4.7 Review

Systematic review with meta-analysis: comparative efficacy of biologics for induction and maintenance of mucosal healing in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis controlled trials

Journal

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 45, Issue 10, Pages 1291-1302

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.14030

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. UCB Pharma
  2. Canadian Institute of Health Research
  3. Alberta-Innovates Health-Solutions
  4. Abbvie
  5. Shire
  6. GlaxoSmithKline
  7. Merck
  8. Janssen
  9. Genentech
  10. Mitsubishi
  11. Ferring
  12. Norgine
  13. Tillots
  14. Vifor
  15. Therakos
  16. Pharmacosmos
  17. Pilege
  18. BMS
  19. UCB-pharma
  20. Hospira
  21. Celltrion
  22. Takeda
  23. Biogaran
  24. Boerhinger-Ingelheim
  25. Lilly
  26. Pfizer
  27. HAC-Pharma
  28. Index Pharmaceuticals
  29. Amgen
  30. Sandoz
  31. Forward Pharma GmbH
  32. Celgene
  33. Biogen
  34. Lycera
  35. Samsung Bioepis
  36. US National Institutes of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundMucosal healing is an important therapeutic endpoint in the management of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Limited data exist regarding the comparative efficacy of various therapies in achieving this outcome. AimTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of biologics for induction and maintenance of mucosal healing in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCT) examining mucosal healing as an endpoint of immunosuppressives, anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) or anti-integrin monoclonal antibody therapy for moderate-to-severe CD or UC. Pooled effect sizes for induction and maintenance of mucosal healing were calculated and pairwise treatment comparisons evaluated using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. ResultsA total of 12 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis (CD - 2 induction, 4 maintenance; UC - 8 induction, 5 maintenance). Duration of follow-up was 6-12weeks for induction and 32-54weeks for maintenance trials. In CD, anti-TNFs were more effective than placebo for maintaining mucosal healing [28% vs. 1%, Odds ratio (OR) 19.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.51-110.84]. In UC, anti-TNFs and anti-integrins were more effective than placebo for inducing (45% vs. 30%) and maintaining mucosal healing (33% vs. 18%). In network analysis, adalimumab therapy was inferior to infliximab [OR 0.45, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.25-0.82] and combination infliximab-azathioprine (OR 0.32, 95% CrI 0.12-0.84) for inducing mucosal healing in UC. There was no statistically significant pairwise difference between vedolizumab and anti-TNF agents in UC. ConclusionsAnti-TNF and anti-integrin biological agents are effective in inducing mucosal healing in UC, with adalimumab being inferior to infliximab or combination therapy. Infliximab and adalimumab were similar in CD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available