Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy of advanced treatments in biologic-naive or biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Only one head-to-head comparison of advanced treatments in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) has been published; therefore, there remains a need for further comparisons.

Aim

The relative treatment effects of filgotinib and adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, tofacitinib, ustekinumab and vedolizumab were estimated using a network meta-analysis (NMA).

Method

Systematically identified studies (MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library; searched: inception-May 2019, updated November 2020) investigating treatments for moderately to severely active UC were re-evaluated for inclusion in a Bayesian NMA (fixed-effects model). Relative treatment effects were estimated using different permutations of patient population (biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced), treatment phase (induction or maintenance) and outcomes (MCS response/remission or endoscopic mucosal healing).

Results

Seventeen trials (13 induction; 9 maintenance) were included in the NMA; 8 treatment networks were constructed. Most targeted therapies were superior to placebo in terms of MCS response/remission and endoscopic mucosal healing; filgotinib 200 mg was similar to most other treatments. Infliximab 5 mg/kg was superior to filgotinib 200 mg (biologic-naïve; induction) for MCS response/remission (mean relative effect, 0.34 [95% credible interval: 0.05, 0.62]). Filgotinib 200 mg was superior to adalimumab 160/80/40 mg for MCS response/remission (biologic-experienced; induction; - 0.75 [- 1.16, - 0.35]), and endoscopic mucosal healing (biologic-naïve; maintenance; - 0.90 [- 1.89, - 0.01]); and to golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks (biologic-naïve; maintenance; - 0.46 [- 0.94, 0]) for MCS response/remission.

Conclusion

The current treatment landscape benefits patients with moderately to severely active UC, improving key outcomes; filgotinib 200 mg was similar to current standard of care in most outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Lu X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10147762 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy of advanced treatments in biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Lu Xiaoyan X Jarrett James J Sadler Susannah S Tan Min M Dennis James J Jairath Vipul V Jairath Vipul V

International journal of clinical pharmacy 20221209 2

<h4>Background</h4>Only one head-to-head comparison of advanced treatments in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) has been published; therefore, there remains a need for further comparisons.<h4>Aim</h4>The relative treatment effects of filgotinib and adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, tofacitinib, ustekinumab and vedolizumab were estimated using a network meta-analysis (NMA).<h4>Method</h4>Systematically identified studies (MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library; searched: incept ...[more]

PMID: 36484968

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDespite availability of advanced therapies (ATs) for ulcerative colitis (UC), many patients fail to respond to treatment. This study examined real-world clinical and humanistic outcomes associated with current treatments in patients with UC.MethodsThis cross-sectional study used US data from the Adelphi Real World Disease Specific Programme for inflammatory bowel disease from before (2017-2018) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021). Physicians (gastroenterologists) seeing > 5 patients/month reported patients' disease characteristics, current symptoms and treatments, and reasons for treatment choices for their next seven consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years with moderately to severely active UC before current treatment. Patients were asked to complete the EQ-5D-5L health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure. ATs included tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), integrin receptor antagonists, interleukin-12/23 antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors. Patients were classified as AT-naïve or AT-experienced based on current treatment received for ≥ 8 weeks and further classified as responders or non-responders based on symptoms, disease flare status, and remission. Descriptive analyses are presented.ResultsThe 2017-2018 cohort included 92 physicians and 539 patients (208 [38.6%] AT-experienced). The 2020-2021 cohort included 73 physicians and 448 patients (349 [77.9%] AT-experienced). TNFis were the most common ATs. In 2017-2018, 195 (58.9%) AT-naïve and 113 (54.3%) AT-experienced patients were non-responders; in 2020-2021 this was 57 (57.6%) and 182 (52.1%). Efficacy and induction of remission were physicians' most common reasons for AT choice. Dislike of injections/infusions was the most common reason for eligible patients not receiving biologic therapy. Numerically, non-responders (both AT-naïve and AT-experienced) had more symptoms, overall pain and fatigue, and lower HRQoL scores than responders.ConclusionsBefore (2017-2018) and during the pandemic (2020-2021), over half of patients with UC did not respond to AT. Non-responders carried a high burden of disease. Alternative therapies are urgently needed to treat UC.

