Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Therapies for Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis at Induction and Maintenance: An Indirect Treatment Comparison Using Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

Abstract Background Given rapid innovation in advanced therapies for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC), we investigated their comparative efficacy and safety during induction and maintenance through network meta-analysis. Methods Using Bayesian methods, endpoints of clinical remission and clinical response per Full Mayo score, and endoscopic improvement were assessed in bio-naive and -exposed populations. Safety was assessed in overall populations by all adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, discontinuation due to AEs, and serious infections. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials were identified via systematic literature review, including the following advanced therapies: infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, golimumab, tofacitinib, ustekinumab, filgotinib, ozanimod, and upadacitinib. Random effects models were used to address between-study heterogeneity. Intent-to-treat (ITT) efficacy rates were calculated by adjusting maintenance outcomes by likelihood of induction response. Results Out of 48 trials identified, 23 were included. Across all outcomes and regardless of prior biologic exposure, ITT efficacy rates were highest for upadacitinib, owing to its highest ranking for all efficacy outcomes in induction and for all but clinical remission during maintenance among bio-naive induction responders. For all advanced therapies versus placebo, there were no significant differences in serious AEs or serious infections across therapies. For all AEs, golimumab had higher odds versus placebo during maintenance; for discontinuation due to AEs, upadacitinib had lower odds versus placebo during induction, while ustekinumab and vedolizumab had lower odds versus placebo during maintenance. Conclusions Upadacitinib may be the most efficacious therapy for moderately to severely active UC based on ITT analyses, with similar safety across advanced therapies.

[1]  A. Ford,et al.  Efficacy of biological therapies and small molecules in moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: systematic review and network meta-analysis , 2021, Gut.

[2]  L. Peyrin-Biroulet,et al.  Efficacy and safety of biologics and small molecule drugs for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. , 2021, The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology.

[3]  J. Cummings,et al.  JAK1 inhibition and inflammatory bowel disease , 2021, Rheumatology.

[4]  M. Murad,et al.  First- and Second-line Pharmacotherapies for Patients with Moderate to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis. , 2020, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

[5]  B. Sands,et al.  Vedolizumab versus Adalimumab for Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis. , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, International Coaching Psychology Review.

[7]  Areti Angeliki Veroniki,et al.  Research Techniques Made Simple: Network Meta-Analysis. , 2019, The Journal of investigative dermatology.

[8]  L. Olson,et al.  In vitro and in vivo characterization of the JAK1 selectivity of upadacitinib (ABT-494) , 2018, BMC Rheumatology.

[9]  J. Colombel,et al.  Loss of Response to Anti-TNFs: Definition, Epidemiology, and Management , 2016, Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology.

[10]  L. Nelles,et al.  Preclinical Characterization of GLPG0634, a Selective Inhibitor of JAK1, for the Treatment of Inflammatory Diseases , 2013, The Journal of Immunology.

[11]  P. Rutgeerts,et al.  The role of centralized reading of endoscopy in a randomized controlled trial of mesalamine for ulcerative colitis. , 2013, Gastroenterology.

[12]  J. Sterne,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  Nicky J Welton,et al.  NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2: A Generalised Linear Modelling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials , 2011 .

[14]  Georgia Salanti,et al.  Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  E. Tacconelli.  Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care , 2010 .

[16]  M. Tramèr,et al.  Primer: strengths and weaknesses of meta-analysis , 2008, Nature Clinical Practice Rheumatology.

[17]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Bayesian random effects meta‐analysis of trials with binary outcomes: methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  Andrew Thomas,et al.  WinBUGS - A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility , 2000, Stat. Comput..

[19]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations , 1998 .

[20]  W. Tremaine,et al.  Coated oral 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. A randomized study. , 1987, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  Ustekinumab for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis , 2020 .

[22]  Martyn Plummer,et al.  JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling , 2003 .