1 / 45

Future comparative effectiveness studies: unanswered questions in the care of IBD patients

Future comparative effectiveness studies: unanswered questions in the care of IBD patients. Jean- Frédéric Colombel Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York, USA. Disclosure. J-F Colombel has served as consultant, advisory board member or speaker for or

phoebe
Download Presentation

Future comparative effectiveness studies: unanswered questions in the care of IBD patients

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Future comparative effectiveness studies: unanswered questions in the care of IBD patients Jean-Frédéric Colombel Icahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew York, USA

  2. Disclosure J-F Colombel has served as consultant, advisoryboardmember or speaker for or receivedresearchgrantsfrom Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Celltrion, Ferring, Genentech, Giuliani SPA, Given Imaging, Janssend and Janssen, Merck & Co., Millenium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Nutrition Science Partners Ltd., Pfizer Inc. PrometheusLaboratories, Sanofi, Schering Plough Corporation, Takeda, Teva Pharmaceuticals, UCB Pharma, Vertex, Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co.

  3. What is comparative effectiveness research (CER) ? • The generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and • harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor • a clinical condition, or to improve the delivery of care. • The purpose of CER is to ‘‘assist consumers, clinicians, purchasers, • and policy makers to make informed decisions that will improve health • care at both the individual and population levels.’’ • Two key elements are • 1) the direct comparison of effective interventions • 2) The application of these interventions in patients who are typical • of day-to-day clinical practice Ratner R , et al. In: Medicine Io.ed Washington DC 2009; Sox HC, et al. Ann Interm Med 2009.

  4. Why do we need CER in IBD ? Clinical trials Clinical practice • Defined population • Prescribed treatment regimen • Follow-up regimented with schedule • Uniform primary end-point • Efficacy • Heterogeneous population • Variable treatment regimen with optimization • Follow-up not fixed • Variable outcomes • Effectiveness

  5. Clinical trial IBD population versus real-world IBD population Retrospective study of patients with moderate-severe IBD at a US tertiary referral centre (n=206) 31% of patients were not eligible for participationin a clinical trial of biologic therapy* • Reasons for exclusion in CD • Strictures or abscesses (62%) • Recent exposure or nonresponse to anti-TNF (51%) • High-dose steroids (18%) • Comorbidities (26%) • Reasons for exclusion in UC • Current rectal therapy use (57%) • Steroid and immunomodulator naive (45%) • Newly diagnosed (17%) • Colectomy likely (15%) Non-eligible CD patients had a significantly lower response rate to biologics than eligible CD patients (60% vs 89%, p=0.03) *Inclusion criteria based on those published for 9 trials of biologic therapy: ACCENT I, CLASSIC I, CHARM, PRECISE I, ENCORE, ENACT, SONIC, ACT 1, ACT 2 Ha C, et al. ClinGastroenterolHepatol 2012.

  6. The impact of CE studies: SONIC: Corticosteroid-Free Clinical Remission at Week 50 Patients with CRP 0.8 mg/dL and Lesions on Baseline Endoscopy* 100 P=.002 80 P=.016 P=.354 60 50.0 Percent of patients (%) 41.5 40 22.7 20 32/64 17/75 27/65 0 AZA+ placebo IFX + placebo IFX + AZA * Patients who did not enter the study extension were treated as nonresponders AZA=azathioprine; IFX=infliximab Colombel JF, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010

  7. Setting priorities for CER in IBD: results of an international provider survey, expert rand panel, and patient focus groups Cheifetz AS , et al. Inflam Bowel Dis 2012.

