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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background Anti-TNF antibodies treatments are the only first-line reimbursed biologics for Crohn’s disease (CD) in several countries. Recently, Vedolizumab (VDZ) and Ustekinumab (UST) were added to the therapeutic armamentarium for CD refractory to a first anti-TNF antibody. However, studies comparing these two compounds remain unavailable. Our aim was to compare their efficacy in second-line treatment in CD after failure of one TNF antagonist. Methods All patients with CD refractory (primary or secondary non-responders) to first anti-TNF treatment and receiving UST or VDZ as a second biologic were included retrospectively in 10 French tertiary centres. The remission and clinical response were assessed at week 14. On the long-term, the cumulative probabilities of being in remission were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and the associated factors using a Cox proportional risk model. The drug survival to assess efficacy as well as side effects was assessed by actuarial analysis. Results 88 patients were included, 50 (57%) females (mean age: 41 ± 15 years), 61 (69%) being treated with UST and 27 (31%) with VDZ. The first anti-TNF was discontinued for primary or secondary non-response in 66 (75%) patients and for side effects in 22 (25%) patients, without any difference between the anti-TNF antibody previously used. Among the 55 patients with endoscopic data at baseline, 55 (98%) had ulceration, a CRP above 5mg/l for 33/71 (46%) patients and a faecal calprotectin &amp;gt; 250 µg/g for the 12 patients tested. At week 14, no difference was observed for clinical response and clinical remission according to the type of treatment: the rate of clinical response and remission were 74% (UST)/58% (VDZ) (p = 0.20) and 33% (UST)/26% (VDZ) (p = 0.56), respectively. The only factor associated with short-term remission was the lack of optimisation prior to anti-TNF discontinuation (p = 0.038) regardless of the type of second-line therapy (UST, p = 0.02; VDZ, p = 0.03). After a mean follow-up of 67 weeks, the cumulative probabilities of being in remission at 6 and 12 months were 16% and 34% for UST and 25% and 44% for VDZ, respectively (p = 0.24 for UST vs. VDZ). The drug survival was higher in the UST group as compared with the VDZ group (HR (UST vs. VDZ) = 2.36 [1.02–5.5], p = 0.04). Conclusion Our preliminary results suggest that VDZ and UST have similar efficacy in the short- and long-term response when used as a second-line biologic therapy in CD refractory to a first anti-TNF antibody. These results will be complemented for the congress by the inclusion of additional patients recruited into this registry.

P665 Which second-line biologic after anti-TNF failure during Crohn’s disease: Ustekinumab or vedolizumab, a multicentre retrospective study