Safety and Efficacy of Ustekinumab in the Treatment of Crohn Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Background and Aims

The present systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to estimate the safety and effectiveness of ustekinumab in the treatment of Crohn disease (CD) in clinical trials and observational studies.

Methods

We retrieved all the related publications from the PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO, Google Scholar and EMBASE databases using a systematic search strategy. We only included clinical trials and observational studies that were published in English.

Results

Only 31 studies that met the eligibility criteria out of the 733 identified studies were included. The overall clinical response rate in the cohort studies was of 0.539 (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.419–0.659), and in the clinical trials it was of 0.428 (95%CI: 0.356–0.501). The pooled clinical remission rate was of 0.399 (95%CI: 0.295–0.503) in randomized control trials (RCTs,) and of 0.440 (95%CI: 0.339–0.542) in cohort studies. The rate of adverse effects was of 0.158 (95%CI: 0.109–0.207) in cohort studies and of 0.690 (95%CI: 0.633–0.748) in RCTs.

Conclusion

Ustekinumab is effective in the treatment of CD. However, more research is required on the safety profiles because there was considerable variation among the included studies.

Keywords:
Crohn Disease; inflammatory bowel disease; interleukin; cytokine; biologics

Introduction

Crohn disease (CD) is an incapacitating and incurable inflammatory bowel disease.¹ It is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by inflammation in any part of the gastrointestinal tract, from the mouth to the anus. The terminal ileum and the right colon are the most commonly affected parts because they have the highest bacterial concentration.²,³,⁴ Although many different factors are associated with CD, its exact etiology remains unclear. However, there is evidence that suggests that an improper immune response of the gastrointestinal tract to various microbial or environmental stimuli in genetically susceptible patients is the cause.⁵

Patients with CD usually develop ulceration in the superficial layers of the bowel mucosa. It may spread deeper, developing granulomas in all the intestinal layers, resulting in a cobblestone appearance.³ The diagnosis of CD involves a combination of endoscopic, radiographic, and pathological examinations. The endoscopic score is the gold standard for assessing the severity of CD.⁶ Patients commonly present with abdominal pain, weight loss, or diarrhea that may be bloody. However, to a lesser extent, extraintestinal manifestations, such as peripheral arthritis, aphthous stomatitis, and uveitis, may develop.⁷,⁸,⁹ Moderate to severe cases require conventional therapy, including corticosteroids, which aims to suppress the inflammatory response. Resistant patients may need additional therapies, such as immunosuppressive drugs (thiopurines and methotrexate), antibiotic treatment, anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy, or even surgery in severe cases.¹⁰

Almost 50% of CD patients require surgical intervention within 10 years of diagnosis.¹¹ The ideal current medical approach is a combination of immunosuppressants and antitumor necrosis factor.¹² However, one third of the patients do not respond to treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF), and another one third exhibit a temporary effect that requires additional therapy.¹³ Previous studies have implicated interleukin-12 and interleukin-23 in the pathophysiology of CD. As reported, human monoclonal antibodies neutralizing interleukin 12 and interleukin 23 via the shared p40 subunit induce clinical response and remission in patients with active CD.¹⁴

Ustekinumab, a fully human immunoglobulin 1 monoclonal antibody, is the latest drug approved for moderate to severe CD. This drug blocks the biological activity of interleukin-12 and interleukin-23 through their shared p40 subunit by inhibiting receptors of these two cytokines on antigen-presenting cells, T cells, and natural killer cells.¹⁵ Ustekinumab can be administered subcutaneously or intravenously.¹⁶ Previous studies have shown that ustekinumab administration has increased the rates of remission and response in patients with moderate to severe CD.¹³,¹⁷

However, there are common reported adverse effects of long-term ustekinumab therapy, such as nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and diverticulitis.¹⁸ In the present systematic review, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in CD patients.

