Nieto Dominguez Alejandro, Bhurwal Abhishek, Mutneja Hemant, Eichinger Sarah E, Pinnam Bhanu, Guifarro Rivera Daniel, Pan Chun-Wei
Division of Internal Medicine, John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois.
Division of Gastroenterology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Gastro Hep Adv. 2024 Nov 14;4(3):100588. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2024.11.004. eCollection 2025.
Infliximab, widely used as a mainstay treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), is traditionally administered intravenously. The subcutaneous (SC) formulation appears to offer a more convenient route of administration. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of intravenous (IV) and SC routes of administration of Infliximab.
All observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing efficacy, effectiveness, safety, costs, and patient preferences between IV vs SC infliximab in adult human patients with IBD between January 1, 1997, and September 9, 2023, were analyzed. The primary outcome was comparison of the remission rates between SC and IV infliximab in IBD patients. Secondary outcomes were analyzing the different safety profiles and adverse events of IV infliximab vs SC infliximab qualitatively and quantitatively, comparing costs between both groups and evaluating patient preferences among the different studies found on our systematic review.
Twenty studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and 9 were included in the quantitative synthesis, with a total of 960 patients. There was no significant difference in clinical remission rates between the IV and SC infliximab groups at 8 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. Switching to SC infliximab was overall safe. Patient satisfaction was higher in patients using SC infliximab, with additional cost-saving benefits.
The systematic review and meta-analysis reveal that SC infliximab could be a safe, cost-effective, well tolerated alternative for achieving disease remission in patients with IBD.
英夫利昔单抗作为炎症性肠病(IBD)的主要治疗药物被广泛使用,传统上通过静脉注射给药。皮下(SC)制剂似乎提供了一种更方便的给药途径。这是一项系统评价和荟萃分析,比较英夫利昔单抗静脉注射(IV)和皮下注射给药途径的疗效。
分析了1997年1月1日至2023年9月9日期间,比较成年IBD患者静脉注射与皮下注射英夫利昔单抗在疗效、有效性、安全性、成本和患者偏好方面的所有观察性研究和随机对照试验。主要结局是比较IBD患者皮下注射与静脉注射英夫利昔单抗的缓解率。次要结局是定性和定量分析静脉注射英夫利昔单抗与皮下注射英夫利昔单抗不同的安全性概况和不良事件,比较两组之间的成本,并在我们的系统评价中找到的不同研究中评估患者偏好。
定性综合纳入20项研究,定量综合纳入9项研究,共960例患者。静脉注射和皮下注射英夫利昔单抗组在8周、6个月和1年时的临床缓解率无显著差异。改用皮下注射英夫利昔单抗总体安全。使用皮下注射英夫利昔单抗的患者满意度更高,还有额外的成本节约效益。
系统评价和荟萃分析表明,皮下注射英夫利昔单抗可能是IBD患者实现疾病缓解的一种安全、经济有效且耐受性良好的替代方案。