Tag Archives: Vedolizumab

Should Vedolizumab Be Used as a First Line Agent for Crohn’s Disease?

Posted on by

B Bokemeyer et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2024; 30: 746-756.

Methods: 3277 adult biologically-unexposed CD patients starting therapy with VEDO or anti-TNF were consecutively enrolled in 45 IBD centers across Germany (2017-202). This was a non-randomized, observational study with prospectively collected data.

Findings:

  • Anti-TNF agents had higher induction clinical remission rates compared to vedolizumab: 73.9% 56.3% vs, P < .05
  • Vedolizumab (VEDO) had higher long-term clinical remission rates: clinical remission after 2 years was significantly better for VEDO compared with anti-TNF, 74.2% vs 44.7%; P < .05. This was associated with a much better treatment persistent rate. The switch rate for VEDO was 17% compared with 44% for anti-TNF agents.
  • Among week 14 responders, VEDO 2-year clinical remission rates were 88.6% compared to 45.8% (P < .00001) for anti-TNF agents

The discussion describes the strengths and limitations of this study. As it is not a randomized control trial, there can still be selection bias and confounding even with propensity scoring that was done in this study. The authors note that in a prior analysis of RCTs comparing infliximab to vedolizumab in CD patients, that infliximab had higher efficacy for induction and maintenance, though the clinical remission rates were only modestly improved at 1 year. (L Peyrin-Biroulet et al. BMC Gastroenterol 2022; 22: 291).

Recent expert guidance (2024) has favored infliximab and risankizumab over other advance therapies in CD patients who have not had previous biologic therapies (see: Comparative Evidence and Positioning Advance Therapies for Inflammatory Bowel Disease).

My take: This study shows that vedolizumab is a good advanced therapy for patients with Crohn’s disease without prior therapy. Among those with a clinical response at 14 weeks, the treatment durability was particularly impressive in this cohort.

It would be great to see an RCT in children with CD comparing IFX to VEDO. Treatment persistence is even more important in younger patients.

Related blog posts:

IBD Updates: Reducing Postoperative Crohn’s Disease, How Effective is IFX after Adalimumab, UST vs VDZ in Pediatric UC

Posted on by

C Hernandez-Rocha et al. J Crohns Colitis 2024: 18: 615–627. Clinical Predictors of Early and Late Endoscopic Recurrence Following Ileocolonic Resection in Crohn’s Disease

Prospective Study n=365 adult patients with post-operative Crohn’s disease. Findings: At first colonoscopy, 109 [29.9%] had recurrence. Male gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.95), non-White ethnicity [OR = 2.48], and postoperative smoking [OR = 2.78] were associated with recurrence, while prophylactic anti-TNF reduced the risk [OR = 0.28]. Postoperative anti-TNF prophylaxis had a protective effect on anti-TNF experienced patients but not on anti-TNF naïve patients. Among patients without recurrence at first colonoscopy, Rutgeerts score i1 was associated with subsequent recurrence [OR = 4.43]

A Lecoutour et al JPGN 2024; 78:1116–1125. Efficacy of infliximab after loss of response of/intolerance to adalimumab in pediatric Crohn’s disease: A retrospective multicenter cohort study of the “GETAID pédiatrique”

Key findings: In this retrospective study, 27 of 32 patients (84.4%) were still on IFX at 12 months of the switch. Among them, 13 had discontinued ADA because of a LOR, 12 for insufficient response and 2 due to primary nonresponse. At 1 year, 22 patients were in corticosteroid free clinical remission (68.7%).

PV Patel et al. JPGN 2024; 78:1126–1134. Real‐world effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in TNF‐exposed pediatric patients with ulcerative colitis

Using the ICN registry, this observational study had 262 anti-TNF refractory patients receiving VDZ and 74 patients receiving UST. Key finding: At 6 months, 28.3% of patients on VDZ and 25.8% of those on UST achieved CFCR (p= 0.76)

Orchid, Atlanta Botanical Gardens

Comparative Evidence and Positioning Advance Therapies for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Posted on by

PS Dulai et al. Gastroenterol 2024; 166: 396-408. Open Access! Integrating Evidence to Guide Use of Biologics and Small Molecules for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

“In this review, we provide a framework for clinicians and researchers to understand key differences in sources of evidence, how different methodologies are applied to study the comparative effectiveness of advanced medical therapies in IBD, and considerations for how these sources of evidence can be used to better integrate current guideline recommendations.”

