TY - JOUR
T1 - Ustekinumab and vedolizumab for extraintestinal manifestations in inflammatory bowel disease - a retrospective study
AU - Livne-Margolin, Moran
AU - Ling, Daniel
AU - Attia-Konyo, Shani
AU - Abitbol, Chaya Mushka
AU - Haj-Natour, Ola
AU - Ungar, Bella
AU - Ben-Horin, Shomron
AU - Kopylov, Uri
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022
PY - 2023/2
Y1 - 2023/2
N2 - Introduction: Extraintestinal manifestations (EIM) are associated with diminished quality of life. The efficacy of Ustekinumab and vedolizumab for EIM treatment is not well established. The aim was to compare the effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab for treatment of EIM in IBD. Methods: We included IBD patients treated with vedolizumab or ustekinumab in the Gastroenterology department, Sheba Medical Center, for up to 52 weeks between 2015 and 2021. Patients with active EIM before treatment initiation were included. Results: 111 patients were included. 53 patients (48%) were treated with ustekinumab; 88% (n-99) had CD. The most common EIM was arthralgia (95/111, 84%). Patients treated with ustekinumab were more likely to be anti-TNF experienced (n-51/53 [96%] compared with vedolizumab n = 36/58 [62%], p < 0.001). Clinical response of EIM at week 52 was achieved in 36% of patients treated with ustekinumab (n-18/50) and 34% of patients (n-19/54) treated with vedolizumab, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.9). No statistical significance was achieved for patients presented with arthralgia. Clinical response of arthralgia at week 52 was seen in 34% (n-19/55) and 36% (n-18/46) of the patients treated with vedolizumab and ustekinumab, respectively, (p = 0.3). Conclusion: In this study, no difference was found between vedolizumab and ustekinumab regarding their effect on EIM in IBD patients for up to 52 weeks.
AB - Introduction: Extraintestinal manifestations (EIM) are associated with diminished quality of life. The efficacy of Ustekinumab and vedolizumab for EIM treatment is not well established. The aim was to compare the effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab for treatment of EIM in IBD. Methods: We included IBD patients treated with vedolizumab or ustekinumab in the Gastroenterology department, Sheba Medical Center, for up to 52 weeks between 2015 and 2021. Patients with active EIM before treatment initiation were included. Results: 111 patients were included. 53 patients (48%) were treated with ustekinumab; 88% (n-99) had CD. The most common EIM was arthralgia (95/111, 84%). Patients treated with ustekinumab were more likely to be anti-TNF experienced (n-51/53 [96%] compared with vedolizumab n = 36/58 [62%], p < 0.001). Clinical response of EIM at week 52 was achieved in 36% of patients treated with ustekinumab (n-18/50) and 34% of patients (n-19/54) treated with vedolizumab, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.9). No statistical significance was achieved for patients presented with arthralgia. Clinical response of arthralgia at week 52 was seen in 34% (n-19/55) and 36% (n-18/46) of the patients treated with vedolizumab and ustekinumab, respectively, (p = 0.3). Conclusion: In this study, no difference was found between vedolizumab and ustekinumab regarding their effect on EIM in IBD patients for up to 52 weeks.
KW - Biologic therapy
KW - Extra intestinal manifestation
KW - Inflammatory bowel disease
KW - Ustekinumab
KW - Vedolizumab
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85139735851&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.dld.2022.09.009
DO - 10.1016/j.dld.2022.09.009
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 36241535
AN - SCOPUS:85139735851
SN - 1590-8658
VL - 55
SP - 223
EP - 229
JO - Digestive and Liver Disease
JF - Digestive and Liver Disease
IS - 2
ER -