OP36 Real-world evidence on comparative effectiveness of Ustekinumab vs anti-TNF in Crohn’s disease with propensity score adjustment: two-year maintenance phase results from the prospective observational RUN-CD study

Abstract Background Within the framework of the prospective real-world RUN-CD registry on the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab (UST) in Crohn’s disease (CD), a total of 901 CD-patients undergoing a newly initiated biologics therapy were enrolled in 44 IBD-experienced centers from all over Germany between 2017-2020 with a follow-up of 3 years. Here, the results on the effectiveness of the maintenance therapy over 24 months are presented as a real-world evidence (RWE) comparison of CD-patients with UST vs anti-TNF. Methods After exclusion of other biologics than UST and anti-TNF and missing outcomes (HBI), the final sample consisted of 550 CD patients. Clinical remission (HBI ≤ 4) was the predefined endpoint at month 24 and additionally, switching of biologics therapy was considered as an outcome failure. Patients were analysed on a modified intent-to-treat basis (mITT; switchers considered as outcome failure). To reduce the effect of confounders, propensity score (PS) adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was implemented. A weighted logistic regression was used, and the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Quality of life was assessed using the self-reported visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) of the EQ-5D with changes from baseline to 2 years. Results 308 UST (naïve: 27) and 242 anti-TNF (naïve: 162) CD-patients were included (ADA: 61.2%, IFX: 38.8%). The number of switches within 24 months was significantly lower with UST than with anti-TNF (27.6% vs 37.1%; p=0.038), and especially with IFX, whereby the difference between UST and IFX (27.6% vs 46.7%; p=0.003) proves to be statistically significant (Fig. 1). Clinical remission at two years was not statistically different for the overall UST vs anti-TNF groups (51.2% vs 54.4) (numerically higher in biologic-naïve UST- vs anti-TNF-patients, without statistically significance) (Tab. 1). Remission rates were similar for UST vs ADA, while they were significantly higher for UST vs IFX (54.4% vs 37.9%; p=0.008) (Tab. 2), and also significantly higher for ADA vs. IFX (58.2% vs 37.9%; p=0.003). As a sign of an improved QoL we observed a significant increase in EQ-VAS within both treatment groups. However, a similar increase in EQ-VAS was observed with UST and anti-TNF (+14.2 vs +12.3; p=0.147). Conclusion In this prospective two-year RWE comparison clinical remission was, also due to more frequent switches within the IFX group, significantly higher with UST when compared with IFX and higher with ADA than with IFX. Considering the effectiveness results of UST and the proven favourable safety profile, UST can be considered a first-line targeted therapy for CD.