  8. Unanswered questions… Flying Take-off Landing

  9. Unanswered questions… Take-off

  10. Which biologic ?

  11. Comparing biologics agents in IBD The anti-TNFs family IFX ADA CZ

  12. Outcomes in CD patients receiving adalimumabor infliximab therapy Retrospective cohort of US Medicare data (2006–2010) from new users of adalimumab (n=871) and infliximab (n=1,459) Primary outcomes at Week 26 Primary outcomes according to baseline steroid exposure Osterman M, et al. ClinGastroenterolHepatol 2013

  13. Vedolizumab in UC: Clinical Response, Clinical Remission, Mucosal Healing at 6 Weeks, ITT Population P<0.0001 P=0.0010 % P=0.0010 • 21.7 • 11.6, 31.7 • 11.5 • 4.7, 18.3 • 16.1 • 6.4, 25.9 95% CI: Feagan B et al New Engl J Med 2013

  14. Comparing biologics agents in IBD Anti- TNFs Anti- Integrins IFX ADA CZ “The key research topic in the area of IBD from the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) report is to compare the effectiveness of competing biologic agents”

  15. Biologic vs surgery ?

  16. The LIRIC -trial

  17. Combo vs mono ?

  18. Steroid-free Remission at Week 26 SONIC Primary End Point 100 P<0.001 80 P=0.009 P=0.022 57 60 44 Proportion of Patients (%) 40 31 20 52/170 75/169 96/169 0 AZA + Placebo IFX + Placebo IFX+ AZA Steroid-free remission=CDAI <150 points Colombel JF et al. N Engl J Med 2010

  19. Impact of concomitant immunomodulator treatment on efficacy and safety of anti-TNF therapy in Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials using patient-level data Results: 6 Month Clinical Remission Stratified by anti-TNF agent Adalimumab Certolizumab Infliximab OR 0.88 (0.58-1.35) OR 0.93; (0.65-1.34) OR 1.79 (1.06-3.01) Jones J et al. DDW 2013

  20. COMMIT Methotrexate with IFX vs IFX alone in CD Primary end-point: Failure to enter steroid-free remission at week 14 or maintain through week 50 P = 0.83 • Highest success rate ever observed • At week 14 and 50 there was between the IFX group vsIFX+MTX group • All patients on prednisone 15 to 40mg/d P = 0.86 Steroid-free remission MTX Placebo Week 50 Week 14 Feagan B et al.Gastroenterology in press

  21. Step-up vsAccelerated step-up vsTop-down ?

  22. Conventional and evolvingtreatmentstrategies in CD Ordás I et al. Gut 2011

  23. Early “top-down” therapy with azathioprine is not more effective than placebo or conventional therapy RAPID AZTEC Cosnes J et al. Gastroenterology 2013;145: 758-65 Panes J et al. Gastroenterology 2013;145: 766-74

  24. Early top-down biologic therapy vsconventional management of Crohn’sdisease CDAI <150 AND no steroids AND no surgery Patients (%) ** * * Weeks *p<0.01**p<0.05 D’Haens G, et al. Lancet 2008;371:660-7.

  25. Usual care vs accelerated care : REACT 1 20 practices(1,200 pts) 20 practices(1,200 pts) 60 patients per practice Usual care Accelerated caretreatmentalgorithm Primary endpoint: Proportion in remission (HBI 4 and off steroids) at practice level 12 mo following randomization • Patients will be bio-naïve

  26. Accelerated care therapeutic algorithm for Crohn’s disease 5-ASA Antibiotics Active luminal CD (HBI >4) Without fistula With fistula Steroids (budes vs pred based ondisease activity and location) Complex fistula Yes No Evaluate in 4 wks – remission? (HBI ≤4) Yes No MRI, US, EUA to rule out abscess Antibiotics/ fistulotomy Taper steroids Add ADA + AZA or MTX Abscess present? Re-evaluate in 12 wks – remission? Yes No Taper steroids, re-evaluate in 12 wks – remission? Yes No No maintenance therapy ADA + AZA or MTX (steroids prn) Drainage/seton + antibiotics Re-evaluate in 12 wks – remission? Re-evaluate in 4 wks – improved? Yes No Cont combo maint Rx Increase ADA to weekly dose No Re-evaluate in 12 wks – remission? Surgicalreassessment Yes Yes No Cont combo maint Rx Switch anti-metabolite Follow algorithm for activeluminal CD without fistula Re-evaluate in 12 wks – remission? Yes No Cont combo maint Rx Switch TNF-blocker Re-evaluate in 12 wks – remission? Yes No Cont combo maint Rx Consider resection

  27. Unanswered questions… Flying

  28. Treat to mucosal healing vstreat to symptoms ?

  29. Usual care vs enhanced care : REACT 2 15 practices (600 pts) 15 practices (600 pts) 40 patients per practice Enhanced caretreatmentalgorithm Step caretreatmentalgorithm Primary endpt: risk of CD-related complications at one-year, measured at the practice level. CD-related complications include (1) CD-related hospitalizations for CD-related surgeries and non-surgical CD events (such as disease flare, bowel obstruction, excluding hospitalization for side effects of study medication), and (2) Bowel damage events not requiring hospitalization (such as symptomatic bowel obstruction, cutaneous fistula, abscess).

