BACKGROUND: Biologic therapies in patients with Crohn's disease often yield low clinical and endoscopic remission rates. After multiple failed therapies, combining two biologic therapies is possibly the sole medical alternative to recurrent surgery. However, data on this approach are limited. AIMS: To assess the efficacy and safety of concomitant use of two biologic therapies in the largest cohort to date of refractory Crohn's disease patients. METHODS: Data were extracted from Crohn's disease patients started on dual biologic therapy at two referral centres. Biologics utilised include infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, certolizumab and golimumab. The primary outcome was endoscopic improvement (>50% reduction in Simplified Endoscopic Score-Crohn's disease [SES-CD] or explicitly stated). Endoscopic remission (SES-CD < 3 or stated), clinical response (Crohn's disease-patient-reported outcome-2 score [PRO2] reduced by 8), clinical remission (PRO2 < 8), and C-reactive protein (CRP) were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients with 24 therapeutic trials of dual biologic therapy were identified. The majority of patients had prior surgical resections (91%), stricturing (59%) or penetrating (36%) phenotype, and perianal fistulas (50%). Median number of prior failed biologics was 4. Endoscopic improvement occurred in 43% of trials and 26% achieved endoscopic remission. Fifty per cent had clinical response and 41% achieved clinical remission. There were significant post-treatment reductions in median SES-CD (14.0 [12.0-17.5] to 6.0 [2.5-8.0], P = 0.0005], PRO-2 (24.1 [20.3-27.0] to 13.4 [4.6-21.8], P = 0.002] and CRP (17.0 [11.0-24.0] to 9.0 [4.0-14.0], P = 0.02). Presence of perianal fistulas decreased from 50% to 33%. Adverse events occurred in 13% of trials. CONCLUSION: Dual biologic therapy was associated with clinical, biomarker and endoscopic improvements in selected patients with refractory Crohn's disease who failed multiple biologics. Further studies are needed to validate this approach.
BACKGROUND: Biologic therapies in patients with Crohn's disease often yield low clinical and endoscopic remission rates. After multiple failed therapies, combining two biologic therapies is possibly the sole medical alternative to recurrent surgery. However, data on this approach are limited. AIMS: To assess the efficacy and safety of concomitant use of two biologic therapies in the largest cohort to date of refractory Crohn's diseasepatients. METHODS: Data were extracted from Crohn's diseasepatients started on dual biologic therapy at two referral centres. Biologics utilised include infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, certolizumab and golimumab. The primary outcome was endoscopic improvement (>50% reduction in Simplified Endoscopic Score-Crohn's disease [SES-CD] or explicitly stated). Endoscopic remission (SES-CD < 3 or stated), clinical response (Crohn's disease-patient-reported outcome-2 score [PRO2] reduced by 8), clinical remission (PRO2 < 8), and C-reactive protein (CRP) were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients with 24 therapeutic trials of dual biologic therapy were identified. The majority of patients had prior surgical resections (91%), stricturing (59%) or penetrating (36%) phenotype, and perianal fistulas (50%). Median number of prior failed biologics was 4. Endoscopic improvement occurred in 43% of trials and 26% achieved endoscopic remission. Fifty per cent had clinical response and 41% achieved clinical remission. There were significant post-treatment reductions in median SES-CD (14.0 [12.0-17.5] to 6.0 [2.5-8.0], P = 0.0005], PRO-2 (24.1 [20.3-27.0] to 13.4 [4.6-21.8], P = 0.002] and CRP (17.0 [11.0-24.0] to 9.0 [4.0-14.0], P = 0.02). Presence of perianal fistulas decreased from 50% to 33%. Adverse events occurred in 13% of trials. CONCLUSION: Dual biologic therapy was associated with clinical, biomarker and endoscopic improvements in selected patients with refractory Crohn's disease who failed multiple biologics. Further studies are needed to validate this approach.
Authors: Alexandra D Frolkis; Debra S Lipton; Kirsten M Fiest; María E Negrón; Jonathan Dykeman; Jennifer deBruyn; Nathalie Jette; Talia Frolkis; Ali Rezaie; Cynthia H Seow; Remo Panaccione; Subrata Ghosh; Gilaad G Kaplan Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: R Khanna; G Zou; G D'Haens; B G Feagan; W J Sandborn; M K Vandervoort; R L Rolleri; E Bortey; C Paterson; W P Forbes; B G Levesque Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2014-10-27 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Robert Battat; Uri Kopylov; Andrew Szilagyi; Anjali Saxena; David S Rosenblatt; Margaret Warner; Talat Bessissow; Ernest Seidman; Alain Bitton Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Jean-Frédéric Colombel; Bruce E Sands; Paul Rutgeerts; William Sandborn; Silvio Danese; Geert D'Haens; Remo Panaccione; Edward V Loftus; Serap Sankoh; Irving Fox; Asit Parikh; Catherine Milch; Brihad Abhyankar; Brian G Feagan Journal: Gut Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Gary R Lichtenstein; Brian G Feagan; Russell D Cohen; Bruce A Salzberg; Michael Safdi; John W Popp; Wayne Langholff; William J Sandborn Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Quazim A Alayo; Aava Khatiwada; Anish Patel; Maria Zulfiqar; Anas Gremida; Alexandra Gutierrez; Richard P Rood; Matthew A Ciorba; George Christophi; Parakkal Deepak Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2021-10-18 Impact factor: 7.290
Authors: Laurent Goessens; Jean-Frédéric Colombel; An Outtier; Marc Ferrante; Joao Sabino; Ciaran Judge; Reza Saeidi; Louise Rabbitt; Alessandro Armuzzi; Eugeni Domenech; George Michalopoulos; Anneline Cremer; Francisco Javier García-Alonso; Tamas Molnar; Konstantinos Karmiris; Krisztina Gecse; Joep Van Oostrom; Mark Löwenberg; Klaudia Farkas; Raja Atreya; Davide Giuseppe Ribaldone; Christian Selinger; Frank Hoentjen; Benoit Bihin; Shaji Sebastian; Jean-François Rahier Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 4.623