Study on the efficacy and safety of 3 kinds of novel biologics in the treatment of Crohn’s disease
- VernacularTitle:3种新型生物制剂治疗克罗恩病的疗效及安全性研究
- Author:
Fei WU
1
;
Yongwu CHEN
1
;
Weijia WU
1
;
Furong WU
1
;
Yingqi WU
1
;
Aizong SHEN
2
Author Information
1. Dept. of Pharmacy，the First Affiliated Hospital of USTC （Anhui Provincial Hospital），Hefei 230001，China;Anhui Provincial Technology Center for Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Drugs，Hefei 230001，China
2. Dept. of Pharmacy，the First Affiliated Hospital of USTC （Anhui Provincial Hospital），Hefei 230001，China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
infliximab;
ustekinumab;
vedolizumab;
Crohn’s disease;
efficacy;
safety
- From:
China Pharmacy
2026;37(12):1601-1606
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety of infliximab（IFX）， ustekinumab（UST） and vedolizumab（VDZ） in the treatment of active Crohn’s disease （CD）. METHODS The patients with active CD who were diagnosed and initially received any of the aforementioned biologics at the First Affiliated Hospital of the USTC （Anhui Provincial Hospital） from January 2020 to December 2023 were selected as the study subjects. They were divided into the IFX group （34 cases）， the UST group （37 cases）， and the VDZ group （15 cases） based on their treatment regimens. Patients in all three groups received induction and maintenance therapy with IFX， UST or VDZ for at least 12 months. The CD Activity Index （CDAI） scores and their changes from baseline （ΔCDAI）， clinical remission rates， clinical response rates， nutritional indicators [body mass index （BMI）， albumin （ALB）， hemoglobin （HGB）]， and inflammatory markers [C-reactive protein （CRP）， erythrocyte sedimentation rate （ESR）] of three groups after the induction phase （9th week of treatment） and during the maintenance phase （12th month of treatment） were compared. Additionally， the cumulative clinical remission rates at 1 year of treatment and the incidence of adverse events （AEs） were compared. RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences in the aforementioned baseline indicators among the three groups （ P ＞0.05）. In all three groups， the CDAI scores were significantly lower after the induction phase and during the maintenance phase， compared to the baseline （ P ＜0.05）. In the IFX group， CDAI scores at the above time points were significantly lower than those in the UST and VDZ groups during the same periods （ P ＜0.05）， and the absolute value of ΔCDAI during the maintenance phase was significantly higher than that in the VDZ group （ P ＜0.05）. The clinical remission rate in the IFX group during the maintenance phase was significantly higher than that in the UST and VDZ groups during the same period， and the clinical response rate was significantly higher than that in the VDZ group during the same period （ P ＜0.05）. The levels of ALB， HGB， CRP and ESR in the IFX group after the induction phase and during the maintenance phase， as well as the levels of CRP and ESR in the UST group after the induction phase， all improved significantly compared to the baseline. Furthermore， the levels of ALB and HGB in the IFX group were significantly higher than those in the UST and VDZ groups during the same period （ P ＜0.05）. The cumulative clinical remission rates among the three groups were significantly different （ P ＜0.05）， with patients in the IFX group achieving remission more rapidly and at a higher proportion. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of AEs among IFX， UST and VDZ groups （14.71%， 8.11% and 20.00%， respectively； P ＞0.05）； infusion reactions were the most common AEs in the IFX group （8.82%）. CONCLUSIONS Compared with UST and VDZ， IFX demonstrates a higher clinical remission rate during the maintenance phase， more effectively improves active CD patients’ nutritional status， and continuously reduces systemic inflammatory responses. However， clinicians should be mindful of the risk of adverse events， such as infusion reactions， associated with this drug.