  30. Enhanced care algorithm Active luminal CD (HBI >4, 1 large ulcer) 5-ASA Antibiotics Initiate combination therapy (adalimumab + AZA or MTX) +/- GCS as required Evaluate by ileocolonoscopy in 16 wks – remission?(HBI ≤4, no large ulcers, no GCS) Yes No Continue combinationmaintenance therapy Increase adalimumab to weekly dose +/- GCS as required Taper GCS, re-evaluate by ileocolonoscopy in 16 wks– remission? (HBI ≤4, no large ulcers, no GCS) Yes No Continue combinationmaintenance therapy Switch antimetabolite, +/- GCS as required Re-evaluate by ileocolonoscopyin 16 wks– remission? (HBI ≤4, no large ulcers, no GCS) Yes No Continue combinationmaintenance therapy Switch TNF antagonist, +/- GCS as required

  31. Treat to biomarkers vstreat to symptoms ?

  32. Calprotectin monitoring in CD after IFX withdrawal

  33. Usual care vs tight control using biomarkers: CALM Open-label, multicenter study in Europe and Canada Evaluating two treatment algorithms in CD Conventional CDAI, steroid use Primary endpoint:Mucosal healing 48 weeksafter randomisation Prednisoneup to 8 weeks Patients naïve toimmunomodulatorsand biologic therapy(n=240) Tight control CDAI, steroid use, high-sensitivity CRP, faecalcalprotectin Treatment intensification in both arms:1) No treatment, 2) Adalimumab every other week, 3) Adalimumab weekly, 4) Adalimumab weekly + azathioprine www.clinicaltrial.gov: NCT01235689

  34. Tight control arm Treatment may change at weeks 9, 21, 33 and 45 based on success criteria at weeks 8, 20, 32 and 44 Y = No change** N = ADA EOW** Y = No change** N = ADA EOW** Y = No change** Y = No change** At week 9, 21, 33 and 45, did subject meet all objective criteria?: – CDAI <150 – HS-CRP <5mg/L – Calprotectin <250 μg/g – Off steroids starting wk 9 N = ADA wkly** Y = No change** N = ADA wkly** Y = No change** Y = No change* N = ADA EOW** N = ADA wkly Y = ADA EOW** N = ADA wkly AZA** Y = No change** N = ADA wkly** Y = No change** N = 120 Prednisone8 wks N = ADA wkly Y = ADA EOW** Y = No change** N = ADA N = ADA wkly AZA** Flare = CDAI↑ ≥70 from BL and ≥220, pt continues as non-responder * Flare between wks 9 + 21, ADA started ** Flare between evaluation wks, then next option Y = No change** N = ADA wkly** N = ADA wkly** Y = ADA EOW** Y = ADA EOW AZA** N = ADA wkly + AZA N = ADA wkly AZA** w56 R w9 w21 w33 w45

  35. Treat to trough levels vstreat to symptoms ?

  36. Pk of biologics: What we know already • Drug levels of IFX and ADA are associated with outcome in Crohn’s disease • Antibody status is not directly associated with outcome but is important in understanding reasons for loss of response (LOR) to anti-TNF • Dose escalation can increase drug levels • Immunomodulation can decrease antibody production Colombel JF, et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2012 Date of preparation September 2013 AXHUG130882am