This article explains the use of randomized controlled trials, “real-world evidence”/observational comparative studies, network meta-analysis, and post-hoc comparisons from randomized studies.

“The authors advocate for “”Given the rapidity with which new advanced medical therapies are becoming available in IBD, which quickly make current guidelines obsolete, living guidelines may offer a unique consideration to ensure applicability to routine care.”

My take: This article provides a useful update of current advanced therapies and information in positioning these advanced therapies. It would be a great service if the IBD community could create something similar to HCVguidelines.org. The latter was a coordinated effort by the AASLD and IDSA to help provide expert advice during a deluge of amazing advances in HCV. And just like HCVguidelines, it is important to address “special” populations including pediatric patients and patients with very early onset IBD.

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.

SC Infliximab versus Vedolizumab for Crohn’s Disease and for Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

Peyrin‐Biroulet, L., Arkkila, P., Armuzzi, A. et al. BMC Gastroenterol 24, 121 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-024-03163-5. Open Access! Comparative efficacy and safety of subcutaneous infliximab and vedolizumab in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis included in randomised controlled trials. 

Methods: Studies included in the current analysis were parallel-group, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated treatment with IFX SC, following induction therapy with IFX IV, or treatment with VDZ (either with VDZ IV or with VDZ SC [following IV induction therapy]). The authors identified three eligible CD trials and four eligible UC trials that assigned over 1200 participants per disease cohort to either IFX SC or VDZ.

Key findings:

Crohn’s disease: Intravenous induction therapy with IFX demonstrated better efficacy compared with VDZ; during the maintenance phase, IFX SC showed numerically better efficacy than VDZ. A lower proportion of IFX SC-treated patients discontinued therapy due to lack of efficacy over 1 year.

Comparison of IFX SC versus VDZ for key efficacy outcomes in patients with Crohn’s disease

Ulcerative colitis: Efficacy profiles were similar with IFX SC and VDZ during the induction and maintenance phases, and a lower proportion of IFX SC-treated patients discontinued therapy due to lack of efficacy over 1 year.

Comparison of IFX SC1 versus VDZ for key efficacy outcomes in patients with ulcerative colitis

Safety: In both cohorts, safety profiles for IFX SC and VDZ were generally comparable during 1 year.

Discussion Points:

  • The authors discuss some limitations of their study. “The GEMINI I, GEMINI II, and VISIBLE 1 trials were rated as being at high risk of bias for the category ‘other’ bias, because only patients who achieved a clinical response during induction went on to participate in the maintenance phase, which could potentially lead to a higher estimate of efficacy during the maintenance phase than if patients who did not achieve a clinical response were also included.”
  • The vedolizumab studies notably included a high proportion of patients who failed to respond to anti-TNFs. “All VDZ studies permitted enrolment of patients with prior TNFi failure, accounting for 47.5% of VDZ-treated patients overall.” Thus, in a true head-to-head study with patients unexposed to biologics, VDZ may achieve better results.

My take: This study indicates that SC infliximab (like IV infliximab) appears to be more effective than vedolizumab for patients with Crohn’s disease and similarly effective for ulcerative colitis, keeping in mind the aforementioned discussion points. While not evident in this study, vedolizumab has a superior safety profile.

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.

Dr. Joel Rosh: Positioning Therapies for Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

Dr. Joel Rosh gave our group an excellent update on sequencing therapy for ulcerative colitis (UC).  My notes below may contain errors in transcription and in omission. Along with my notes, I have included many of his slides.

