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 Tools annual

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 monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background Three anti-TNFs (one intravenous and two subcutaneous) are licensed for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). However, it is not known if the efficacy of a second anti-TNF changes on whether it is intravenous or subcutaneous; this could justify the indication of biological agents with a different mechanism of action in second line. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in UC. Methods Patients from the prospectively maintained ENEIDA registry treated with consecutively intravenous and subcutaneous anti-TNF, who were naïve to biological agents, were identified. Patients were classified according to the administration route of the first anti-TNF in: IVi (intravenous initially) or SCi (subcutaneous initially). Patients treated for extraintestinal manifestations or pouchitis were excluded. Clinical activity and effectiveness were defined based on Partial Mayo Score (PMS) at baseline, 14 and 52 weeks. Loss of response, dose-escalation and treatment discontinuation were also assessed. Results 372 UC patients were included (270 IVi and 102 SCi). Both cohorts were similar in clinical-epidemiological characteristics, except for a higher proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe clinical activity at the beginning of the first anti-TNF in the IVi group (82% vs. 71%; p = 0.017) and at the beginning of the second anti-TNF (62% vs. 74%; p = 0.04). Clinical response and remission rates at week 14 for the second anti-TNF were 41% and 29% in IVi vs. 47% and 25% in SCi, respectively (p = ns). At week 52, clinical response/remission rates of the second anti-TNF were 37%/32% in IVi vs. 40%/29% in SCi (p = ns). A higher response rate at 14 weeks with the second anti-TNF was detected in the SCi group (40% vs. 68%; p = 0.012) when the reason for withdrawal of the first anti-TNF was secondary loss of response. The cumulative persistence of the second anti-TNF treatment in IVi and SCi were 55% and 54% after 1 year, and 41% and 40% after 2 years, respectively (p = ns). The SCi group had lower rates of dose-escalation with the second anti-TNF than IVi (34% and 29% in SCi vs. 57% and 49% in EVi, at 12 and 24 months, respectively -p = 0.004-). Dose-escalation of the first anti-TNF and moderate-to-severe clinical activity at the beginning of the second anti-TNF were associated with a lower probability of remission with the second anti-TNF in the short- and long-term. Conclusion The efficacy of infliximab after failure/intolerance of a subcutaneous anti-TNF is similar to that of subcutaneous anti-TNFs after infliximab failure/intolerance.

journal of crohn's and colitis

P544 Comparison of the efficacy of a second intravenous or subcutaneous anti-TNF in the treatment of ulcerative colitis: Real-world data from the ENEIDA registry