Comparative Long-term Efficacy and Safety of Infliximab and Adalimumab in Patients with Crohnʼs Disease: A Retrospective Study from the McGill University Health Center
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The long-term efficacy and safety of the anti tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADA) has been well established in the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD). However, direct head to head studies comparing the two agents over long periods of time are sparse. The aim of our study was to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of IFX and ADA in the treatment of CD at the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC). Methods: This is a single center retrospective study based at the MUHC. We included adult patients with CD that were anti-TNF naive and were treated with either IFX or ADA. Patient's were excluded if they did not complete at least 1 year of anti-TNF therapy. A chart review was performed and demographic, clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data were retrieved. Clinical remission was defined as HBI≤4, response was defined as decrease in HBI≥2, and durable remission was defined remission at all time points. Clinical remission and response and durable remission and response were assessed annually and up to 5 years of treatment. Occurrence of treatment failure defined as hospitalization, need for steroids, or surgery were compared. Safety data was also analyzed. Results: Our study included a total of 141 patients with 61 patients in the ADA group and 80 patients in the IFX group. Certain differences were noted between the IFX and ADA groups, but not regarding disease activity (Table 1). Efficacy analysis showed that patients treated with ADA were more likely to respond to therapy at 12 months compared to IFX (93% vs 79%, p=0.0405). Otherwise, remission rates were not different between groups at 1,2,3,4 and 5 years and response rates at 2, 3, 4 years were also similar between groups. Durable remission was achieved in 50% (30/60) of the ADA group and in 46% (36/78) of the IFX group (p=0.7317). Use of combination therapy was associated with higher rates of response at 12 months (75% vs 50%, p=0.01). Rates of steroid use, hospitalization or surgery were not different amongst the two groups. Adverse events were noted in 23.7% of patient on IFX compared to 13.1% in patients on ADA, with the two most common being infusion reaction and arthralgia (p=0.13). No new case of malignancy was noted in either group.Table 1: Baseline Characteristics of the 141 patients included in the studyConclusion: Our real life head to head data demonstrates similar efficacy and safety between IFX and ADA and confirms the superiority of combination therapy. Further larger studies are required to investigate these findings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».