  • There are only two FDA-approved biologics in pediatric Ulcerative Colitis. It typically takes 8-10 years for a medication with approval in adults to receive FDA approval in children
  • The concept of IBD as two diseases, Crohn’s disease and UC, is flawed; there are more than 200 susceptibility genes for inflammatory bowel disease
  • There has been an increasing incidence and prevalence of IBD. Some of this increase is likely due to our diet and its effects on the microbiome
  • Ultrasound is a nice tool to see what is going on in real time and shows that UC is really a transmural disease.  UC changes in the bowel can result in fibrosis
  • Consider cytokine-basis for disease as a way to conceptualize disease presentation compared to organ-based disease. Many autoimmune diseases (eg. JIA, RA, Psoriasis) are different manifestations related to cytokine-based autoimmunity
  • Almost all pediatric IBD can be considered higher risk based on known risk factors including disease extent (>80% of pediatric UC is pancolitis) and disease age of onset
  • Mesalamine steroid-free clinical remission rates are about 1/3rd after 1 year of treatment
  • Overall, there has been an improvement in colectomy rates since 2001; there still appears to be a bump in the colectomy rate after having UC for more than 10 years
  • Elevated CRP is less common in patients with UC, compared to Crohn’s disease, and is a marker for more severe disease activity
  • Dr. Rosh prefers to avoid some terms including biologic-naive and steroid failure; he favors biologic-unexposed for the former. For the latter, he tries to make it clear that the patient was not a steroid failure. Steroids failed the patient rather than the patient failing the steroids
  • Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is mainly beneficial for anti-TNF agents at this time. Use of TDM can help monotherapy achieve similar results as combination therapy. For infliximab, Dr. Rosh’s ‘rule of thumb’ is 28-18-8 for 2 week trough, 6 week trough, and maintenance trough. Therapeutic levels will meet or exceed these trough levels.
  • Combination therapy has not been shown to improve pharmacokinetics for vedolizumab or ustekinumab
  • Generally, a washout period is not needed when changing biologic therapies. In fact, having some overlap in the medications may have some therapeutic benefit
  • Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) appears to be the most effective JAK for IBD. It is labelled for use as a 2nd-line agent but may be superior for some sicker patients. Rinvoq could be considered as a ‘bridge’ medication in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis with transition to another biologic like vedolizumab
  • It is important for families to be informed that there is a black box warning for the use of JAK inhibitors. However, major cardiac adverse events (MACE) do not appear to be increased in patients without preexisting cardiac disease risk factors

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.

IBD Updates: Newer biologics for post-op Crohn’s, Vedolizumab-exposed newborns, and Anti-TNF injections for Orofacial Granulomatosis

Posted on by

FH Mourad et al. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Volume 30, Issue 3, March 2024, Pages 459–469. Open Access! Are the New Biologics Effective in the Management of Postoperative Crohn’s Disease?

In this  a systematic review, the authors identified 32 relevant studies. The literature review revealed some encouraging, although conflicting, results on the role of the newer biologic agents, ustekinumab and vedolizumab, in the prevention and treatment of postoperative Crohn’s disease. My take: More high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these newer biologics at preventing recurrence disease activity after resection.

This is their recommended management algorithm:

 ¥Other factors to consider are duration of Crohn’s disease,
age of patient at diagnosis, and length of stricture.

—————————————

JH Gorodensky et al. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Volume 30, Issue 3, March 2024, Pages 496–498. Serious Infections in Offspring Exposed in Utero to Vedolizumab

Background/Methods:  “Offspring exposed to vedolizumab in utero are born with lower blood drug (relative to maternal drug levels) compared with offspring exposed to TNFi or ustekinumab.4,5 In addition, offspring exposed to vedolizumab are known to clear the drug quickly after birth.6” In this IBM MarketScan database cohort of 8507 offspring to women with IBD, 43 offspring were exposed to vedolizumab. Key findings:

Key finding: The cumulative incidence of serious infection at 1 year was 2.3% in the vedolizumab group. This was lower than in those who had no drug exposure (3.0%) and similar to the rate in the TNFi (2.9%), traditional immunosuppressants (2.5%), and groups. Discussion: “This aligns with data from the PIANO study,5 a French retrospective cohort study,8 and the pan-European CONCEIVE study9“

My take: This article title is textbook clickbait. A more accurate title would be “Lack of Serious Infections in Offspring Exposed in Utero to Vedolizumab”

