Citations

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.

ABSTRACT We conducted a USA claims‐based cohort study in 20,705 patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) on advanced therapies to estimate the overall and comparative risk of tuberculosis between advanced therapies using inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox proportional hazards model. The incidence rate (IR, per 100,000 person‐years) of tuberculosis with TNF antagonists ( n = 9378) and non‐TNF‐targeting biologics (anti‐integrins [ n = 5877], anti‐interleukins [ n = 5450]) was similar (38 [95% CI, 8–69] vs. 33[7–59]). Adjusting for covariates, risk of tuberculosis was similar (HR, 1.16 [0.41–3.31]). In low incidence regions like USA, the incidence of tuberculosis after starting advanced therapies for IBD is very low, and comparable across advanced therapies.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the safety of advanced therapies in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: Using an administrative claims database (OptumLabs Data Warehouse), we identified patients with UC who initiated treatment with tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF) antagonists, anti-integrin agents, anti-interleukin, Janus kinase inhibitors (JAK), or sphingosine-1 phosphate receptor modulators between 2016 and 2022 and had followed up for at least 1 year before and after treatment initiation. We compared the risk of serious infections, venous thromboembolism, and major adverse cardiovascular events through multinomial propensity score-based inverse probability weighting, with propensity scores estimated through generalized boosted models that accounted for disease characteristics, healthcare utilization, comorbidities, and previous and concomitant medications, and the competing risk of mortality. We calculated cause-specific hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals for multiple treatment comparisons. RESULTS: We included 9,430 patients with UC treated with TNF antagonists (n = 4,111), anti-integrins (n = 3,165), anti-ILs (n = 1,342), JAK inhibitors (n = 701), or sphingosine-1 phosphate receptor modulators (n = 111), followed over median 27 months. After adjusting for confounding variables, anti-ILs were associated with a lower risk of serious infections compared with TNF antagonists (HR, 0.66 [95% confidence interval, 0.51–0.87]) and anti-integrins (HR, 0.75 [0.57–0.98]). JAK inhibitors were associated with a lower risk of serious infections compared with TNF antagonists (HR, 0.66 [0.46–0.94]). The incidence of venous thromboembolism (incidence rate, 1.4–2.0 per 100 py) and major adverse cardiovascular event (0.5–1.0 per 100 py) was very low, without any significant differences across agents. DISCUSSION: In a real-world cohort of patients with UC, anti-ILs and JAK inhibitors were associated with a lower risk of serious infections and may offer net benefit, especially in patients with previous TNF antagonist exposure.

ABSTRACT Background Advanced therapies increase the risk of shingles in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Aim To compare the risk of shingles with different advanced therapies in patients with IBD. Methods We identified patients with IBD who initiated treatment with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists, anti‐integrins, anti‐interleukins, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, or sphingosine‐1 phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators between 2016 and 2022 and had follow‐up for at least 1 year before and after treatment initiation. We estimated the incidence rate (IR per 100 person‐year [PY]) of shingles (overall and complicated) and compared the risk with different advanced therapies through multinomial propensity score‐based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), with propensity scores estimated through generalised boosted models, accounting for disease characteristics, healthcare utilisation, comorbidities and prior and concomitant medications. Weighted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for multiple treatment comparisons. Results We included 21,675 patients followed over 27 months. IRs per 100 PY of shingles and complicated shingles were: TNF antagonists 1.0/0.3, anti‐integrin agents 1.4/0.4, anti‐interleukins 1.2/0.5, JAK inhibitors 3.3/0.9 and S1PR modulators 2.0/1.0. After adjusting for confounding variables, JAK inhibitors were associated with higher risks of shingles than TNF antagonists (HR 2.19; 1.28–3.75), anti‐integrins (HR 1.87; 1.12–3.14) and anti‐interleukins (HR 1.70; 0.98–2.96). Conclusions JAK inhibitors were associated with 1.7–2.2‐fold higher risk of shingles than other advanced therapies.

ABSTRACTBackground and AimsWe aimed to assess the impact of setons on perianal fistula outcomes in patients with perianal fistulising Crohn's disease (PFCD) treated with anti‐TNF therapy.MethodsWe included patients treated with their first anti‐TNF therapy for PFCD after undergoing a pelvic MRI between 2005 and 2022 from 6 North American centres. Our exposure was one or more setons at the time of anti‐TNF therapy. Our primary outcome was major adverse fistula outcome (MAFO), a composite of repeat local surgical intervention, hospitalisation, or faecal diversion for PFCD, and our secondary outcome was fistula remission defined clinically. We used 1:1 cardinality matching and propensity score weighting to control for fistula severity based on centrally read MRIs, luminal characteristics, and concomitant therapies.ResultsOur analysis included 221 patients: 81 with setons and 140 without setons. After cardinality matching, our cohorts were balanced (standardised difference < 0.1 for all covariates). Patients with setons had similar rates of MAFO (HR 1.23; 95% CI, 0.68–2.21) and fistula remission at 6 months (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.41–1.59) and 12 months (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.31–1.27) compared to patients without setons. Our results remained stable when analysed by propensity score weighting and in a sensitivity analysis of patients who underwent an exam under anaesthesia. In patients with abscesses, there were lower rates of MAFO (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.19–1.25) but not statistically significant in patients with setons.ConclusionsIn this multicentre, setons were not associated with improved fistula outcomes. Future prospective controlled studies are warranted.