Search

Abstract There are no prospective, head-to-head, controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of Infliximab (IFX) and Vedolizumab (VDZ) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC), while only a few real-life retrospective studies have been published so far. We assessed the efficacy of IFX vs. VDZ in two cohorts of biologic-naïve outpatients with moderate-to-severe UC or mild, but refractory, disease. Data were extracted from patients’ files and reviewed. The duration of follow-up (FU) was 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was the clinical remission (CR) at the end of FU. Secondary endpoints were: drug persistency, time to obtain CR, clinical response at the end of the induction phase (IP), steroid-free CR (compared to patients who used steroids at baseline) at the end of FU, need for drug optimization, adverse events (AEs), and normalization of C-reactive protein (CRP). We also analyzed the causes of dropping out (primary non-response), or secondary loss of response (immunogenic or not), for each group. We enrolled 82 patients (50 IFX and 32 VDZ) who met the inclusion criteria. At the end of FU, CR was obtained in 32% of the patients on IFX and 75% on VDZ (p = 0.0003). Drug persistency was superior for VDZ compared to IFX (78% vs. 52%, p = 0.033). Clinical response at the end of induction was reached in 54% and in 81% in the IFX and VDZ group, respectively (p = 0.014). Steroid-free clinical remission at the end of FU was 62% and 94% in the IFX vs. VDZ group, respectively (p = 0.036). The need for drug optimization was higher for VDZ than for IFX (28% vs. 57%, p = 0.009), while the time to obtain CR, the incidence of AEs, mean duration of FU, and rate of CRP normalization at the end of IP were comparable between the two groups. There was a prevalence of patients dropping out because of primary non-response in IFX group (p = 0.027), while the incidence of secondary loss of response was similar in the two groups. At the multivariate analysis, CRP and Partial Mayo Score (PMS) at T0 did not correlate with CR at the end of FU in both groups. In this retrospective, real world data study in biologic-naïve patients, VDZ was superior to IFX in CR, clinical response rate at the end of IP, drug persistency, steroid-free remission, and need for optimization at the end of FU.

Background: Adalimumab is an effective and safe biological drug for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Nowadays, several biosimilar agents are available, but data regarding their efficacy and safety in patients with IBD are still lacking. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and tolerability between adalimumab originator, ABP501 and SB5 biosimilars in patients with IBD in the short term (after induction and after 6 months of treatment) through a propensity score-weighted multicenter cohort study. Methods: We included 156 patients with IBD, 69 patients with ulcerative colitis and 87 patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) receiving ABP501 or SB5 biosimilars from January 2019 to April 2020 for moderate-to-severe disease. For comparison, a group of age- and sex-matched patients treated with adalimumab originator was used. We collected clinical and biochemical data after induction and at 6 months of treatment. Endoscopic data were recorded only at baseline. Results: Overall, clinical benefit was achieved by 86.4% and 85.3% after induction and at 6 months, respectively, without a statistically significant difference between the three treatment groups ( p = 0.68 and p = 0.46). However, after induction, we found significant differences between the two types of the disease (ulcerative colitis or CD, p = 0.004), with a greater clinical benefit achieved by patients with CD. Also, the therapeutic optimization rate between the three drugs was not statistically significant different ( p = 0.30). All treatments showed a good safety profile, with only 10 patients who needed to stop therapy because of adverse events. Conclusion: Adalimumab biosimilars seem to be as effective and safe as the originator in patients with IBD. Surely, they represent a great opportunity to reduce the costs of biological therapies, however larger and longer real-life studies are necessary.

Infliximab is an IgG1 antitumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody that is commonly used to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and other autoimmune disorders. However, it is known to increase the risk of reactivation of latent tuberculosis (LTBI) due to its capability to disrupt TB granulomas. We describe a case of extrapulmonary TB in a patient with ulcerative colitis who was treated with Infliximab after a negative Quantiferon Test. In addition, we report briefly on the current controversy about the appropriateness, interval, and methods for the repeated screening of latent TB in IBD patients that are treated with antitumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) antibodies.