——————————————

J Lee et al. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Volume 30, Issue 3, March 2024, Pages 499–500. Intralesional Injections of a TNF-α Inhibitor to Treat Orofacial Granulomatosis

This case report demonstrated successful injection of orofacial granulomatosis in a 24 yo with moderate-to-severe CD of the small and large intestines who presented with facial edema, painful lip sores with crusting, and tongue fissures. After numerous other failed treatments (topical steroids, adalimumab, hydroxychloroquine, prednisone, and methotrexate), the patient who had a mild treatment response to certolizumab had three injections split between thigh and lower lip (intralesional). After improvement, the patient continued to maintain response with injections into the thigh.

My take: This is an interesting case report; however, this is not an established therapy for orofacial granulomatosis.

Vedolizumab and Infliximab: Expected Dosing When Switching From IV to SC Routes

Posted on by

Z Wang et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 3188-3190. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Can Guide the Intravenous-to-Subcutaneous Switch of Infliximab and Vedolizumab: A Simulation Study

The authors performed population pharmacokinetic (popPK) simulations to determine optimal dosing recommendations.

Key points:

  • Infliximab: “The Q2W SC dosing regimen of infliximab has been selected with the purpose of exceeding a C,trough,ss of 5 mg/L.” This tends to align with 5 mg/kg Q8W IV dosing.
  • Infliximab: “Patients on Q6W or Q8W IV infliximab can safely switch to Q2W SC infliximab…only patients on Q4W IV infliximab need Q1W SC dosing”
  • Vedolizumab: “Only patients on Q4W IV vedolizumab should switch to Q1W SC dosing”
  • Both agents: “Switching 4 instead of 8 weeks after the last IV dose can hit SS[steady state] faster, thereby avoiding the risk of temporary underexposure.”

My take: It is still important to see how switching from IV to SC route affects clinical outcomes in real-world cohorts. This study, though, does provide a good starting point when trying to provide the right dose frequency to achieve good therapeutic troughs.

Related blog posts:

Japanese Maple tree

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.

COMBO-IBD Study -Combination Immunomodulator Use and Thresholds

Posted on by

AJ Yarur et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 21: 2908-2917. Open Access! Combination Therapy With Immunomodulators Improves the Pharmacokinetics of Infliximab But Not Vedolizumab or Ustekinumab

In this prospective cohort with 369 patients, treatment included the following 113 infliximab, 133 vedolizumab, and 123 ustekinumab. All patients received standard dosing (eg. 5 mg/kg/dose every 8 weeks with infliximab). Per Table 1, dose of thiopurine was 100 mg (range 50-150, “using a 2:1 ratio of azathioprrine and mercaptopurine”); most patients received methotrexate at a dose of 12.5 mg. Key findings:

  • Infliximab levels were much improved in patients receiving combination therapy with either a thiopurine or methotrexate. In those patients receiving a thiopurine, a threshold of 6-TGN ≥146 was considered optimal.
  • Patients receiving combination therapy with methotrexate or a thiopurine and a 6-TGN concentration ≥146 pmol per 8 × 108 RBCs, and those with baseline infliximab level ≥12.3 μg/mL had a lower rate of secondary nonresponse when compared with those on monotherapy, thiopurine with 6-TGN <146 pmol per 8 × 108 RBCs, and baseline infliximab level <12.3 μg/mL (88.2 vs 11.8% [P = .04], 71.2 vs 45.5% [P = .04])
  • Ustekinumab and vedolizumab levels were NOT increased in patients receiving an immunomodulator

My take: This study reinforces the idea that there are pharmacokinetic benefits of combination therapy with infliximab (and extrapolated to other anti-TNF agents); there is a lack of benefit for most patients receiving ustekinumab and vedolizumab. Even with ustekinumab and vedolizumab, it is possible that patients with more severe disease may still benefit independent of pharmacokinetic effects on biologic agent.

Higher doses of infliximab monotherapy with therapeutic drug monitoring may achieve similar results as combination therapy. However, patients switching from one anti-TNF to another due to immunogenicity/antidrug antibodies are particularly likely to benefit from combination therapy. In addition, a recent ImproveCareNow study showed better outcomes for pediatric patients who received methotrexate with adalimumab (see below).

