English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Ustekinumab (UST) and vedolizumab (VDZ) are widely used to treat patients with Crohn’s disease (CD). However, limited data exist regarding comparative effectiveness of these agents for patients with CD who have failed anti-TNF treatment. We aimed to compare the efficacy of UST and VDZ utilizing the largest cohort of CD patients who failed anti-TNF in real world clinical practice. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using data retrieved from the UK IBD BioResource, capturing 34,148 subjects. We identified patients with CD, who failed anti-TNF and were subsequently treated with UST or VDZ as second or third-line therapy. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance groups using a propensity score-weighting approach accounting for baseline patient or disease related characteristics. Persistence on therapy with clinician assessment of treatment success, without the need for treatment change or surgery was used to estimate the response to treatment. We compared treatment survival curves before and after IPTW and used a log rank test for differences between groups Results 654 CD patients received VDZ, either as second line (51%) or third line (49%) therapy. 365 patients received UST, 52% as a second line and 48% as a third line therapy. All patients received either infliximab or adalimumab as first and/or second biologic therapy. Baseline characteristics are detailed in table 1. Following IPTW, variables were well balanced. Patients receiving VDZ showed similar rates of treatment success compared to UST as second- and third-line biologic agent after anti TNF failure (before IPTW adjustment, log rank p 0.241; after IPTW, log rank p 0.154). Outcomes for UST were similar between 2nd and 3rd line usage (p 0.81), but outcomes for VDZ were significantly worse when used 3rd line compared to 2nd line (p &amp;lt;0.0001).Subgroup analysis of unadjusted survival data showed significantly better outcomes for patients with ileal disease distributiontreated with UST compared to VDZ (p=0.043) but no significant differences in outcomes for subgroups with colonic or ileocolonic disease.We estimate persistence on UST and VDZ to be 67%, 54%, 49% and 49% at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years respectively. Conclusion Using data from a multi-institutional cohort of patients with CD with larger number of participants and longer follow-up than previous cohorts, we demonstrate no difference between UST and VDZ used as second and/or third line biologic therapy, after anti-TNF failure. Subgroup analysis reveals some patient characteristics predictive of differential treatment response.

journal of crohn's and colitis

DOP74 Comparative effectiveness of vedolizumab and ustekinumab in Crohn’s Disease patients who failed anti-TNF treatment: Interrogating 1019 patients from the UK IBD BioResource