P622 Network meta-analysis comparing efficacy between biologics and conventional therapies to prevent endoscopic postoperative recurrence in patients with Crohn's disease

Abstract

Abstract Background As no direct comparison between IBD drugs to prevent endoscopic postoperative recurrence (POR) In Crohn’s disease (CD) are available, hierarchizing these therapeutic options remains challenging. The objective of this network meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness of treatments to prevent endoscopic POR of CD. Methods We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of comparative studies conducted in adults, evaluating a treatment to prevent endoscopic POR after ileocecal resection. The selection of studies was made according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary endpoint was endoscopic POR at 6 months defined as Rutgeerts score ≥ i2. The network meta-analysis was carried out according to a random effects model. The results are presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval, adjusted for risk factors of POR. The risk of bias of the studies was assessed according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and overall statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using τ². The SUCRA ranking method (surface under the cumulative ranking) was used to rank the treatments. Results Twenty studies were included in this network meta-analysis, including a total of 2414 patients. Overall heterogeneity was moderate (τ²=0.34). After adjustment for POR risk factors, ustekinumab (OR = 0.23 [0.07-0.70]), vedolizumab (OR = 0.17 [0.05 -0.59]), infliximab (OR = (0.18 [0.36-0.88]) and adalimumab (OR = 0.17 [0.07-0.42]) were superior to placebo to prevent endoscopic POR, contrary to 5-ASA (OR = 0.79 [0.42 -1.48]) and thiopurines (RR = 0.52 [0.22-1.24]) (Table 1). Ustekinumab (OR = 0.29 [0.08-0.99]), vedolizumab (OR = 0.22 [0.06-0.85]), infliximab (OR = (0.23 [0.09-0.54]) and adalimumab (OR = 0.22 [0.08-0.59]) were more effective than 5-ASA in preventing endoscopic POR. Adalimumab (OR = 0.33 [0.15-0.74]) and infliximab (OR = 0.34 [0.13-0.87]) were also more effective than thiopurines. We observed no difference in efficacy between the 4 biologics (infliximab, adalimumab, ustekinumab and vedolizumab) (Table 1). The SUCRA ranking identified adalimumab (SUCRA=0.81), infliximab (SUCRA=0.80), vedolizumab (SUCRA=0.79) and ustekinumab (SUCRA=0.72) as the most effective treatments. The likelihood that thiopurines (SUCRA=0.41), 5-ASA (SUCRA=0.24), placebo (SUCRA = 0.16) and antibiotics (SUCRA=0.08) was the best option is very low. Conclusion This network meta-analysis confirms the efficacy of anti-TNF agents, vedolizumab and ustekinumab in preventing endoscopic CD POR without any difference between them. When prophylactic therapy is necessary, biologics appear as the best therapeutic option to prevent of endoscopic POR. Due to lower efficacy, the use of 5-ASA and thiopurines should be limited in this situation.