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.

CCFA 2023 (Atlanta) Part 2

Posted on by

There were a bunch useful lectures at CCFA 2023 regional conference in Atlanta. Here are some of my notes and slides from Doug Wolf‘s lecture; my notes may have errors of omission or transcription. Can get access to full slide set (n=37) here: Dose Escalation of Biologic Therapy and Dual Biologic Therapy

  • If loss of response to anti-TNF, consider dose escalation by either re-induction or increasing (doubling) dose. Re-induction is less costly
  • Dose escalation generally not effective for vedolizumab
  • Dose escalation (increased frequency) with ustekinumab can be effective.  Therapeutic drug monitoring can provide guidance.  Re-induction can also be effective in half of patients (especially in patients with either no prior biologics or one prior biologic)
  • Risankizumab can still work in patients who had not responded by 12 weeks (delayed responders)
  • Discussed several combination treatments -no large studies thus far

CCFA 2023 (Atlanta) -Part 1

Posted on by

I recently attended a regional CCFA conference. David Rubin gave several terrific lectures. Here are some of my notes and some slides from this lecture. My notes may contain transcription errors as well as important omissions. Can get access to full set of slides here: Biologics and Their Biosimilars

“Biologics and Their Biosimilars“

What is a Biologic Therapy?

Dr. Rubin makes a point of explaining the term to patients.  It is a protein made in a living cell that targets another protein.  Term “biologic” can sound scary to patients.  Usually given IV because they cannot be absorbed through the small bowel.

IBD Treatment Revolutions

  • Steroids -overnight changed mortality in IBD
  • Anti-TNF Therapy in IBD -taught many lessons. Treat earlier –>better outcomes. 

Anti-TNF Therapy

  • Frequent loss of response.
  • Earlier treatment with biologics result in better outcomes.
  • Immunogenicity is mainly an issue with anti-TNF agents and not much of an issue with other biologics. Episodic therapy is a big risk factor for anti-drug antibodies. 
  • If staying with in-class medication, after anti-drug antibodies, need to take additional measures to prevent anti-drug antibodies (eg. Immunomodulators).
  • Combination therapy is more effective (SONIC, UC SUCCESS trials).  This is due to using multiple mechanisms of disease control, reduction in anti-drug antibodies, and elevated serum drug levels.
  • Good therapeutic levels appears to deliver similar results as combination therapy
  • Pre-week 6 level of 17 or greater, associated with good response in maintenance.  If level is low, presumption is that higher dosing will be beneficial.
  • Higher levels of infliximab trough levels needed for perianal fistula healing (improved with ciprofloxacin).  Higher levels could be causally-related to healing or could be a marker that there is less inflammation and a patient is responding.
  • Anti-TNFs do not appear to increase risk of infections (see PUCCINI study)

Anti-23 and Anti-IL-12/IL-23

  • Tissue selective targeted therapy –>excellent safety profile
  • IV loading and SC maintenance
  • Excellent for bowel and skin
  • IL-23 is not expressed in joints
  • Ustekinumab is effective for perianal disease and ulcerative colitis
  • Risankizumab is superior to ustekinumab in plaque psoriasis.  If loss of response to ustekinumab, can still respond to Risankizumab

Anti-Integrins:

  • Natalizumab (not used frequently in IBD)
  • Vedolizumab.  Affects mucosa (can explain frequent nasopharyngitis)
  • Vedolizumab -terrific safety profile.  No PML, no malignancy risk

Biosimilars:

  • If biosimilar found effective for one approved condition, extrapolation given to all indications
  • IBD switching studies have NOT shown increased loss of response.  Consider reassess prior to switch to help determine if patient truly in remission prior to switch. Switching often blamed for loss of response when many times the disease was not under good control prior to switch
  • Interchangeable indicates that the drug can be switched by pharmacists
  • Biosimilars are saving insurers money but no proof that this is saving patients money
  • Anti-drug antibodies will cross-react to biosimilars

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.