Ahuja, Dhruv

Importance With the availability of multiple classes of advanced therapies for the treatment of Crohn disease (CD), understanding the comparative safety of different therapies can inform treatment positioning. Objective To compare the risk of serious infections, venous thromboembolism (VTE), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with different advanced therapies in patients with CD. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective comparative effectiveness research study was conducted between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2022, with a mean (SD) follow-up of 26.9 (2.4) months until July 1, 2024. Using an administrative claims database (OptumLabs Data Warehouse), commercially insured patients with CD, who initiated treatment with tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF) antagonists, anti-integrin agents (vedolizumab), interleukin (IL)-12/23p40 antagonists (ustekinumab), IL-23p19 antagonists (primarily risankizumab), or Janus kinase inhibitors (upadacitinib) between 2016 and 2022 and had follow-up for at least 1 year before and after treatment initiation, were included. Exposure TNF antagonists vs anti-integrin agents (vedolizumab) vs IL-12/23p40 antagonists (ustekinumab) vs IL-23p19 antagonists (risankizumab) vs Janus kinase inhibitors (upadacitinib). Main Outcomes and Measures The risk of serious infections, VTE, and MACE was compared with various advanced therapies through multinomial propensity score-based inverse probability treatment weighting, with propensity scores estimated through generalized boosted models, accounting for disease characteristics, health care utilization, comorbidities, and prior and concomitant medications, and through competing risk of mortality. Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for multiple treatment comparisons were calculated. Results This study included 12 245 patients with CD (mean [SD] age, 46.5 [17.5] years; 6642 females [54.2%]), who were treated with TNF antagonists (n = 5274), vedolizumab (n = 2716), ustekinumab (n = 3544), risankizumab (n = 559), or upadacitinib (n = 152). Serious infection incidence rates ranged from 5.46 (95% CI, 4.86-6.07) to 9.02 (95% CI, 6.38-11.89) per 100 person-years across therapies. After adjusting for confounding variables, there were no statistically significant differences in the risk of serious infections across different agents, including between risankizumab and ustekinumab (HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.78-1.67]), risankizumab and TNF antagonists (HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.68-1.47]), or ustekinumab and TNF antagonists (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.74-1.04]). The incidence of VTE (incidence rate, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.71-1.10] to 2.33 [95% CI, 1.06-3.82] per 100 person-years) and MACE (0.68 [95% CI, 0.51-0.85] to 1.49 [95% CI, 0.43-2.76] per 100 person-years) was low, without any significant differences across agents. Conclusions and Relevance In this comparative effectiveness research study of patients with CD, no significant differences in the risks of serious infections, VTE, or MACE across various advanced therapies were found. These findings support clinical decision-making on choice of advanced therapies for most individual patients with CD to be driven primarily by comparative treatment effectiveness rather than driven by concerns of serious adverse events.

INTRODUCTION: Rapidity of symptom resolution informs treatment choice in patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing early symptomatic remission with approved therapies. METHODS: Through a systematic literature review to December 31, 2022, we identified randomized trials in adult outpatients with moderate-severe UC treated with approved therapies (tumor necrosis factor α antagonists, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, janus kinase inhibitors, or ozanimod), compared with each other or placebo, reporting rates of symptomatic remission (based on partial Mayo score, with resolution of rectal bleeding and near-normalization of stool frequency) at weeks 2, 4, and/or 6. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach and estimated relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval values. RESULTS: On network meta-analysis, upadacitinib was more effective than all agents in achieving symptomatic remission at weeks 2 (range of RR, 2.85–6.27), 4 (range of RR, 1.78–2.37), and 6 (range of RR, 1.84–2.79). Tumor necrosis factor α antagonists and filgotinib, but not ustekinumab and vedolizumab, were more effective than ozanimod in achieving symptomatic remission at week 2, but not at weeks 4 and 6. With approximately 10% placebo-treated patients achieving symptomatic remission at 2 weeks, we estimated 68%, 22%, 23.7%, 23.9%, 22.2%, 18.4%, 15.7%, and 10.9% of upadacitinib-, filgotinib-, infliximab-, adalimumab-, golimumab-, ustekinumab-, vedolizumab-, and ozanimod-treated patients would achieve early symptomatic remission, ustekinumab and vedolizumab achieving rapid remission only in biologic-naïve patients. DISCUSSION: In a systematic review and network meta-analysis, upadacitinib was most effective in achieving early symptomatic remission, whereas ozanimod was relatively slower acting.