UEG's content platform for gastroenterology education bringing recordings, courses, guidelines, and more together in one place.

UEG Week Berlin 2025 Recordings Gut Guide online What's new on Gutflix

Trending on Gutflix

Rate for better recommendations!

Your feedback helps us show you more of what you like and less of what you dislike!

More of this!

We will show you more similar content.

Not for me!

We won't suggest this again.

Bookmark!

Save this content for later!

New to myUEG? Create an account! Log In with myUEG account

UEG Poster

Standard Poster

This content is part of Gutflix. Log in with your myUEG account, or create one free, to watch it.

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF BIOLOGICS IN PREVENTING PENETRATING COMPLICATIONS IN CROHN’S DISEASE

Jeffrey McCurdy 1, Dustin Stwalley 2, Margaret Olsen 2, Parakkal Deepak 3

Affiliations

1 University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

2 Washington U, Washington, United States

3 Washington University in St. Louis, St Louis, United States

Summary

AI Generated

In a propensity-adjusted comparison of first-line biologics in Crohn's disease, anti-TNF therapy was associated with lower risk of developing luminal and perianal penetrating complications compared with vedolizumab, and lower risk of luminal penetrating disease compared with ustekinumab.

Among 40,693 Crohn's disease patients initiating first biologic therapy, 21% developed penetrating complications during follow-up, with perianal disease (18%) more common than luminal disease (5%).
Anti-TNF therapy showed lower risk of luminal penetrating disease versus vedolizumab (aHR 0.66, 95% CI 0.55-0.78) and versus ustekinumab (aHR 0.37, 95% CI 0.30-0.46), and lower risk of perianal penetrating disease versus vedolizumab (aHR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.96).
No significant differences in penetrating disease risk were found between vedolizumab and ustekinumab.
The protective association of anti-TNF was more pronounced in the 2016-2020 period when all three treatments were commercially available, with hazard ratios for composite penetrating disease of 0.66 versus vedolizumab and 0.70 versus ustekinumab.

Download PDF

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

This summary was generated by an AI large language model based on the content transcript. It is for informational purposes only and should not be considered a substitute for clinical judgment. Always rely on your professional expertise and the full clinical context when making clinical decisions.

Abstract

Introduction

Comparative effectiveness of biologics in preventing penetrating disease (PD) complications in Crohn’s disease (CD) is unknown. We compared the risk of developing luminal and perianal PD (LPD and PPD) between biologics used as first-line therapies.

Aims & Methods

We performed a propensity-score adjusted comparative effectiveness study. Adults (≥18 years) with CD (≥3 administrative claims for CD [K50.*]) who initiated their first biologic (anti-tumor necrosis factor [anti-TNF], ustekinumab ([UST]) or vedolizumab [VDZ]) were identified from Merative™ commercial database between 2006 and 2020. LPD was determined by ICD claims and PPD by a validated case definition consisting of ICD claims and procedural codes. We excluded pre-existing PD and prior biologic exposure using a minimum look-back period of one year. Patients were followed until a PD event and censored if a new biologic class was initiated, loss of medical coverage or a study end. Cohorts were balanced by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on age, sex, comorbidities, prior CD surgery, and CD severity. Pairwise comparisons were performed by cox-proportional hazard models, adjusted for immunomodulator exposure, and with biologic exposure treated as a time dependent variable based on a medication possession ratio of 0.8.

Results

Our analysis included 40,693 patients: (93%) anti-TNF, (3%) UST and (4%) VDZ. Our cohort had a median age of 39 years (IQR, 28-50) and 54% were female. Penetrating complications were identified during follow-up in 8567 (21%) patients overall: 2,204 (5%) LPD and 7,474 (18%) PPD. After IPTW all comparisons were well balanced (standardized difference <0.1 for each pairwise comparisons). PPD was more common than LPD overall (Log-rank p<0.0001). Anti-TNF was protective against LPD (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55–0.78; p<0.0001) and PPD (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80–0.96; p=0.0045;) compared with VDZ and LPD (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30–0.46; p<0.0001;) compared with UST (Table 1). There were no significant differences in the risk of LPD and PPD between VDZ and UST. The protective association between anti-TNF therapy and PD was more pronounced when our study period was limited to after 2016 when all three treatments were commercially available.

Table 1: Pairwise comparisons of biologic classes and risk of composite, luminal and perianal penetrating disease.
	Composite* PD aHR (95% CI)	P value	Luminal PD aHR (95% CI)	P value	Perianal PD aHR (95% CI)	P value
Overall cohort
Anti-TNF vs VDZ	0.87 (0.80, 0.95)	0.001	0.66 (0.55, 0.78)	<0.0001	0.88 (0.80, 0.96)	0.0045
Anti-TNF vs UST	0.90 (0.80, 1.02)	0.113	0.37 (0.30, 0.46)	<0.0001	1.04 (0.90, 1.19)	0.6075
UST vs VDZ	1.03 (0.67, 1.59)	0.885	1.62 (0.83, 3.18)	0.1603	0.89 (0.55, 1.42)	0.6166
Study cohort (2016-2020)
Anti-TNF vs VDZ	0.66 (0.56, 0.76)	<0.0001	0.50 (0.36, 0.68)	<0.0001	0.67 (0.58, 0.79)	<0.0001
Anti-TNF vs UST	0.70 (0.59, 0.84)	0.0001	0.28 (0.20, 0.39)	<0.0001	0.84 (0.70, 1.02)	0.0827
UST vs VDZ	1.01 (0.65, 1.58)	0.949	1.57 (0.80, 3.09)	0.1897	0.85 (0.52, 1.40)	0.5327

Conclusion

Anti-TNF therapy was associated with a lower risk of LPD and PPD compared with VDZ and LPD compared with UST. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and to determine potential reasons for these differences.

Disclosure

JM: Consultancy fees and/or Honoraria: Janssen, Abbvie, Takeda, Pfizer. Research funding: BMS, Pfizer and Leo Pharma, Honoraria: Bayer, Pfizer, Sanofi, BMS and Leo Pharma.
PD: has received research support under a sponsored research agreement unrelated to the data in the paper and/or consulting from AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Roche Genentech, Scipher Medicine, Fresenius Kabi, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Landos Pharmaceuticals, Iterative scopes and CorEvitas, LLC.
The other authors have no conflicts