4.7 Article

Comparative Effectiveness of Infliximab and Adalimumab for Crohn's Disease

期刊

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 811-U137

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.06.010

关键词

Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Persistence; Surgery; Hospitalization

资金

  1. AHRQ [R01-HS018517, NIHK24-DK078228, K08 DK084347]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Antibodies against tumor necrosis factor-alpha are widely used to treat patients with Crohn's disease (CD). This study compared the effectiveness of infliximab and adalimumab, the 2 most commonly used anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, in patients with CD. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study by using U. S. Medicare data from 2006 through 2010. Patients with CD who were new users of infliximab (n = 1459) or adalimumab (n = 871) after January 31, 2007, were included. Patients older than age 85 and those with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis were excluded. The primary outcome measures were disease persistence on therapy at week 26, surgery (including bowel resection, creation of an ostomy, or surgical treatment of a perforation or abscess), and hospitalization for CD. Propensity score-adjusted logistic and Cox regression were used to compute adjusted odds ratios or hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: After 26 weeks of treatment, 49% of patients receiving infliximab remained on drug, compared with 47% of those receiving adalimumab (odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81-1.19). Fewer patients treated with infliximab underwent surgery than those treated with adalimumab, but this difference was not statistically significant (5.5 vs 6.9 surgeries per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.60-1.05). Rates of hospitalization did not differ between groups (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07). CONCLUSIONS: We observed similar effectiveness of infliximab and adalimumab for CD on the basis of 3 clinically important outcome measures.

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