional procedures, and five a priori hypotheses to explore between studies subgroup effects. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in evidence for each outcome, including direct, indirect and network estimates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. We will disseminate our findings through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations, and our review will support development of a BMJ Rapid Recommendations providing contextualised clinical guidance based on this body of evidence. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020170667.

Higher vedolizumab serum levels do not increase the risk of adverse events in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Background: Although its mechanism of action may confer a safety benefit, vedolizumab has still been associated with adverse events (AE). We investigated whether inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with higher trough vedolizumab serum levels experienced an increased risk of AEs.Methods: This was a retrospective study of 76 IBD patients with at least one measurement of serum vedolizumab available. Vedolizumab levels ranged from <3.5 mcg/mL to 87.2 mcg/mL (median = 15.8 mcg/mL). The primary outcome was the rate of overall AEs. Secondary outcomes included the rates of infections, dermatologic reactions, infusion reactions, and other AEs. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between serum vedolizumab levels and AEs.Results: 19 patients out of 76 reported AEs. In patients with higher vedolizumab levels, there were 10 AEs reported out of 38 patients, which was not significantly different from the 9 AEs reported in 38 patients with lower vedolizumab levels (26.3% vs. 23.7%, p = .79). After adjustment for potential covariates, IBD patients with higher vedolizumab levels did not have higher odds of an AE than patients with lower levels (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.30-2.81). Longer duration of therapy had higher odds of AEs, (OR of 1.04 at 95% CI 1.00-1.09, p = .0494 per additional month). None of the other variables were associated with a greater risk of AEs.Conclusions: There does not appear to be an increased risk of adverse events in IBD patients with higher vedolizumab levels, but duration of therapy may increase the risk of AEs.