4.7 Article

Effectiveness of Third-Class Biologic Treatment in Crohn's Disease: A Multi-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10132914

关键词

Crohn's disease; anti-TNF failure; treatment response; treatment failure; ustekinumab; vedolizumab

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This retrospective multicenter cohort study investigated the effectiveness of vedolizumab (VDZ) and ustekinumab (UST) as third-class biologic therapies in patients with Crohn's disease. The study found that both VDZ and UST were effective in more than half of the patients with CD, with no significant differences in effectiveness between the two agents.
Background: Multiple studies have described the effectiveness of ustekinumab (UST) and vedolizumab (VDZ) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) failing anti- Tumor necrosis factors (TNFs); however, the effectiveness of VDZ or UST as a third-class biologic has not yet been described. Aims and Methods: In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of VDZ and UST as a third-class biologic in patients with CD. Results: Two-hundred and four patients were included; 156/204 (76%) patients received VDZ as a second- and UST as a third-class therapy (group A); the remaining 48/204 (24%) patients received UST as a second- and VDZ as a third-class therapy (group B). At week 16-22, 87/156 (55.5%) patients and 27/48 (56.2%) in groups A and B, respectively, responded to treatment (p = 0.9); 41/156 (26.2%) and 15/48 (31.2%) were in clinical remission (p = 0.5). At week 52; 89/103 (86%) patients and 25/29 (86.2%) of the patients with available data had responded to third-class treatment in groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.9); 31/103 (30%) and 47/29 (24.1%) were in clinical remission (p = 0.5). Conclusion: Third-class biological therapy was effective in more than half of the patients with CD. No differences in effectiveness were detected between the use of VDZ and UST as a third-class agent.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据