TY - JOUR
T1 - Dual Biologic or Small Molecule Therapy for Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease
T2 - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
AU - Ahmed, Waseem
AU - Galati, Jonathan
AU - Kumar, Anand
AU - Christos, Paul J.
AU - Longman, Randy
AU - Lukin, Dana J.
AU - Scherl, Ellen
AU - Battat, Robert
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 AGA Institute
PY - 2022/3
Y1 - 2022/3
N2 - Background and Aims: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize emerging data on the safety and effectiveness of dual biologic therapy in combination or with tofacitinib in patients with refractory inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Methods: Through a systematic search of multiple electronic databases through November 9, 2020, we identified cohort studies or case series (>10 patients) reporting the safety and effectiveness of simultaneous use of biologic agents in combination or with tofacitinib in patients with IBD. Rates of adverse events, clinical remission, and endoscopic remission were synthesized using pooled data, and we identified factors associated with successful dual therapy. Results: We identified 30 studies reporting 288 trials of dual biologic or small molecule therapy in 279 patients (76% Crohn's disease; median duration of treatment 24 weeks (IQR25-IQR75 1332)). The main indications for dual therapy included medically refractory IBD (81%) and concurrent extra-intestinal manifestations or rheumatologic disease (12%). The most common combinations of dual therapy included tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists & anti-integrins (48%), ustekinumab & anti-integrins (19%); 61% of patients had previously failed at least one of the two therapies used in combination. Over a median follow-up of 32 weeks (IQR25-IQR75 24-52), pooled rates of adverse and serious adverse events were 31% (95% CI, 13%-54%) and 6.5% (95% CI, 2.1%-13.1%); pooled rates of clinical and endoscopic remission were 59% (95% CI, 42%-74%), and 34% (95% CI, 23%-46%), respectively. 12% (95% CI, 4%-24%) of patients required surgery. Rates of success were higher in patients on dual therapy due to EIM. Heterogeneity was not significant for endoscopic response (P =.88, I2 = 0%), endoscopic remission (P =.44, I2 = 0%), and malignancy (P =.87, I2 = 0%). However, significant heterogeneity existed for other outcomes. Conclusions: Dual biologic or small molecule therapy may be a possible option in highly selected, refractory IBD patients at specialized centers. Higher quality combination of therapies with a significant improvement in the quality of data is required prior to more widespread use.
AB - Background and Aims: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize emerging data on the safety and effectiveness of dual biologic therapy in combination or with tofacitinib in patients with refractory inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Methods: Through a systematic search of multiple electronic databases through November 9, 2020, we identified cohort studies or case series (>10 patients) reporting the safety and effectiveness of simultaneous use of biologic agents in combination or with tofacitinib in patients with IBD. Rates of adverse events, clinical remission, and endoscopic remission were synthesized using pooled data, and we identified factors associated with successful dual therapy. Results: We identified 30 studies reporting 288 trials of dual biologic or small molecule therapy in 279 patients (76% Crohn's disease; median duration of treatment 24 weeks (IQR25-IQR75 1332)). The main indications for dual therapy included medically refractory IBD (81%) and concurrent extra-intestinal manifestations or rheumatologic disease (12%). The most common combinations of dual therapy included tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists & anti-integrins (48%), ustekinumab & anti-integrins (19%); 61% of patients had previously failed at least one of the two therapies used in combination. Over a median follow-up of 32 weeks (IQR25-IQR75 24-52), pooled rates of adverse and serious adverse events were 31% (95% CI, 13%-54%) and 6.5% (95% CI, 2.1%-13.1%); pooled rates of clinical and endoscopic remission were 59% (95% CI, 42%-74%), and 34% (95% CI, 23%-46%), respectively. 12% (95% CI, 4%-24%) of patients required surgery. Rates of success were higher in patients on dual therapy due to EIM. Heterogeneity was not significant for endoscopic response (P =.88, I2 = 0%), endoscopic remission (P =.44, I2 = 0%), and malignancy (P =.87, I2 = 0%). However, significant heterogeneity existed for other outcomes. Conclusions: Dual biologic or small molecule therapy may be a possible option in highly selected, refractory IBD patients at specialized centers. Higher quality combination of therapies with a significant improvement in the quality of data is required prior to more widespread use.
KW - Combination
KW - Dual Biologic
KW - Inflammatory Bowel Disease
KW - Small Molecule
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85105736368&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.03.034
DO - 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.03.034
M3 - Review article
C2 - 33798711
AN - SCOPUS:85105736368
SN - 1542-3565
VL - 20
SP - e361-e379
JO - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
JF - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
IS - 3
ER -