Safety, Effectiveness, and Treatment Persistence of Subcutaneous Vedolizumab in IBD: A Multicenter Study From the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite intravenous (IV) vedolizumab being established for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), the novel subcutaneous (SC) route of administration may provide numerous incentives to switch. However, large-scale real-world data regarding the long-term safety and effectiveness of this strategy are lacking. METHODS: IBD patients on IV vedolizumab across 11 UK sites agreed to transition to SC injections or otherwise continued IV treatment. Data regarding clinical disease activity (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index, partial Mayo score, and modified Harvey-Bradshaw Index), biochemical markers (C-reactive protein and calprotectin), quality of life (IBD control), adverse events, treatment persistence, and disease-related outcomes (namely corticosteroid use, IBD-related hospitalization, and IBD-related surgery) were retrospectively collected from prospectively maintained clinical records at baseline and weeks 8, 24, and 52. RESULTS: Data from 563 patients (187 [33.2%] Crohn's disease, 376 [66.8%] ulcerative colitis; 410 [72.8%] SC, 153 [27.2%] IV) demonstrated no differences in disease activity, remission rates, and quality of life between the SC and IV groups at all time points. Drug persistence at week 52 was similar (81.1% vs 81.2%; P = .98), as were rates of treatment alteration due to either active disease (12.2% vs 8.9%; P = .38) or adverse events (3.3% vs 6.3%; P = .41). At week 52, there were equivalent rates of adverse events (9.8% vs 7.8%; P = .572) and disease-related outcomes. IBD control scores were equivalent in both IV-IV and IV-SC groups. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to SC vedolizumab appears as effective, safe, and well tolerated as continued IV treatment and maintains comparable disease control and quality of life as IV treatment at 52 weeks.

Comparative effectiveness of a second-line biologic in patients with ulcerative colitis: vedolizumab followed by an anti-TNF versus anti-TNF followed by vedolizumab.

Background: Sequential drug treatment with biological agents in ulcerative colitis (UC) is becoming increasingly complex. There are few studies comparing head-to-head outcomes in second-line treatments. The study assesses whether using anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF)-α therapy following the α4ß7 integrin blocker vedolizumab (VDZ) or VDZ after an anti-TNF has more favourable clinical outcomes in UC in a real-world outpatient setting. Methods: Patients with UC who were exposed to first-line anti-TNF (adalimumab or infliximab) or VDZ who subsequently switched to the alternate class between May 2013 and August 2020 were identified by reviewing patient databases at 10 hospitals. Data were collected retrospectively using patient records. Baseline demographics, disease activity indices, biochemical markers, endoscopic Mayo score, colectomy rates, treatment persistence and urgent hospital utilisation composite endpoint (UHUC) rates were examined over a 52-week period. Results: Second-line week 52 treatment persistence was higher in the VDZ group (71/81, 89%) versus the anti-TNF group (15/34, 44%; p=0.0001), as were week 52 colectomy-free survival (VDZ: 77/80, 96%, vs anti-TNF: 26/32, 81%; p=0.009), week 52 UHUC survival (VDZ: 68/84, 81%, vs anti-TNF: 20/34, 59%; p=0.002) and week 52 corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CFCR) rates (VDZ: 22/34, 65%, vs anti-TNF: 4/20, 20%; p=0.001). Conclusion: Compared with second-line anti TNF usage, the VDZ second-line cohort had significantly higher 52-week treatment persistence, UHUC survival, higher colectomy-free survival rates and higher week 52 CFCR. These data suggest that VDZ is an effective biologic in UC as a second-line therapy after anti-TNF exposure. It highlights the effect of biological order on clinically important outcomes.