S869 Real World Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Vedolizumab and Adalimumab in Biologic-Naïve Patients With Crohn’s Disease: Results From the EVOLVE Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Vedolizumab (VDZ, a gut selective anti-α4β7-integrin) and adalimumab (ADA, anti-tumor necrosis factor) are approved biologic treatments for moderate to severe Crohn’s disease (CD). We aimed to evaluate the real-world clinical effectiveness and safety of VDZ versus ADA in biologic-naïve patients with CD. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study in adult patients with CD who received first-line biologic treatment with VDZ or ADA at 37 sites in the US, Canada, and Greece. The index date was defined as the date of first-line biologic initiation between May 2014 and March 2018. Cumulative rates of treatment persistence and clinical outcomes over 12 months were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Patients were censored at loss of follow up, death, end of chart abstraction, treatment discontinuation, or dose escalation, whichever came first. Clinical outcomes were assessed using pre-defined hierarchical algorithms of standard measures.1 Survival analyses were conducted for safety outcomes, CD-related exacerbations and CD surgeries. Adjusted analyses were performed using stabilized inverse probability weighting using baseline covariates. Results: 362 patients were included (VDZ: 218; ADA: 144). Baseline characteristics are shown in Table. Cumulative rates of clinical response (68.5% vs 61.1%; p=0.59) and mucosal healing (67.7% vs 56.0%; p=0.56) over 12 months were similar between treatment cohorts, whilst clinical remission rates (66.3% vs 46.4%; p< 0.01) were greater in VDZ- versus ADA-treated patients. Over 12 months, VDZ-treated patients were more likely to persist on treatment versus ADA-treated patients (89.3% vs 77.5%; p=0.02). VDZ-treated patients were significantly less likely to experience (incidence rates per 1000 person-years; HR [95%CI]) serious adverse events within 1 year (78.9 vs 166.2; 0.45 [0.22-0.93]), but there were no statistical differences in CD exacerbations (207.7 vs 261.8; 0.91 [0.56-1.47]), CD-related surgeries (10.3 vs 16.0; 1.55 [0.21-11.15]) or serious infections (20.5 vs 71.2; 0.27 [0.06-1.20]) versus ADA-treated patients. Conclusion: In a real-world setting in biologic-naïve patients with CD, VDZ-treated patients had equivalent rates of response and mucosal healing but a greater likelihood of persisting on treatment and achieving clinical remission versus ADA-treated patients. Studies assessing outcomes after dose optimization are needed. Table 1. - Baseline Characteristics of Biologic Naïve Patients with Crohn’s Disease Treated with Vedolizumab or Adalimumab Baseline Characteristics VedolizumabN=218 AdalimumabN=144 p-value Age, Mean (SD) 51.7 (16.8) 40.0 (14.9) < 0.001 Male, n (%) 114 (52.3) 75 (52.1 0.969 Disease duration, n with available data 176 111 0.016 < 2 years, n (%) 50 (28.4) 50 (45.0) 2- < 5 years, n (%) 32 (18.2) 16 (14.4) ≥ 5 years, n (%) 94 (53.4) 45 (40.5) Median (min-max) observation period, (months)* 15.7 (4.2-45.9) 19.3 (6.1-49.3) < 0.001 Crohn’s disease location at index, n with available data 196 121 0.047 Colonic with/without upper GI disease, n (%) 42 (21.4) 35 (28.9) Ileal with/without upper GI disease, n (%) 85 (43.4) 36 (29.8) Ileocolonic with/without upper GI disease, n (%) 69 (35.2) 50 (41.3) Disease severity at index, n with available data 180 116 0.161 Moderate, n (%) 84 (46.7) 58 (50.0) Severe, n (%) 17 (9.4) 17 (14.7) Abbreviations: GI = gastrointestinal; SD = standard deviation.*While all patients were required to have 6 months follow-up from time of treatment initiation to data abstraction, some patients were lost to follow-up and therefore minimum duration during the observation period was <6 months.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".