Methods

We performed the present systematic review and metaanalysis according to the principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)¹⁹ statement in the case of clinical trials, and on the principles of the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statement for observational studies.²⁰

Search Strategy and Data Collection

We searched the following online databases for studies published until April 2020: Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and PubMed, without any restrictions regarding time or language of publication. We performed our search using the following keywords: ustekinumab, Crohn’s, and regional enteritis, and we combined these words with AND or OR according to the manner suitable for the search. We downloaded the results and exported them into Endnote X8.0.1 (Build 1044) (Clarivate Analytics, Pennsylvania, PA, USA) with automatic removal of any duplicates by the computer. Thereafter, we exported the data into Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA) and screened the studies manually. First, we screened the title/abstract, and then we screened the full text to include the studies that fulfilled our eligibility criteria and to exclude those that did not fulfill the criteria. Disagreements were resolved by the corresponding author.

Eligibility Criteria and Outcome Measures

We included all the primary studies, including clinical trials, prospective and retrospective cohorts, and case-control studies. The population comprised patients with active CD of any degree. The intervention was ustekinumab given via any route of administration and at any dose in the induction and/or maintenance phases, either in a single-arm study or in comparison to healthy controls. The following outcomes were reported: clinical response, clinical remission, any adverse events, and infusion or injection reactions.

We excluded studies with other criteria. The reported outcomes were measured using C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, the Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI), erythrocyte sedimentation rate values, and short inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire scores. We defined the clinical response according to one of the following definitions: 1 - Decrease of Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) to > 100 points; 2 -reduction in the symptoms of the patient, combined with the will to continue Ustekinumab (UST); 3 - Decrease of HBI score to ≥ 3; 4 - Symptom reduction detected by either physician using global assessment; 5 - Decrease in the stool frequency or well-being, as detected with patient-reported clinical improvement. We defined clinical remission using one of the following definitions: 1 - HBI score < 5; 2 - CADI score < 150 at every time point in the study considering the baseline as the time point, with no change from the baseline score; 3 - Average frequency of stool every day of ≤ 2.8 at every time point in the study, considering baseline as the time point, with no change from the baseline value. The following study-related data were collected: first name of the author, year of publication, country in which the study was conducted, number of patients, route of induction (subcutaneous or intravenous), and the commonest maintenance schedule (every 4 weeks or 8 weeks). The following patient-related variables were recorded: mean age, gender, number of current smokers, duration of the disease (in years), disease location and behavior according to the Montreal classification, perianal disease, f CRP, HBI, and fecal calprotectin at baseline values, concomitant medications (systemic steroids and/or immunosuppressants) at baseline, and number of anti-TNF naïve patients.

Data Extraction and Analyses

We extracted our data and outcomes using Microsoft Excel. Thereafter, we performed our analysis using OpenMeta [Analyst] Software for the single-arm analysis. All the outcomes were dichotomous and were expressed as events and totals, analyzed using the Mantel-Hanszel method. We used the random-effects model for analyzing the heterogeneous data. Outcomes were reported and analyzed at the end of the induction phase and at the end of the maintenance phase (the last reported outcome during the follow-up in the two phases). For crossover studies, we reported the outcomes just before the crossover as the induction phase outcome, and the final follow-up outcome was recorded as the outcome at the end of the maintenance phase. Usually, the induction phase ended after 8 weeks, and the maintenance phase ended at between 24 and 52 weeks, according to the end-point assessed in each study. We expressed the heterogeneity as I2 with a 95% confidence interval (CI).²¹

Risk of Bias Assessment

We assessed each included study for the risk of bias (ROB) according to the Cochrane ROB tool for clinical trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale Quality Assessment Score for observational studies.²² We assessed each included study and judged them to have low, high, or unclear ROB in case of clinical trials, and by using the scoring system of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) assessment score for observational studies; we considered a total score of ≥ 4 in each study to indicate higher quality. Discrepancies among reviewers about qualitative and quantitative data collection were infrequent and were resolved via discussion until a consensus was reached. The total ROB was also assessed for the studies.

Results of the Literature Search

Our search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrial.gov databases yielded 733 studies. There were 172 duplicates. After removing the duplicates, the remaining 561 studies were subjected to title and abstract screening. We excluded 473 studies, and only 88 studies remained for full-text screening. According to the eligibility criteria, only 31 studies were eligible for the analysis and qualitative synthesis. A PRISMA flow diagram describes the literature search process in ►Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.

