Real-World Effectiveness of Vedolizumab vs Anti-TNF in Biologic-naïve Crohn's Disease Patients: A 2-year Propensity-score-adjusted Analysis from the VEDOIBD-Study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this observational, real-world evidence, modified intention-to-treat (mITT) study based on prospectively collected data from the VEDOIBD registry was to compare the effectiveness of vedolizumab (VEDO) vs antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) in biologic-naïve Crohn's disease (CD) patients. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2020, 557 CD patients starting therapy with VEDO or anti-TNF were consecutively enrolled in 45 IBD centers across Germany. Per study protocol, the analysis excluded biologic-experienced patients and those with a missing Harvey-Bradshaw Index score, resulting in a final sample of 327 biologic-naïve CD patients. Clinical remission was measured using the Harvey-Bradshaw Index at the end of induction therapy and after 1 and 2 years. Switching to a different therapy was considered an outcome failure. Propensity score adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to correct for confounding. RESULTS: The effectiveness of both VEDO (n = 86) and anti-TNF (n = 241) was remarkably high for induction treatment, but VEDO performed significantly less well than anti-TNF (clinical remission: 56.3% vs 73.9%, P < .05). In contrast, clinical remission after 2 years was significantly better for VEDO compared with anti-TNF (74.2% vs 44.7%; P < .05; odds ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.94). Remarkably, only 17% of patients switched from VEDO to another biologic vs 44% who received anti-TNF. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this prospective, 2-year, real-world evidence study suggest that the choice of VEDO led to higher remission rates after 2 years compared with anti-TNF. This could support the role of VEDO as a first-line biologic therapy in CD.

Real-world effectiveness of vedolizumab compared to anti-TNF agents in biologic-naïve patients with ulcerative colitis: A two-year propensity-score-adjusted analysis from the prospective, observational VEDOIBD -study.

BACKGROUND: This observational real-world evidence (RWE) study is based on prospectively collected data from the VEDOIBD registry study. AIM: To compare the effectiveness of vedolizumab and anti-TNF agents in biologic-naïve patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) at the end of induction and during maintenance treatment. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2020, we enrolled 512 patients with UC starting therapy with vedolizumab or an anti-TNF agent in 45 IBD centres across Germany. We excluded biologic-experienced patients and those with missing partial Mayo (pMayo) outcomes; this resulted in a final sample of 314 (182 on vedolizumab and 132 on an anti-TNF agent). The primary outcome was clinical remission measured using pMayo score; any switch to a different biologic agent was considered an outcome failure (modified ITT analysis). We used propensity score adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting to correct for confounding. RESULTS: During induction therapy, clinical remission was relatively low and similar in vedolizumab- and anti-TNF-treated patients (23% vs. 30.4%, p = 0.204). However, clinical remission rates after two years were significantly higher for vedolizumab-treated patients than those treated with an anti-TNF agent (43.2% vs. 25.8%, p < 0.011). Among patients treated with vedolzumab, 29% switched to other biologics, versus 54% who had received an anti-TNF agent. CONCLUSION: After two years of treatment, vedolizumab resulted in higher remission rates than anti-TNF agents.

Real-world Comparative Effectiveness of Ustekinumab vs Anti-TNF in Crohn's Disease With Propensity Score Adjustment: Induction Phase Results From the Prospective, Observational RUN-CD Study.

BACKGROUND: In addition to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), real-world studies on the effectiveness of ustekinumab (UST) in Crohn's disease (CD) are required inasmuch as RCTs are usually confined to selected patients, which may not represent everyday clinical practice. Within the framework of the prospective real-world RUN-CD registry, a total of approximately 900 CD patients from 44 inflammatory bowel disease centers from all over Germany starting a new therapy with UST or other biologics were screened for a real-world evidence (RWE) comparison of CD patients with UST vs antitumor necrosis factor (TNF). METHODS: A total of 618 CD patients with a nonrandomized biological therapy were qualified for this induction phase effectiveness RUN-CD study of UST vs anti-TNF. To reduce selection bias in estimations of treatment effects, the propensity score with inverse probability of treatment weighting was implemented. The results were reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A total of 339 UST and 279 anti-TNF patients were analyzed. The effectiveness of UST vs anti-TNF in terms of clinical remission (UST 65.4% vs anti-TNF 63.0%; OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.71-1.74) and steroid-free remission (UST 51.0% vs anti-TNF 53.8%; OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.60-1.47) was comparable at the end of induction therapy. Similar results were observed in the bio-naïve and bio-experienced UST vs anti-TNF groups. For both, the remission rates were higher in the bio-naïve than in the bio-experienced groups (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, observational RUN-CD study, the RWE head-to-head comparison of UST vs anti-TNF showed similar induction effectiveness in both groups, remarkably higher than those found in prior RCTs.

The higher effectiveness outcome rates observed in patients treated with UST compared with pivotal studies in combination with its known favorable safety profile and an improved HRQoL support UST use as a first-line, advanced therapy in CD.

Profile of patients with inflammatory bowel disease in conjunction with unmet needs and decision-making for choosing a new biologic therapy: a baseline analysis of the VEDOIBD-Study.

PURPOSE: We characterized the profile of Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) biologic-naïve patients (starting a new therapy with vedolizumab or TNFα-antagonists), their baseline disease activity predictors, and their perception of the quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: The VEDOIBD-Study is a real-world study on the effectiveness of vedolizumab vs other biologics as induction and maintenance therapy for CD and UC. A total of 627 CD and 546 UC patients were enrolled from IBD-experienced centers across Germany. In both biologic-naïve vedolizumab (n=397) and anti-TNF (n=359) patients, CD and UC disease severity and HRQoL predictors were analyzed with logistic regression. The results were reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: When compared to biologic-naïve anti-TNF patients, a first biological therapy with vedolizumab was considered for older CD patients, with a less complicated though longer disease course, and with a history of comorbidities. No differences in (unmet) needs were observed among patients with UC. The presence of extra-intestinal manifestations in biologic-naïve anti-TNF patients with CD (OR (95% CI): 3.83 (1.69-8.68)) and, in both biologic-naïve groups of patients with UC, stool frequency (2.00 (1.25-3.19); 1.82 (1.10-3.02), respectively) and rectal bleeding (2.24 (1.20-4.18); 1.92 (1.19-3.11), respectively) emerged as the most important predictors of disease severity, which in turn were also significantly associated with a worse HRQoL. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the existence of unmet medical needs of patients with CD or UC, for whom a new biological therapy is planned as part of the VEDOIBD-Study, which considerably impacts their HRQoL.