  37. Individualised therapy vs dose intensification in patients with CD who lose response to anti-TNF Randomised, single-blind, multicentre Danish study in CD (n=69) Patients with secondary IFX failure were randomised to IFX dose intensification (5 mg/kg every 4 weeks) or interventions based on serum IFX and IFX antibody levels IFXintensification * *p<0.001 * Cost per patient, € mean Intention-to-treat Algorithm Per protocol Study week -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% Co-primary economic endpoint in per protocol populations.Data are average treatment per patient True difference 10 8 6 4 2 0 IFX intensificationbetter Algorithmbetter 12 4 8 0 Co-primary clinical endpoint in intention-to-treat and per protocolpopulations. Dashed lines illustrate the predefined non-inferiority margin Steenholdt C , et al. Gut 2013; gutjnl-2013-305279 [ePub ahead of print]

  38. Optimizing anti-TNF based on trough levels vs clinical symptoms: TAILORIX Biologic Naïve Subjects with active luminal CD (N=120) Ileocolonoscopy at screening Cohort 1 n=40 Cohort 2 n=40 Cohort 3 (control) n=40 Visits * Week 0 IFX 5 mg/kg (0,2,6 then every 8 wks) + AZA 2-2.5 mg/kg (if tolerated) Week 2 * * Week 6 Week 12 Ileocolonoscopy/TL Week 14 * 18 Week 22 * Upon Clinical Relapse and/or TL ↓: † -1st time: IFX 7.5 mg/kg -2nd time: IFX 10mg/kg Upon Clinical Relapse and/or TL↓: † -IFX 10 mg/kg Only upon Elevated CDAI: -IFX 10 mg/kg 26 Week 30 * 34 * Week 38 42 * Week 46 50 Week 54 Ileocolonoscopy * Primary endpoint:steroid-free remission between wk22 and wk54 (CDAI < 150) and endoscopic healing at wk54

  39. Unanswered questions… Landing

  40. Discontinuation of Immunomodulator in Stable Remission on Combination Therapy (Infliximab Maintained) No need for early ‘rescue’ IFX: primary endpoint Median IFX levels, Week 8 to Week 104 combined 1.0 100 Cumulative survival p<0.005 IFX trough levels (μg) 0.8 Log Rank (Cox): 0.735; Breslow: 0.906 0.6 10 0.4 Continued Discontinued 0.2 1 0.0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Continued Discontinued Time (weeks) • 80 patients randomized to continue (+CON , n=40) or to interrupt (++DIS, n=40) immunomodulators (azathioprine or methotrexate) 6 months after the start of infliximab (5 mg/kg IV) Van Asche et al, Gastroenterology 2008

  41. Discontinuation of Infliximab in Stable Remission on Combination Therapy (azathioprine maintained) STORI • n=52 relapses/115 patients • Medianfollow-up 28+/- 2 months • Median time to relapse: 16.4 months Louis E et al. Gastroenterology. 2012;142:63-70.

  42. Predictive Model for Time to Relapse After Stopping IFX and Continuing AZA Kaplan Meier time-to-relapse curves according to multivariate models and scores generated through Cox model using multiple imputations method • Deleteriousfactors: • No previoussurgery • Steroidswithin 12-6 monthsbeforeinfliximabwithdrawal • Male gender • Hemoglobin≤14.5 g/dL, • Leukocyte count >6x109/L, • hsCRP ≥5 mg/L, • Fecal calprotectin ≥300 µg/g, • CDEIS>0 • infliximab trough ≥2 mg/L Proportion Without Relapse No. deleteriousfactors 1.0 <4 0.8 4 0.6 0.4 5-6 0.2 >6 0.0 Months since infliximab withdrawal 0 6 12 18 24 30 Louis E et al. Gastroenterology. 2012;142:63-70.

  43. A proSpective randomized controlled trial comParinginfliximAb-antimetabolites combination therapy to anti-metabolites monotheRapy and infliximab monothErapy in patients with Crohn’s disease in sustained steroid-free remission on combination therapy SPARE CCFA Nycibdc

  44. Screening Randomisation Relapse No remission Study end Colonoscopy Small bowel MRI * * Scheduled visits -3 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96 104 Timeline (weeks)

  45. Comparative effectiveness research in IBD A huge opportunity • Formidable challenges • design • recruitment • funding • …

More Related