Project description:Backgrounds and aimsThere are currently no studies comparing histologic remission of FDA-approved biologics for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC), except for one head-to-head VARSITY trial. The current study employs a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy, including histologic remission and safety of biologic agents for UC.MethodsUsing four electronic databases, including Pubmed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, a search was conducted of all literature published until September 2022. Included were studies of randomized controlled trials with adult patients with moderate to severe UC using biologics approved by the FDA. An odd ratio with a 95 percent credible interval and ranking information was calculated for each endpoint.ResultsThe results of the network meta-analysis did not reveal statistically significant differences among biological agents. However, the ranking information for each biological agent exhibited the following patterns. Vedolizumab was ranked first for overall efficacy endpoints in the maintenance phase, including histologic remission. Except for histologic remission, Ustekinumab was identified as the top-ranked drug for induction phase efficacy endpoints other than histologic remission. Adalimumab was identified as the top-ranked drug for maintenance phase corticosteroid-free remission. Vedolizumab was identified as the top-ranked drug in the induction phase for Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAE). Adalimumab was identified as the top-ranked drug in the induction phase for infection. For TEAE and infection in the maintenance phase and Treatment Emergent Severe Adverse Events (TESAE) in both the induction and maintenance phases, Ustekinumab was determined to be the top-ranked medication.ConclusionsIncluding histologic remission, for the overall efficacy endpoints in the maintenance phase, VDZ was identified as the first rank drug, but there was no statistically significant difference between biologics. Therefore, the generalization of the results of this study is bounded due to the intrinsic limitations of the study provided.

Project description:ObjectiveTofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib versus current biologics, considering combinations of first-line (1L) and second-line (2L) therapies, from a Japanese payer's perspective in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC following an inadequate response to conventional therapy and in those who were naïve to biologics.MethodsA cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted during the time horizon specified in the Markov model, which considers a patient's lifetime as 60 years and an annual discount rate of 2% on costs and effects. The model compared tofacitinib with vedolizumab, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab. The time of active treatment was divided into induction and maintenance phases. Patients not responding to their biologic treatment after induction or during the maintenance phase were switched to a subsequent line of therapy. Treatment response and remission probabilities (for induction and maintenance phases) were obtained through a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis that employed a multinomial analysis with fixed effects. Patient characteristics were sourced from the OCTAVE Induction trials. Mean utilities associated with UC health states and adverse events (AEs) were obtained from published sources. Direct medical costs related to drug acquisition, administration, surgery, patient management, and AEs were derived from the JMDC database analysis, which corresponded with the medical procedure fees from 2021. The drug prices were adjusted to April 2021. Further validation through all processes by clinical experts in Japan was conducted to fit the costs to real-world practices. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were also performed to confirm the accuracy and robustness of the base-case results.ResultsIn the base-case, the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib was more cost-effective than vedolizumab, infliximab, golimumab, and ustekinumab for 1L therapies in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (based on the Japanese threshold of 5,000,000 yen/QALY [38,023 United States dollars {USD}/QALY]). The base-case results demonstrated that the incremental costs would be reduced for all biologics, and decreases in incremental QALYs were observed for all biologics other than adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was found to be dominant for adalimumab; for the other biologics, it was found to be less costly and less efficacious. The efficiency frontier on the cost-effectiveness plane indicated that tofacitinib-infliximab and infliximab-tofacitinib were more cost-effective than the other treatment patterns. When infliximab-tofacitinib was compared with tofacitinib-infliximab, the ICER was 282,609,856 yen/QALY (2,149,157 USD/QALY) and the net monetary benefit (NMB) was -12,741,342 yen (-96,894 USD) with a threshold of 5,000,000 yen (38,023 USD) in Japan. Therefore, infliximab-tofacitinib was not acceptable by this threshold, and tofacitinib-infliximab was the cost-effective treatment pattern.ConclusionThe current analysis suggests that the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib is a cost-effective alternative to the biologics for patients with moderate-to-severe UC from a Japanese payer's perspective.