Na Ji-Eun, Park Yong-Eun, Park Jong-Ha, Kim Tae-Oh, Lee Jong-Yoon, Lee Jong-Hoon, Park Su-Bum, Lee Seung-Bum, Hong Seung-Min
Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Busan 48108, Republic of Korea.
Department of Internal Medicine, Dong-A University, College of Medicine, Busan 49201, Republic of Korea.
J Pers Med. 2024 Oct 18;14(10):1066. doi: 10.3390/jpm14101066.
Few studies have compared the efficacy and safety of second-line biological therapies in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients with prior exposure to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety between ustekinumab, vedolizumab, and tofacitinib, a current option as second-line biological therapy with different mechanisms in those patients.
This retrospective multi-center study was conducted across five institutions from 2011 to 2022. We enrolled patients with moderate to severe UC who failed anti-TNF therapy and subsequently received ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib as second-line biological therapy. The outcomes were analyzed for clinical response/remission and endoscopic improvement/remission rates after induction therapy, drug persistency, and adverse events.
A total of 70 UC patients were included and grouped into ustekinumab (11 patients), vedolizumab (40 patients), and tofacitinib (19 patients) treatments. The clinical response/remission rates after induction therapy were similar between ustekinumab (90.9/81.8%), vedolizumab (92.5/65.0%), and tofacitinib (94.7/73.7%). There were no significant differences in the endoscopic improvement/remission rates between the three groups: 90.9/18.2% for ustekinumab, 72.5/12.5% for vedolizumab, and 84.2/26.3% for tofacitinib. Drug persistence was similar across the three agents ( = 0.130). Three patients of the tofacitinib group experienced adverse events (herpes zoster and hypertriglyceridemia).
Based on real-world data, second-line biological therapy with ustekinumab, vedolizumab, and tofacitinib showed comparable efficacy in patients with moderate to severe UC with prior exposure to anti-TNF therapy.
很少有研究比较过接受过抗肿瘤坏死因子(TNF)治疗的溃疡性结肠炎(UC)患者使用二线生物疗法的疗效和安全性。我们旨在比较乌司奴单抗、维多珠单抗和托法替布在这些患者中的疗效和安全性,这三种药物是目前具有不同作用机制的二线生物治疗选择。
这项回顾性多中心研究于2011年至2022年在五个机构开展。我们纳入了抗TNF治疗失败后接受乌司奴单抗、维多珠单抗或托法替布作为二线生物治疗的中度至重度UC患者。分析了诱导治疗后的临床缓解率、内镜改善/缓解率、药物持久性和不良事件。
共纳入70例UC患者,分为乌司奴单抗组(11例)、维多珠单抗组(40例)和托法替布组(19例)。诱导治疗后的临床缓解率在乌司奴单抗组(90.9/81.8%)、维多珠单抗组(92.5/65.0%)和托法替布组(94.7/73.7%)之间相似。三组的内镜改善/缓解率无显著差异:乌司奴单抗组为90.9/18.2%,维多珠单抗组为72.5/12.5%,托法替布组为84.2/26.3%。三种药物的药物持久性相似(P = 0.130)。托法替布组有3例患者发生不良事件(带状疱疹和高甘油三酯血症)。
基于真实世界数据,对于既往接受过抗TNF治疗的中度至重度UC患者,使用乌司奴单抗、维多珠单抗和托法替布进行二线生物治疗显示出相当的疗效。