P634 Durability of a second-line anti-TNFɑ agent compared to a different mechanism of action after first anti-TNFɑ failure in ulcerative colitis: CambiaCU Study

Abstract

Abstract Background After first anti-TNFɑ (aTNF) failure in ulcerative colitis (UC), switching to a different mechanism of action (MoA) could decrease the rates of failure and discontinuation compared to a second aTNF and with a better safety profile. Methods We performed a multicenter and retrospective study (6 Andalusian sites) in which patients diagnosed of UC who had failed a first biological therapy with an aTNF and started a second-line biological therapy with another aTNF or a different MoA such as ustekinumab (UST), vedolizumab (VDZ), tofacitinib and filgobinib (JAK) were included. The aim of our study was to evaluate the long-term durability of a different MoA compared to a second aTNF after a first-line therapy failure with aTNF. Results 185 patients with UC were included. There were no significant differences between both groups in term of age, sex, extension of disease, extraintestinal manifestations or IMIDs, smoking habit or HLA-DQA1*05. The only significant difference was disease duration (9 years MoA vs 12 years in second aTNF, p=0.02). 80 patients received a different MoA (37 VDZ, 24 UST, 7 JAK) and 105 a second aTNF (34 IFX, 60 ADA, 11 golimumab). Duration of first aTNF, although non-significant (p=0.06), tended to be shorter in the MoA group (7 months vs 12 months in aTNF group). The most frequent cause of suspension of first aTNF in the MoA group was primary failure (46% vs 31%, p= 0.02) and in the second aTNF group was secondary failure (51% vs 35%, p=0.02). The follow-up mean was 22.4 months in the group of a different MoA and 23.3 months in the second aTNF group. 60% of patients discontinued the second-line biological treatment, 64% with aTNF vs 35% with a different MoA. Durability of therapies in the group of different MoA was significatively longer compared with second aTNF (50% vs 31.4%, p=0.036) (figure 1). JAK showed the best durability (63.2%), followed by UST (66.7%), IFX (52.9%), VDZ (32.4%), ADA (21.7%) and golimumab (18.2%), with significant differences (p=0.03). Reasons for discontinuation were primary failure in 29.7% (63.6% second aTNF vs 36.4% different MoA), secondary failure in 25.9% (64.5% second aTNF vs 35.5% different MoA) and intolerance or adverse events in 6.4% (66.6% second aTNF vs 34.4% different MoA). Adverse events were reported in 12 patients, 8 with aTNF a 4 with other MoA (2 vs 0 infusion reactions, 1 vs 1 mild infections, 2 vs 1 respiratory adverse effects, 1 vs 1 cutaneous reactions, 1 vs 0 musculoskeletal effects, 1 vs 1 neoplasia). Conclusion Our study shows that after a first aTNF failure in UC, a switch to a biological therapy with a different MoA achieves longer survival compared to switching to a second aTNF, with less primary and secondary failure.