The total study population was of 4,487 patients. The majority of the included studies was observational cohort studies with 2,260 patients,²³,²⁴,²⁵,²⁶,²⁷,²⁸,²⁹,³⁰,³¹,³²,³³,³⁴,³⁵,³⁶,³⁷,³⁸,³⁹,⁴⁰,⁴¹,⁴²,⁴³,⁴⁴,⁴⁵,⁴⁶,⁴⁷,⁴⁸,⁴⁹ and 4 of the included studies were RCTs with 2,227 patients.¹³,¹⁷,⁵⁰,⁵¹ We have presented data on age, gender, location of CD disease, disease phenotype, route of administration, and drug dose.

Quality of the Included Studies

The included RCTs were of moderate to high quality according to the Cochrane tool for the assessment of ROB. Five trials in 4 unique reports stated adequate selective reporting,¹³,¹⁷,⁵⁰,⁵¹ except the study by Feagan from 2016⁵⁰; we categorized all the studies as having a high ROB due to attrition. Regarding allocation concealment, the ROB was unclear in all studies. All studies reported proper randomization; however, the randomization was unclear in the study reported by Hanauer in 2019⁵¹ was unclear. Participant blinding was performed in all studies except in the study conducted by Hanauer 2019.⁵¹ The researchers who assessed the outcomes in the previous study⁵¹ were not blinded; therefore, the study was considered to have a high ROB; the bias in the other studies was unclear. Some studies have reported other sources of bias.¹³,⁵⁰

The only single-arm trial was fair in quality according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool for before-after (pre-post) studies with no control group.⁴⁵

We assessed the other 26 cohort studies using the NIH quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional Studies. The quality of these studies ranged from fair to poor. Only one study showed good quality.⁴⁰ Fifteen studies were rated to have fair quality, ²³,²⁴,²⁶,²⁷,²⁹,³¹,³⁴,³⁵,³⁷,³⁸,³⁹,⁴¹,⁴²,⁴⁴,⁴⁷ and the remaining 10 trials were of poor quality.²⁵,²⁸,³⁰,³²,³³,³⁶,⁴³,⁴⁶,⁴⁸,⁴⁹

Results

Efficacy and Safety Outcomes

Clinical Response Rate

Twenty-one studies reported the clinical remission rate ¹³,¹⁷,²³,²⁴,²⁵,²⁶,²⁸,³⁰,³¹,³²,³³,³⁴,³⁵,³⁷,⁴⁰,⁴²,⁴⁴,⁴⁶,⁴⁸,⁴⁹,⁵⁰ ;3 of these were RCTs,¹³,¹⁷,⁵⁰ and the remaining 18 studies were observational cohort studies. ²³,²⁴,²⁵,²⁶,²⁸,³⁰,³¹,³²,³³,³⁴,³⁵,³⁷,⁴⁰,⁴²,⁴⁴,⁴⁶,⁴⁸,⁴⁹ The overall clinical response rate for the cohort studies was of 0.539(95% CI: 0.419–0.659) with significant heterogeneity (I² = 96.22%; p < 0.001) that could not be resolved using the leave-one-out tool or subgroup analysis according to country, administration route, or dose. In RCTs, the clinical response rate was of 0.428, (95%CI: 0.356–0.501) with significant heterogeneity (I² = 87.09%; p < 0.001); however, this was resolved by excluding the study by Sandborn.¹⁷ The clinical response rate became 0.466 (95%CI: 0.439–0.493), and the result became homogenous (I² = 0%; p = 0.702) (►Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
Pooled analysis of clinical response rate.

Clinical Remission Rate

The clinical remission rate was reported in 23 studies. ¹³,¹⁷,²³,²⁴,²⁵,²⁶,²⁷,²⁸,³⁰,³¹,³²,³⁴,³⁵,³⁷,³⁸,⁴¹,⁴²,⁴⁴,⁴⁵,⁴⁷,⁴⁸,⁵⁰,⁵¹ It was of 0.399 (95%CI: 0.295–0.503) in the RCTs¹³,¹⁷,⁴⁵,⁵⁰,⁵¹ and of 0.440 (95%CI: 0.339–0.542) in the cohort studies. ²³,²⁴,²⁵,²⁶,²⁷,²⁸,³⁰,³¹,³²,³⁴,³⁵,³⁷,³⁸,⁴¹,⁴²,⁴⁴,⁴⁷,⁴⁸ Both results were heterogeneous, (I² = 95.79%; p < 0.001) for the RCTs and for the cohort studies (I² =94.04%; p < 0.001). We could not resolve the heterogeneity by using the leave-one-out tool or the subgroup analysis according to country, administration route, or dose. (►Fig. 3)

Fig. 3
Pooled analysis of clinical remission rate.

