Sandborn William J, Sakuraba Atsushi, Wang Anthony, Macaulay Dendy, Reichmann William, Wang Song, Chao Jingdong, Skup Martha
a University of California San Diego , La Jolla , CA , USA ;
b University of Chicago , Chicago , IL , USA ;
Curr Med Res Opin. 2016 Jul;32(7):1233-41. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2016.1168290. Epub 2016 Mar 30.
We compared the real-world effectiveness of initiating adalimumab and infliximab among patients in the US who were naïve to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.
A retrospective chart review was conducted to evaluate the real-world effectiveness among adults with ulcerative colitis (UC) initiating adalimumab or infliximab. Charts of patients with UC were abstracted by treating physicians (randomly selected from a nationally representative panel) in April 2014. Patient eligibility criteria included: adalimumab or infliximab initiation on/after 1 October 2012; no prior anti-TNF therapy, history of Crohn's disease, or colectomy; and ≥6 months of follow-up. Information on clinical outcomes (partial Mayo score, remission rate, physician global assessment (PGA), stool frequency, and rectal bleeding) and treatment patterns (dose escalations, discontinuations, switches, and treatment augmentations) were retrospectively reported by treating physicians. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the time to clinical outcomes and treatment changes for each therapy.
Overall, 170 physicians participated, contributing data on 380 and 424 patients who initiated adalimumab and infliximab, respectively. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between groups. Both adalimumab- and infliximab-treated patients showed substantial improvements from baseline to follow-up in effectiveness measures; results of these measures were similar between the adalimumab and infliximab cohorts. Time to remission (p = 0.5241), no rectal bleeding (p = 0.7648), normal stool count (p = 0.9941), and normal PGA (p = 0.7697) showed no significant differences between therapies in unadjusted and adjusted comparisons. Unadjusted and adjusted time to event analysis of discontinuation (p = 0.7151), dose escalation (p = 0.6310), treatment augmentation (p = 0.1209), and switching (p = 0.7975) showed no significant differences between the two cohorts.
Retrospective, observational design.
Adalimumab and infliximab were similarly effective in the treatment of moderate-to-severe UC in the real-world clinical setting.
我们比较了美国初次使用肿瘤坏死因子(TNF)抑制剂的患者中,使用阿达木单抗和英夫利昔单抗的实际疗效。
进行一项回顾性病历审查,以评估成年溃疡性结肠炎(UC)患者初次使用阿达木单抗或英夫利昔单抗的实际疗效。2014年4月,由治疗医师(从具有全国代表性的专家小组中随机选取)提取UC患者的病历。患者纳入标准包括:2012年10月1日及以后开始使用阿达木单抗或英夫利昔单抗;既往未接受过抗TNF治疗、无克罗恩病病史或未行结肠切除术;随访时间≥6个月。治疗医师回顾性报告临床结局(部分梅奥评分、缓解率、医师整体评估(PGA)、大便频率和直肠出血)及治疗模式(剂量递增、停药、换药和增加治疗)的信息。采用Kaplan-Meier曲线和多变量Cox比例风险回归模型评估每种治疗达到临床结局和治疗改变的时间。
总体而言,170名医师参与,分别提供了380例初次使用阿达木单抗和424例初次使用英夫利昔单抗患者的数据。两组的基线临床特征相似。阿达木单抗组和英夫利昔单抗组患者从基线到随访的疗效指标均有显著改善;阿达木单抗组和英夫利昔单抗组这些指标的结果相似。在未调整和调整后的比较中,达到缓解的时间(p = 0.5241)、无直肠出血的时间(p = 0.7648)、大便次数正常的时间(p = 0.9941)和PGA正常的时间(p = 0.7697)在两种治疗之间均无显著差异。停药(p = 0.7151)、剂量递增(p = 0.6310)、增加治疗(p = 0.1209)和换药(p = 0.7975)的未调整和调整后的事件发生时间分析显示,两组之间无显著差异。
回顾性观察性设计。
在实际临床环境中,阿达木单抗和英夫利昔单抗治疗中重度UC的疗效相似。