Ustekinumab Versus Anti-tumour Necrosis Factor Alpha Agents as Second-Line Biologics in Crohn's Disease

Abstract

BackgroundThere are little data on positioning biologics in Crohn's disease (CD).AimsWe aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab vs tumour necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) agents after first-line treatment with anti-TNF in CD.MethodsWe used Swedish nationwide registers to identify patients with CD, exposed to anti-TNF who initiated second-line biologic treatment with ustekinumab or second-line anti-TNF therapy. Nearest neighbour 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the groups. The primary outcome was 3-year drug survival used as a proxy for effectiveness. Secondary outcomes included drug survival without hospital admission, CD-related surgery, antibiotics, hospitalization due to infection and exposure to corticosteroids.ResultsSome 312 patients remained after PSM. Drug survival at 3 years was 35% (95% CI 26–44%) in ustekinumab compared to 36% (95% CI 28–44%) in anti-TNF-treated patients (p = 0.72). No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in 3-year survival without hospital admission (72% vs 70%, p = 0.99), surgery (87% vs 92%, p = 0.17), hospital admission due to infection (92% vs 92%, p = 0.31) or prescription of antibiotics (49% vs 50%, p = 0.56). The proportion of patients continuing second-line biologic therapy did not differ by reason for ending first-line anti-TNF (lack of response vs intolerance) or by type of first-line anti-TNF (adalimumab vs infliximab).ConclusionBased on data from Swedish routine care, no clinically relevant differences in effectiveness or safety of second-line ustekinumab vs anti-TNF treatment were observed in patients with CD with prior exposure to anti-TNF.