Experiences of using vedolizumab in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease in the East Midlands UK - a retrospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy of vedolizumab in ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). Further real-world data is needed to inform clinical practice. The primary outcome was to assess corticosteroid-free and clinical remission after vedolizumab initiation. Secondary outcomes included effect on disease activity scores, biochemical markers, concomitant drug use, endoscopic remission, surgical intervention, hospital admissions and adverse events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-centre retrospective observational study was conducted with patients initiated on vedolizumab across seven UK hospitals 1/11/14-30/11/16. Clinical disease activity was assessed using the partial Mayo Scores (pMS) and Harvey Bradshaw Index (HBI). Clinical remission was defined as HBI ≤4 or pMS <2 with a combined stool frequency and rectal bleeding sub score of ≤1. Clinical response was defined as ≥2-point decrease from baseline in pMS and ≥3-point decrease from baseline in HBI. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-two patients were included in the final analysis. 45% of UC and 10% of CD patients were anti-TNF naive. Over the observation period corticosteroid-free remission rates for UC and CD were 46% and 45%, while clinical remission rates were 52% and 44%, respectively. Time to corticosteroid free remission for UC and CD was 17.6 [IQR: 8.7-29.6] and 14.1 [QR: 6.0-21.7] weeks, respectively. Time to clinical response for UC was 9.4 [IQR: 5.7-15.4] and CD was 9.5 [IQR: 6.1-18.2] weeks. There was a substantial decrease in the concomitant use of immunomodulators and a similar decrease in concomitant corticosteroid use over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Results in this predominately anti-TNF experienced population mirror other published real-world data, demonstrating good clinical effectiveness and a comparable safety profile.

What Next After Metformin in Type 2 Diabetes? Selecting the Right Drug for the Right Patient.

INTRODUCTION: Metformin is the recommended initial treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but when this does not give adequate glucose control the choice of which second-line drug to use is uncertain as none have been found to have a better overall glycaemic response. In this real-world study dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), sulphonylureas (SU), thiazolidinediones (TZD) and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were compared for their effectiveness in lowering glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels for a particular individual based on their clinical characteristics. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of electronic health records of people with T2DM prescribed metformin alongside a DPP4i, SU, TZD or SGLT2i at second-line. Regression modelling was used to model the changes in HbA1c from baseline at month 6 and month 12 for the individual therapies, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: There were 7170 people included in the study. Treatment at second-line with SUs, DPP4i, TZDs and SGLT2i resulted in similar percentages of people achieving the recommended HbA1c target of < 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) at both 6 and 12 months. For those receiving SGLT2i and SUs, the greatest improvement in HbA1c was observed in relatively younger and older people, respectively. Trends were detected between other baseline characteristics and HbA1c improvement by drug class, but they were not statistically significant. Non-adherence rates were low for all drug classes. People with a higher medication possession ratio (≥ 80%) also had greater improvements in HbA1c at 12 months. CONCLUSION: This study identified patients' phenotypic characteristics that may have the potential to influence individual treatment response. Accounting for these characteristics in clinical treatment decisions may facilitate individualised prescribing by being able to select the right drug for the right patient.

Retrospective Database Analysis Evaluating the Clinical Outcomes of Changing Treatment of People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) from Other DPP-4 Inhibitor Therapy to Alogliptin in a Primary Care Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Although some differences between individual dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors may exist, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) have recommended that 'prescribers should be encouraged to select the individual DPP-4 inhibitor with the lowest acquisition cost available to them, where all other factors are equal'. We aimed to determine whether or not 'within class' switching to alogliptin, the DPP-4 inhibitor with lowest acquisition cost, is a clinically appropriate strategy. METHODS: This study evaluated people with type 2 diabetes taking DPP-4 inhibitor therapy in addition to at least one other diabetes therapy. Primary care records were reviewed from six clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). For people who had been switched from other DPP-4 inhibitors to alogliptin, an assessment of the impact of switch on both absolute haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels and on HbA1c trajectory was undertaken. Persistence on alogliptin and the need for therapy intensification was also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 865 people with diabetes met the eligibility criteria for the study. There was no significant difference between pre- and post-switch mean HbA1c level [8.44% (SD 1.52%) vs 8.42% (1.62%), p = 0.6]. Similarly, for patients where there was sufficient data to assess the impact of switching on HbA1c trajectory (n = 319) minimal impact was identified (actual HbA1c at 3 months 8.33% vs projected 8.31%). The majority of people with diabetes (80.76%) remained on alogliptin treatment at 6 months and only 4.54% required additional diabetes therapies. Switching to alogliptin resulted in a median saving of £7.24 per patient-month. CONCLUSION: Switching United Kingdom (UK) primary care patients from other DPP-4 inhibitors to alogliptin did not result in a statistically significant or clinically meaningful change in HbA1c level and few required the addition of further diabetes therapies, suggesting that therapy change or intensification was not considered necessary in most patients who were switched to alogliptin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ENCePP clinical trial registration number EUPAS29153. FUNDING: Takeda UK Ltd.

A retrospective observational study of early experiences of vedolizumab treatment for inflammatory bowel disease in the UK: The REVIVE study.

Results from clinical trials show that vedolizumab is an efficacious treatment for inflammatory bowel disease, namely Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). However, there is limited evidence from real-world clinical practice, especially on early clinical experiences in the UK.To describe real-world early experiences of vedolizumab to treat CD and UC in the UK.A retrospective, chart review study of patients with CD or UC treated with vedolizumab across 5 UK hospitals. All eligible adults (≥18 years at initiation) with a diagnosis of CD and ≥14 weeks of data or UC and ≥10 weeks of data available following vedolizumab initiation were included.Data were analyzed for 112 patients (CD: 66; UC: 46). Patients with CD had a median of 7.4 (interquartile range 5.7-9.4) months follow-up and patients with UC had a median of 7.4 (5.6-10.2) months follow-up post-vedolizumab initiation. Most patients, 80% (53/66) with CD and 89% (41/46) with UC, remained on vedolizumab treatment at the time of data collection. No new safety signals were identified during the study.These results add to the body of evidence supporting vedolizumab as an effective and well-tolerated treatment for CD and UC in real-world clinical practice.