Background/Aims: Several biologic therapies are approved in Japan to treat moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC), but there are no published comparative efficacy studies in a Japanese population. We compared the efficacy of biologics approved in Japan (adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, and vedolizumab) for treating biologic-naïve patients with UC at their approved doses. Methods: A targeted literature review identified 4 randomized controlled trials of biologics for UC in biologicnaïve Japanese patients. For each study, efficacy outcome data from induction (weeks 6–12) and maintenance (weeks 30–60) treatment were extracted for analysis. Treatment effects on clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing relative to the average placebo results across all trials were estimated using network meta-analyses followed by transformation into probabilities and odds ratios (OR). Results: At the end of induction, the likelihood of clinical response and clinical remission was highest with infliximab (OR: 2.12 and 2.35, respectively) and vedolizumab (OR: 2.10 and 2.32, respectively); the likelihood of mucosal healing was highest with infliximab (OR: 2.24) and adalimumab (OR: 1.86). During maintenance, the likelihood of clinical response and clinical remission was highest with vedolizumab (OR: 6.44 and 4.68, respectively) and golimumab (OR: 5.13 and 3.84, respectively); the likelihood of mucosal healing was significantly higher than placebo with all biologics. Conclusions All active treatments were efficacious compared with placebo. Infliximab and vedolizumab had the highest odds for induction of clinical response, remission, and mucosal healing. Golimumab and vedolizumab had numerically higher odds of achieving efficacy outcomes in the maintenance phase.

Background/Aims: A subgroup analysis was conducted in Japanese patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) enrolled in the phase 3 VISIBLE 1 study, which evaluated the safety and efficacy of a new vedolizumab subcutaneous (SC) formulation. Methods: Eligible patients received open-label infusions of vedolizumab 300 mg intravenous (IV) at weeks 0 and 2 in the induction phase. Patients with clinical response by complete Mayo score at week 6 entered the double-blind maintenance phase and were randomized to vedolizumab 108 mg SC every 2 weeks, placebo, or vedolizumab 300 mg IV every 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical remission (complete Mayo score ≤ 2 points; no individual subscore > 1 point) at week 52. Results: Of 49 patients who entered the induction phase, 22 out of 49 patients (45%) had clinical response at week 6 and were randomized to vedolizumab 108 mg SC (n = 10), placebo (n = 10), or vedolizumab 300 mg IV (n = 2). At week 52, 4 out of 10 patients (40%) who received vedolizumab SC had clinical remission versus 2 out of 10 patients (20%) who received placebo (difference: 20% [95% confidence interval, –27.9 to 61.8]). Two patients (2/10, 20%) who received vedolizumab SC experienced an injection-site reaction versus none who received placebo. Conclusions Our results indicate that the efficacy of vedolizumab SC in a subgroup of Japanese patients with UC are similar with those in the overall VISIBLE 1 study population, and with those established with vedolizumab IV. The safety and tolerability of vedolizumab SC were generally similar to that established for vedolizumab IV. (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02611830; EudraCT 2015-000480-14)