Published online Sep 7, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i33.4823
Peer-review started: January 28, 2022
First decision: March 11, 2022
Revised: March 17, 2022
Accepted: August 14, 2022
Article in press: August 14, 2022
Published online: September 7, 2022
Processing time: 214 Days and 14.3 Hours
Biologic therapy resulted in a significant positive impact on the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) however data on the efficacy and side effects of these therapies in the elderly is scant.
To further evaluate and develop more studies regarding treatment efficacy and safety of biological therapies in a specific and sensitive population, such as the elderly IBD patients, since there is not much evidence about it on medical literature so far.
Retrospectively evaluate the drug sustainability, effectiveness, and safety of the biologic therapies in the elderly IBD population.
Consecutive elderly (≥ 60 years old) IBD patients, treated with biologics [infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADAL), vedolizumab (VDZ), ustekinumab (UST)] followed at the McGill University Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Center were included between January 2000 and 2020. Efficacy was measured by clinical scores at 3, 6-9 and 12-18 mo after initiation of the biologic therapy. Patients completing induction therapy were included. Adverse events (AEs) or serious AEs were collected during and within three months of stopping of the biologic therapy.
A total of 147 elderly patients with IBD were identified and treated with biologicals during the study period, including 109 with Crohn’s disease and 38 with ulcerative colitis. Patients received the following biologicals: IFX (28.5%), ADAL (38.7%), VDZ (15.6%), UST (17%). The mean duration of biological therapy was 157.5 (SD = 148) wk. Parallel steroid therapy was given in 34% at baseline, 19% at 3 mo, 16.3% at 6-9 mo and 6.5% at 12-18 mo. The remission rates at 3, 6-9 and 12-18 mo were not significantly different among biological therapies. Kaplan-Meyer analysis did not show statistical difference for drug sustainability (P = 0.195), time to adverse event (P = 0.158) or infection rates (P = 0.973) between the four studied biologicals. The most common AEs that led to drug discontinuation were loss of response, infusion/injection reaction and infection.
Current biologics were not different regarding drug sustainability, effectiveness, and safety in the elderly IBD population. Therefore, it is not possible to suggest a preferred sequencing order among biologics.
The authors expect that this article may help other IBD physicians and gastroenterologists in their decision process for treating elderly IBD patients with biological therapy.