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 Biosimilar infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADA) are well-proven cost-effective anti-TNF drugs in IBD; in our practice, the majority of patients with IBD receive IFX or ADA first line. Since the introduction of Vedolizumab (VED) and Ustekinumab (UST) some have recommended switching out of class after failing a single anti-TNF. This practice has significant cost implications. To establish the outcome of treatment response in patients treated with a second anti-TNF agent after anti-TNF failure compared with the outcome of patients treated with VED and UST after anti-TNF failure. Methods We maintain a prospective IBD database. We searched our database for the outcomes of patients who failed their first anti-TNF drug but were in a clinical remission 6 months after changing to a second or third biologic drug. Disease type, age, gender and response to their second and third biologic drug were recorded. Clinical remission was defined as off steroids with calprotectin &amp;lt;250 and no symptoms of active IBD. Results Two hundred and eighty-seven patients were identified. One hundred and forty (48.8%) were male. Mean age was 43.2 (range 18–94). Disease type was 75 (26%) UC, 210 (73.2%) CD, 2 (0.7%) IBD-U. One hundred and ninety-three patients received IFX 1st line, 118 (40%) failed. Of these 84 (72%) received ADA, 28 (24%) VED and 6 (5%) UST second line. Remission with second-line treatment was achieved in 58 (69%); ADA, 18 (64%); VED, 6 (100%); UST. Remission with third line treatment; was achieved in 6 (100%); VED; 5 (100%); UST. Ninety-four patients received ADA 1st line, 33 (35%) failed. Of these 11 (33%) received IFX, 10 (30%) VED and 8 (24%) UST second line. Remission with second-line treatment was achieved in 6 (55%); IFX, 10 (100%); VED and 8 (100%); UST. Remission with third line treatment; was achieved in 1 (100%); VED, 4 (100%); UST. Conclusion Our data suggest that treatment with ADA after IFX failure is an effective treatment option whereas IFX treatment after ADA failure is less effective. It is interesting that the majority of those who failed the anti-integrin treatment second line responded to third line ADA. These data are consistent with earlier anti-TNF studies including GAIN (Gauging Adalimumab efficacy in Infliximab Non-responders) and SWITCH (Switch to adalimumab in patients with Crohn’s disease controlled by maintenance infliximab: prospective randomised SWITCH trial) which demonstrated that anti-TNF failure is not a class effect. We recommend prescribing a second anti-TNF after anti-TNF failure in preference to using an anti-integrin second line. This practice will lead to significant cost savings for the health care economy.

journal of crohn's and colitis

P469 Stay in class or switch out of class after anti-TNF failure in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Real-world data from a large district general hospital