Paweł Moćko1, Paweł Kawalec2, Andrzej Pilc3. 1. Drug Management Department, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland. 2. Drug Management Department, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland. Electronic address: pawel.kawalec@uj.edu.pl. 3. Institute of Pharmacology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Department of Neurobiology, 31-343 Kraków, Smętna street 12, Poland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Crohn disease (CD) is an inflammatory bowel disease which occurs especially in developed countries of Western Europe and North America. The aim of the study was to compare the safety profile of biologic drugs in patients with CD. METHODOLOGY: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases, until April 27, 2016. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the safety of biologic drugs (infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, certolizumab pegol, and ustekinumab) with one another or with placebo in patients with CD. The network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted for an induction phase (6-10 weeks) and maintenance phase (52-56 weeks) with a Bayesian hierarchical random effects model in the ADDIS® software. The PROSPERO registration number was CRD42016032606. RESULTS: Ten RCTs were included in the systematic review with NMA. In the case of the induction phase, the NMA could be conducted for the assessment of the relative safety profile of adalimumab, vedolizumab, certolizumab pegol, and ustekinumab, and in the case of the maintenance phase-of infliximab, adalimumab, and vedolizumab. There were no significant differences in the rate of adverse events in patients treated with biologics. Statistical analysis revealed that vedolizumab had the greatest probability of being the safest treatment in most endpoints in the induction phase and adalimumab-in the maintenance phase. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences between the biologics in the relative safety profile analysis were observed. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings, including head-to-head comparisons between the analyzed biologics.
BACKGROUND:Crohn disease (CD) is an inflammatory bowel disease which occurs especially in developed countries of Western Europe and North America. The aim of the study was to compare the safety profile of biologic drugs in patients with CD. METHODOLOGY: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases, until April 27, 2016. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the safety of biologic drugs (infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, certolizumab pegol, and ustekinumab) with one another or with placebo in patients with CD. The network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted for an induction phase (6-10 weeks) and maintenance phase (52-56 weeks) with a Bayesian hierarchical random effects model in the ADDIS® software. The PROSPERO registration number was CRD42016032606. RESULTS: Ten RCTs were included in the systematic review with NMA. In the case of the induction phase, the NMA could be conducted for the assessment of the relative safety profile of adalimumab, vedolizumab, certolizumab pegol, and ustekinumab, and in the case of the maintenance phase-of infliximab, adalimumab, and vedolizumab. There were no significant differences in the rate of adverse events in patients treated with biologics. Statistical analysis revealed that vedolizumab had the greatest probability of being the safest treatment in most endpoints in the induction phase and adalimumab-in the maintenance phase. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences between the biologics in the relative safety profile analysis were observed. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings, including head-to-head comparisons between the analyzed biologics.
Authors: Christopher Andrew Lamb; Nicholas A Kennedy; Tim Raine; Philip Anthony Hendy; Philip J Smith; Jimmy K Limdi; Bu'Hussain Hayee; Miranda C E Lomer; Gareth C Parkes; Christian Selinger; Kevin J Barrett; R Justin Davies; Cathy Bennett; Stuart Gittens; Malcolm G Dunlop; Omar Faiz; Aileen Fraser; Vikki Garrick; Paul D Johnston; Miles Parkes; Jeremy Sanderson; Helen Terry; Daniel R Gaya; Tariq H Iqbal; Stuart A Taylor; Melissa Smith; Matthew Brookes; Richard Hansen; A Barney Hawthorne Journal: Gut Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Christopher V Almario; Michelle S Keller; Michelle Chen; Karen Lasch; Lyann Ursos; Julia Shklovskaya; Gil Y Melmed; Brennan M R Spiegel Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Hang Hock Shim; Christopher Ma; Paulo G Kotze; Cynthia H Seow; Heba Al-Farhan; Ahmed K Al-Darmaki; Jack X Q Pang; Richard N Fedorak; Shane M Devlin; Levinus A Dieleman; Gilaad G Kaplan; Kerri L Novak; Karen I Kroeker; Brendan P Halloran; Remo Panaccione Journal: J Can Assoc Gastroenterol Date: 2018-05-10
Authors: Debora Garza-Hernandez; Maricruz Sepulveda-Villegas; Jose Garcia-Pelaez; Raul Aguirre-Gamboa; Peter L Lakatos; Karol Estrada; Manuel Martinez-Vazquez; Victor Trevino Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Aysha H Al-Ani; Ralley E Prentice; Clarissa A Rentsch; Doug Johnson; Zaid Ardalan; Neel Heerasing; Mayur Garg; Sian Campbell; Joe Sasadeusz; Finlay A Macrae; Siew C Ng; David T Rubin; Britt Christensen Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 9.524