Background: There are little data on positioning biologics in Crohn's disease (CD).
Aims: We 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.
Methods: We 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.
Results: Some 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).
Conclusion: Based 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.
Keywords: Anti-TNF; Comparative effectiveness; Comparative safety; Crohn’s disease; Population-based study; Ustekinumab.
© 2023. The Author(s).