Article Text

PDF
Systematic review: monotherapy with antitumour necrosis factor α agents versus combination therapy with an immunosuppressive for IBD
  1. Parambir S Dulai1,
  2. Corey A Siegel1,
  3. Jean-Frederic Colombel2,
  4. William J Sandborn3,
  5. Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet4
  1. 1Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
  2. 2Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
  3. 3University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
  4. 4Inserm U954, Department of Hepato-Gastroenterology, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Corey A Siegel, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756, USA; Corey.A.Siegel{at}hitchcock.org

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Introduction

The treatment of IBD has evolved significantly over the past 15 years. Historically, steroids and immunosuppressive drugs, such as methotrexate (MTX), azathioprine (AZA) and 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) had been the mainstay of therapy. When infliximab (IFX) was approved for the treatment of Crohn's disease, it began the era of trying to understand how best to optimise our available treatment options. Initially, antitumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents were used after immunosuppressives failed. Then, evidence showed that using AZA together with IFX early in the disease course was more effective than the typical sequential treatment algorithm.1 With the addition of newer anti-TNF drugs and development of different treatment regimens,2–5 there are still significant questions related to the most effective therapeutic strategy. Perhaps the most controversial of these questions is when to use anti-TNF monotherapy versus combination therapy with 6-MP, AZA or MTX.

When considering patients with rheumatoid arthritis, where anti-TNF therapy also has a demonstrated efficacy, it is clear from randomised controlled trials (RCT) that the use of combination therapy improves clinical outcomes.6 Although it is logical that a similar benefit should exist in IBD, the evidence base upon which to make decisions is less robust, leading to patient and provider concerns regarding the balance between efficacy and toxicity. Providers have two sources of data to rely upon when addressing this concern with IBD patients, RCTs and observational data. RCTs are more rigorous, generally have better patient follow-up, and more often include prospective measurement of study end-points using well-accepted and often validated outcome measures. For this reason, RCTs result in a relatively robust assessment of key outcome measures such as clinical response, remission and mucosal healing. Although the data from RCTs may not directly translate to the ‘real world’,7 whatever generalisability is lost due to the application of strict inclusion …

View Full Text

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.