Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology · 2015
Use of a third anti-TNF after failure of two previous anti-TNFs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: is it worth it?
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gisbert Javier P, Chaparro María
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Some patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) never respond or lose their response to a second anti-TNF.
AIM: To review the efficacy and safety of a third anti-TNF after failure of two previous anti-TNFs. Methods. Bibliographical searches in PubMed for studies evaluating infliximab, adalimumab, or certolizumab as the third anti-TNF in IBD patients whose two previous anti-TNF treatments had failed.
RESULTS: Two retrospective studies with a small sample size and limited follow up evaluated the effectiveness of a third anti-TNF patients whose two previous anti-TNFs had failed. The arguments for this switching strategy are as follows: a)favorable--albeit limited--efficacy (in the study by Allez et al., clinical response was observed in 51% of patients at week 20; and in the study by de Silva et al., over 50% of patients remained on the third anti-TNF at 1 year); b)the eventual response to the third anti-TNF is relatively quick; c) no other medical options have been approved for IBD treatment; d)the only alternative options are surgery, compassionate use with non-anti-TNFs, and clinical trials. However, there are also arguments against the prescription of a third anti-TNF: a)lack of experience, since the few available studies are limited by their small sample size; b)the relatively low response in the long term (mainly due to loss of response); c) and finally, and most importantly, the risk of severe adverse events.
CONCLUSION: The delicate balance between pros and cons means the use of a third anti-TNF after failure of two previous agents should be considered only in patients with no other therapeutic options. Decisions should be taken on an individual basis.
AIM: To review the efficacy and safety of a third anti-TNF after failure of two previous anti-TNFs. Methods. Bibliographical searches in PubMed for studies evaluating infliximab, adalimumab, or certolizumab as the third anti-TNF in IBD patients whose two previous anti-TNF treatments had failed.
RESULTS: Two retrospective studies with a small sample size and limited follow up evaluated the effectiveness of a third anti-TNF patients whose two previous anti-TNFs had failed. The arguments for this switching strategy are as follows: a)favorable--albeit limited--efficacy (in the study by Allez et al., clinical response was observed in 51% of patients at week 20; and in the study by de Silva et al., over 50% of patients remained on the third anti-TNF at 1 year); b)the eventual response to the third anti-TNF is relatively quick; c) no other medical options have been approved for IBD treatment; d)the only alternative options are surgery, compassionate use with non-anti-TNFs, and clinical trials. However, there are also arguments against the prescription of a third anti-TNF: a)lack of experience, since the few available studies are limited by their small sample size; b)the relatively low response in the long term (mainly due to loss of response); c) and finally, and most importantly, the risk of severe adverse events.
CONCLUSION: The delicate balance between pros and cons means the use of a third anti-TNF after failure of two previous agents should be considered only in patients with no other therapeutic options. Decisions should be taken on an individual basis.