Cargando…

Comparative efficacy of advanced treatments in biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Only one head-to-head comparison of advanced treatments in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) has been published; therefore, there remains a need for further comparisons. AIM: The relative treatment effects of filgotinib and adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, tofacitin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lu, Xiaoyan, Jarrett, James, Sadler, Susannah, Tan, Min, Dennis, James, Jairath, Vipul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10147762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36484968
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01509-1
_version_ 1785034859659395072
author Lu, Xiaoyan
Jarrett, James
Sadler, Susannah
Tan, Min
Dennis, James
Jairath, Vipul
author_facet Lu, Xiaoyan
Jarrett, James
Sadler, Susannah
Tan, Min
Dennis, James
Jairath, Vipul
author_sort Lu, Xiaoyan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Only one head-to-head comparison of advanced treatments in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) has been published; therefore, there remains a need for further comparisons. AIM: The relative treatment effects of filgotinib and adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, tofacitinib, ustekinumab and vedolizumab were estimated using a network meta-analysis (NMA). METHOD: Systematically identified studies (MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library; searched: inception–May 2019, updated November 2020) investigating treatments for moderately to severely active UC were re-evaluated for inclusion in a Bayesian NMA (fixed-effects model). Relative treatment effects were estimated using different permutations of patient population (biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced), treatment phase (induction or maintenance) and outcomes (MCS response/remission or endoscopic mucosal healing). RESULTS: Seventeen trials (13 induction; 9 maintenance) were included in the NMA; 8 treatment networks were constructed. Most targeted therapies were superior to placebo in terms of MCS response/remission and endoscopic mucosal healing; filgotinib 200 mg was similar to most other treatments. Infliximab 5 mg/kg was superior to filgotinib 200 mg (biologic-naïve; induction) for MCS response/remission (mean relative effect, 0.34 [95% credible interval: 0.05, 0.62]). Filgotinib 200 mg was superior to adalimumab 160/80/40 mg for MCS response/remission (biologic-experienced; induction; – 0.75 [– 1.16, – 0.35]), and endoscopic mucosal healing (biologic-naïve; maintenance; – 0.90 [– 1.89, – 0.01]); and to golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks (biologic-naïve; maintenance; – 0.46 [– 0.94, 0]) for MCS response/remission. CONCLUSION: The current treatment landscape benefits patients with moderately to severely active UC, improving key outcomes; filgotinib 200 mg was similar to current standard of care in most outcomes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11096-022-01509-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10147762
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101477622023-04-30 Comparative efficacy of advanced treatments in biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis Lu, Xiaoyan Jarrett, James Sadler, Susannah Tan, Min Dennis, James Jairath, Vipul Int J Clin Pharm Review Article BACKGROUND: Only one head-to-head comparison of advanced treatments in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) has been published; therefore, there remains a need for further comparisons. AIM: The relative treatment effects of filgotinib and adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, tofacitinib, ustekinumab and vedolizumab were estimated using a network meta-analysis (NMA). METHOD: Systematically identified studies (MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library; searched: inception–May 2019, updated November 2020) investigating treatments for moderately to severely active UC were re-evaluated for inclusion in a Bayesian NMA (fixed-effects model). Relative treatment effects were estimated using different permutations of patient population (biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced), treatment phase (induction or maintenance) and outcomes (MCS response/remission or endoscopic mucosal healing). RESULTS: Seventeen trials (13 induction; 9 maintenance) were included in the NMA; 8 treatment networks were constructed. Most targeted therapies were superior to placebo in terms of MCS response/remission and endoscopic mucosal healing; filgotinib 200 mg was similar to most other treatments. Infliximab 5 mg/kg was superior to filgotinib 200 mg (biologic-naïve; induction) for MCS response/remission (mean relative effect, 0.34 [95% credible interval: 0.05, 0.62]). Filgotinib 200 mg was superior to adalimumab 160/80/40 mg for MCS response/remission (biologic-experienced; induction; – 0.75 [– 1.16, – 0.35]), and endoscopic mucosal healing (biologic-naïve; maintenance; – 0.90 [– 1.89, – 0.01]); and to golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks (biologic-naïve; maintenance; – 0.46 [– 0.94, 0]) for MCS response/remission. CONCLUSION: The current treatment landscape benefits patients with moderately to severely active UC, improving key outcomes; filgotinib 200 mg was similar to current standard of care in most outcomes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11096-022-01509-1. Springer International Publishing 2022-12-09 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10147762/ /pubmed/36484968 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01509-1 Text en © The Authors 2022, corrected publication 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article
Lu, Xiaoyan
Jarrett, James
Sadler, Susannah
Tan, Min
Dennis, James
Jairath, Vipul
Comparative efficacy of advanced treatments in biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title Comparative efficacy of advanced treatments in biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full Comparative efficacy of advanced treatments in biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparative efficacy of advanced treatments in biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparative efficacy of advanced treatments in biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_short Comparative efficacy of advanced treatments in biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_sort comparative efficacy of advanced treatments in biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10147762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36484968
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01509-1
work_keys_str_mv AT luxiaoyan comparativeefficacyofadvancedtreatmentsinbiologicnaiveorbiologicexperiencedpatientswithulcerativecolitisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT jarrettjames comparativeefficacyofadvancedtreatmentsinbiologicnaiveorbiologicexperiencedpatientswithulcerativecolitisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT sadlersusannah comparativeefficacyofadvancedtreatmentsinbiologicnaiveorbiologicexperiencedpatientswithulcerativecolitisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT tanmin comparativeefficacyofadvancedtreatmentsinbiologicnaiveorbiologicexperiencedpatientswithulcerativecolitisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT dennisjames comparativeefficacyofadvancedtreatmentsinbiologicnaiveorbiologicexperiencedpatientswithulcerativecolitisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT jairathvipul comparativeefficacyofadvancedtreatmentsinbiologicnaiveorbiologicexperiencedpatientswithulcerativecolitisasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis