Loading…

P327 Effectiveness of anti-TNF vs. vedolizumab as a second biologic in IBD: results from national Swedish registers

Abstract Background We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of tumour necrosis factor antagonist (anti-TNF) compared with vedolizumab (VDZ) as a second-line biological treatment in IBD. Methods A propensity score-matched cohort was created using data from the Swedish National Patient Register, the Sw...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Crohn's and colitis 2020-01, Vol.14 (Supplement_1), p.S317-S317
Main Authors: Rundquist, S, Sachs, M, Eriksson, C, Olén, O, Montgomery, S, Halfvarson, J
Format: Article
Language:English
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page S317
container_issue Supplement_1
container_start_page S317
container_title Journal of Crohn's and colitis
container_volume 14
creator Rundquist, S
Sachs, M
Eriksson, C
Olén, O
Montgomery, S
Halfvarson, J
description Abstract Background We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of tumour necrosis factor antagonist (anti-TNF) compared with vedolizumab (VDZ) as a second-line biological treatment in IBD. Methods A propensity score-matched cohort was created using data from the Swedish National Patient Register, the Swedish Quality Register for IBD (SWIBREG) and the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register. Patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) exposed to anti-TNF as a first-line biologic, who initiated a second biologic agent 1 May 2014 – 31 December 2016 were included (n = 1363). We compared patients exposed to anti-TNF vs. patients exposed to VDZ as a second-line biologic treatment. The primary outcome was drug continuation rate at 12 months. Secondarily, we assessed survival without hospitalisation (because of IBD, complications of IBD or IBD-related surgery) and survival without IBD-related surgery. Risk of infections was investigated as survival without a) prescription of antibiotics and b) hospitalisation because of infection. Additionally, the proportion of patients on corticosteroids at 12 months was assessed. Results After 1:1 propensity score matching, the cohort was restricted to 400 patients (CD, n = 198; UC, n = 202). For CD, estimated drug continuation rate at 12 months was 72.7% in the VDZ-treated patients, compared with 73.7% in the anti-TNF treated patients (Figure 1A). Survival without IBD-related hospitalisation (81.8% vs. 87.9%, p = 0.25), IBD-related surgery (81.8% vs. 88.9%, p = 0.17), prescription of antibiotics (64.6% vs. 70.7%, p = 0.33) and hospitalisation due to infection (94.9 % vs. 87.9%, p = 0.08) did not significantly differ between the groups. Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference in proportions of patients on corticosteroids at 12 months (21.2% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.86). For UC, estimated drug continuation rate at 12 months was 69.3% in the VDZ-treated patients, compared with 62.4% in the anti-TNF treated patients (Figure 1B). VDZ treated patients had lower survival without IBD-related hospitalisation (82.2% vs. 93.1%, p = 0.02) and IBD-related surgery (82.2% vs. 94.1%, p = 0.01). Survival without antibiotics (81.2% vs. 70.3%, p = 0.08) and hospitalisation due to infection (92.1% vs. 92.1%, p = 0.97) as well as corticosteroid treatment at 12 months (17.8% vs. 23.8%, p = 0.30) did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusion In this propensity score-matched cohort, the effectiveness and safety of ant
doi_str_mv 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz203.456
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>oup_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_ecco_jcc_jjz203_456</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz203.456</oup_id><sourcerecordid>10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz203.456</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1286-1d678334e50388fc7397c9e2be8af7597eebb89276e1414b1e6ddda65daee51d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpt0EtOwzAQgGELgUQpnICNL-A0jhM_2EGhUKkCJMo6cuxxcZTGVZwW0dOTUlaI1Yw0-mfxIXRN04Smik3AmEBqYyZ1vc9SluQFP0EjKgUneS7U6c_OiFI5P0cXMdZpWqhCyBGKrywT-ME5ML3fQQsx4uCwbntPls8zvIsJ3oENjd9v17rCOmKNI5jQWlz50ISVN9i3eH53f4M7iNumj9h1YY1b3fvQ6ga_fYL18WO4rnzsoYuX6MzpJsLV7xyj99nDcvpEFi-P8-ntghiaSU6o5UIylkORMimdEUwJoyCrQGonCiUAqkqqTHCgOc0rCtxaq3lhNUBBLRsjdvxruhBjB67cdH6tu6-SpuXBrTy4lYNbeXQrB7ehSo5V2G7-Dcif4Bs713R4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>P327 Effectiveness of anti-TNF vs. vedolizumab as a second biologic in IBD: results from national Swedish registers</title><source>Oxford University Press:Jisc Collections:OUP Read and Publish 2024-2025 (2024 collection) (Reading list)</source><creator>Rundquist, S ; Sachs, M ; Eriksson, C ; Olén, O ; Montgomery, S ; Halfvarson, J</creator><creatorcontrib>Rundquist, S ; Sachs, M ; Eriksson, C ; Olén, O ; Montgomery, S ; Halfvarson, J</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of tumour necrosis factor antagonist (anti-TNF) compared with vedolizumab (VDZ) as a second-line biological treatment in IBD. Methods A propensity score-matched cohort was created using data from the Swedish National Patient Register, the Swedish Quality Register for IBD (SWIBREG) and the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register. Patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) exposed to anti-TNF as a first-line biologic, who initiated a second biologic agent 1 May 2014 – 31 December 2016 were included (n = 1363). We compared patients exposed to anti-TNF vs. patients exposed to VDZ as a second-line biologic treatment. The primary outcome was drug continuation rate at 12 months. Secondarily, we assessed survival without hospitalisation (because of IBD, complications of IBD or IBD-related surgery) and survival without IBD-related surgery. Risk of infections was investigated as survival without a) prescription of antibiotics and b) hospitalisation because of infection. Additionally, the proportion of patients on corticosteroids at 12 months was assessed. Results After 1:1 propensity score matching, the cohort was restricted to 400 patients (CD, n = 198; UC, n = 202). For CD, estimated drug continuation rate at 12 months was 72.7% in the VDZ-treated patients, compared with 73.7% in the anti-TNF treated patients (Figure 1A). Survival without IBD-related hospitalisation (81.8% vs. 87.9%, p = 0.25), IBD-related surgery (81.8% vs. 88.9%, p = 0.17), prescription of antibiotics (64.6% vs. 70.7%, p = 0.33) and hospitalisation due to infection (94.9 % vs. 87.9%, p = 0.08) did not significantly differ between the groups. Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference in proportions of patients on corticosteroids at 12 months (21.2% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.86). For UC, estimated drug continuation rate at 12 months was 69.3% in the VDZ-treated patients, compared with 62.4% in the anti-TNF treated patients (Figure 1B). VDZ treated patients had lower survival without IBD-related hospitalisation (82.2% vs. 93.1%, p = 0.02) and IBD-related surgery (82.2% vs. 94.1%, p = 0.01). Survival without antibiotics (81.2% vs. 70.3%, p = 0.08) and hospitalisation due to infection (92.1% vs. 92.1%, p = 0.97) as well as corticosteroid treatment at 12 months (17.8% vs. 23.8%, p = 0.30) did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusion In this propensity score-matched cohort, the effectiveness and safety of anti-TNF and vedolizumab appear comparable when used as a second-line biologic in CD. In patients with UC, risk of hospitalisation and surgery was lower in patients treated with anti-TNF. Randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings. Support provided by Takeda.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1873-9946</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1876-4479</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz203.456</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><ispartof>Journal of Crohn's and colitis, 2020-01, Vol.14 (Supplement_1), p.S317-S317</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2020 European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rundquist, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sachs, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eriksson, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olén, O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montgomery, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Halfvarson, J</creatorcontrib><title>P327 Effectiveness of anti-TNF vs. vedolizumab as a second biologic in IBD: results from national Swedish registers</title><title>Journal of Crohn's and colitis</title><description>Abstract Background We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of tumour necrosis factor antagonist (anti-TNF) compared with vedolizumab (VDZ) as a second-line biological treatment in IBD. Methods A propensity score-matched cohort was created using data from the Swedish National Patient Register, the Swedish Quality Register for IBD (SWIBREG) and the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register. Patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) exposed to anti-TNF as a first-line biologic, who initiated a second biologic agent 1 May 2014 – 31 December 2016 were included (n = 1363). We compared patients exposed to anti-TNF vs. patients exposed to VDZ as a second-line biologic treatment. The primary outcome was drug continuation rate at 12 months. Secondarily, we assessed survival without hospitalisation (because of IBD, complications of IBD or IBD-related surgery) and survival without IBD-related surgery. Risk of infections was investigated as survival without a) prescription of antibiotics and b) hospitalisation because of infection. Additionally, the proportion of patients on corticosteroids at 12 months was assessed. Results After 1:1 propensity score matching, the cohort was restricted to 400 patients (CD, n = 198; UC, n = 202). For CD, estimated drug continuation rate at 12 months was 72.7% in the VDZ-treated patients, compared with 73.7% in the anti-TNF treated patients (Figure 1A). Survival without IBD-related hospitalisation (81.8% vs. 87.9%, p = 0.25), IBD-related surgery (81.8% vs. 88.9%, p = 0.17), prescription of antibiotics (64.6% vs. 70.7%, p = 0.33) and hospitalisation due to infection (94.9 % vs. 87.9%, p = 0.08) did not significantly differ between the groups. Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference in proportions of patients on corticosteroids at 12 months (21.2% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.86). For UC, estimated drug continuation rate at 12 months was 69.3% in the VDZ-treated patients, compared with 62.4% in the anti-TNF treated patients (Figure 1B). VDZ treated patients had lower survival without IBD-related hospitalisation (82.2% vs. 93.1%, p = 0.02) and IBD-related surgery (82.2% vs. 94.1%, p = 0.01). Survival without antibiotics (81.2% vs. 70.3%, p = 0.08) and hospitalisation due to infection (92.1% vs. 92.1%, p = 0.97) as well as corticosteroid treatment at 12 months (17.8% vs. 23.8%, p = 0.30) did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusion In this propensity score-matched cohort, the effectiveness and safety of anti-TNF and vedolizumab appear comparable when used as a second-line biologic in CD. In patients with UC, risk of hospitalisation and surgery was lower in patients treated with anti-TNF. Randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings. Support provided by Takeda.</description><issn>1873-9946</issn><issn>1876-4479</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpt0EtOwzAQgGELgUQpnICNL-A0jhM_2EGhUKkCJMo6cuxxcZTGVZwW0dOTUlaI1Yw0-mfxIXRN04Smik3AmEBqYyZ1vc9SluQFP0EjKgUneS7U6c_OiFI5P0cXMdZpWqhCyBGKrywT-ME5ML3fQQsx4uCwbntPls8zvIsJ3oENjd9v17rCOmKNI5jQWlz50ISVN9i3eH53f4M7iNumj9h1YY1b3fvQ6ga_fYL18WO4rnzsoYuX6MzpJsLV7xyj99nDcvpEFi-P8-ntghiaSU6o5UIylkORMimdEUwJoyCrQGonCiUAqkqqTHCgOc0rCtxaq3lhNUBBLRsjdvxruhBjB67cdH6tu6-SpuXBrTy4lYNbeXQrB7ehSo5V2G7-Dcif4Bs713R4</recordid><startdate>20200115</startdate><enddate>20200115</enddate><creator>Rundquist, S</creator><creator>Sachs, M</creator><creator>Eriksson, C</creator><creator>Olén, O</creator><creator>Montgomery, S</creator><creator>Halfvarson, J</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200115</creationdate><title>P327 Effectiveness of anti-TNF vs. vedolizumab as a second biologic in IBD: results from national Swedish registers</title><author>Rundquist, S ; Sachs, M ; Eriksson, C ; Olén, O ; Montgomery, S ; Halfvarson, J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1286-1d678334e50388fc7397c9e2be8af7597eebb89276e1414b1e6ddda65daee51d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rundquist, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sachs, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eriksson, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olén, O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montgomery, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Halfvarson, J</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of Crohn's and colitis</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rundquist, S</au><au>Sachs, M</au><au>Eriksson, C</au><au>Olén, O</au><au>Montgomery, S</au><au>Halfvarson, J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>P327 Effectiveness of anti-TNF vs. vedolizumab as a second biologic in IBD: results from national Swedish registers</atitle><jtitle>Journal of Crohn's and colitis</jtitle><date>2020-01-15</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>Supplement_1</issue><spage>S317</spage><epage>S317</epage><pages>S317-S317</pages><issn>1873-9946</issn><eissn>1876-4479</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of tumour necrosis factor antagonist (anti-TNF) compared with vedolizumab (VDZ) as a second-line biological treatment in IBD. Methods A propensity score-matched cohort was created using data from the Swedish National Patient Register, the Swedish Quality Register for IBD (SWIBREG) and the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register. Patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) exposed to anti-TNF as a first-line biologic, who initiated a second biologic agent 1 May 2014 – 31 December 2016 were included (n = 1363). We compared patients exposed to anti-TNF vs. patients exposed to VDZ as a second-line biologic treatment. The primary outcome was drug continuation rate at 12 months. Secondarily, we assessed survival without hospitalisation (because of IBD, complications of IBD or IBD-related surgery) and survival without IBD-related surgery. Risk of infections was investigated as survival without a) prescription of antibiotics and b) hospitalisation because of infection. Additionally, the proportion of patients on corticosteroids at 12 months was assessed. Results After 1:1 propensity score matching, the cohort was restricted to 400 patients (CD, n = 198; UC, n = 202). For CD, estimated drug continuation rate at 12 months was 72.7% in the VDZ-treated patients, compared with 73.7% in the anti-TNF treated patients (Figure 1A). Survival without IBD-related hospitalisation (81.8% vs. 87.9%, p = 0.25), IBD-related surgery (81.8% vs. 88.9%, p = 0.17), prescription of antibiotics (64.6% vs. 70.7%, p = 0.33) and hospitalisation due to infection (94.9 % vs. 87.9%, p = 0.08) did not significantly differ between the groups. Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference in proportions of patients on corticosteroids at 12 months (21.2% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.86). For UC, estimated drug continuation rate at 12 months was 69.3% in the VDZ-treated patients, compared with 62.4% in the anti-TNF treated patients (Figure 1B). VDZ treated patients had lower survival without IBD-related hospitalisation (82.2% vs. 93.1%, p = 0.02) and IBD-related surgery (82.2% vs. 94.1%, p = 0.01). Survival without antibiotics (81.2% vs. 70.3%, p = 0.08) and hospitalisation due to infection (92.1% vs. 92.1%, p = 0.97) as well as corticosteroid treatment at 12 months (17.8% vs. 23.8%, p = 0.30) did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusion In this propensity score-matched cohort, the effectiveness and safety of anti-TNF and vedolizumab appear comparable when used as a second-line biologic in CD. In patients with UC, risk of hospitalisation and surgery was lower in patients treated with anti-TNF. Randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings. Support provided by Takeda.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz203.456</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1873-9946
ispartof Journal of Crohn's and colitis, 2020-01, Vol.14 (Supplement_1), p.S317-S317
issn 1873-9946
1876-4479
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_ecco_jcc_jjz203_456
source Oxford University Press:Jisc Collections:OUP Read and Publish 2024-2025 (2024 collection) (Reading list)
title P327 Effectiveness of anti-TNF vs. vedolizumab as a second biologic in IBD: results from national Swedish registers
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T20%3A15%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-oup_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=P327%20Effectiveness%20of%20anti-TNF%20vs.%20vedolizumab%20as%20a%20second%20biologic%20in%20IBD:%20results%20from%20national%20Swedish%20registers&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Crohn's%20and%20colitis&rft.au=Rundquist,%20S&rft.date=2020-01-15&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=Supplement_1&rft.spage=S317&rft.epage=S317&rft.pages=S317-S317&rft.issn=1873-9946&rft.eissn=1876-4479&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz203.456&rft_dat=%3Coup_cross%3E10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz203.456%3C/oup_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1286-1d678334e50388fc7397c9e2be8af7597eebb89276e1414b1e6ddda65daee51d3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_oup_id=10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz203.456&rfr_iscdi=true