Adverse Effects

The incidence of adverse effects was reported in 21 studies, ¹³,¹⁷,²⁴,²⁶,²⁸,²⁹,³⁰,³¹,³²,³³,³⁴,³⁵,³⁷,³⁸,⁴¹,⁴²,⁴⁴,⁴⁷,⁴⁸,⁴⁹,⁵⁰ at 0.158 (95%CI: 0.109– 0.207) for the cohort studies ²⁴,²⁶,²⁸,²⁹,³⁰,³¹,³²,³³,³⁴,³⁵,³⁷,³⁸,⁴¹,⁴²,⁴⁴,⁴⁷,⁴⁸,⁴⁹ and at 0.690 (95%CI: 0.633–0.748) for the RCTs.¹³,¹⁷,⁵⁰ Both results were heterogeneous; (I²= 90.08%; p < 0.001) for the cohort studies and (I² = 82; p = 0.004) for the RCTs. We could not resolve the heterogeneity with the leave-one-out tool or subgroup analysis according to country, administration route, or dose. (►Fig. 4)

Fig. 4
Pooled analysis of adverse events.

Incidence of Infections

Twenty-one studies reported the incidence of infection outcomes. ¹³,¹⁷,²⁴,²⁵,²⁹,³⁰,³¹,³²,³³,³⁴,³⁵,³⁶,³⁷,³⁹,⁴¹,⁴²,⁴³,⁴⁷,⁴⁸,⁴⁹,⁵⁰ Three of these studies were RCTs with an infection incidence of 0.275 (95%CI: 0.245–0.295),¹³,¹⁷,⁵⁰ and the remaining were cohort studies with an infection incidence of 0.076 (95%CI: 0.047– 0.105).²⁴,²⁵,²⁹,³⁰,³¹,³²,³³,³⁴,³⁵,³⁶,³⁷,³⁹,⁴¹,⁴²,⁴³,⁴⁷,⁴⁸,⁴⁹ The result was significantly homogenous in the analyses of the RCTs; (I² = 0%; p = 0.74), while it was heterogeneous in the analysis of the cohort studies (I² = 84.45%; p < 0.001). The heterogeneity could not be solved by using the leave-one-out method or subgroup analyses according to country, dose, or administration route. (►Fig. 5)

Fig. 5
Pooled analysis of the incidence of infections.

The Injection or Injection Reaction

Only 10 studies reported the incidence of injection or infusion reaction, at 0.035 (95%CI: 0.027–0.043) for RCTs¹³,¹⁷,⁵⁰ and at 0.012 (95%CI: 0.002–0.022) for cohort studies.²⁵,²⁹,³⁵,³⁷,⁴¹,⁴⁷,⁴⁹ The result was significantly homogeneous in the analyses of RCTs (I² = 0%; p = 0.389), while it was heterogeneous in the cohort studies analyses (I² = 48.71%; p = 0.069). The heterogeneity could not be resolved using the leave-one-out method or subgroup analysis according to country, dose, or administration route. (►Fig. 6)

Fig. 6
Pooled analysis of injection reactions.

Discussion

In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we pooled data from a total of 27 observational cohort studies ²³,²⁴,²⁵,²⁶,²⁷,²⁸,²⁹,³⁰,³¹,³²,³³,³⁴,³⁵,³⁶,³⁷,³⁸,³⁹,⁴⁰,⁴¹,⁴²,⁴³,⁴⁴,⁴⁵,⁴⁶,⁴⁷,⁴⁸,⁴⁹ and 4 RCTs,¹³,¹⁷,⁵⁰,⁵¹ including a total of 4,487 patients. Our study discusses the safety and efficacy of ustekinumab treatment in patients with moderate to severe CD.

Based on the present results, patients with CD who used ustekinumab had a high clinical response rate (53.9%) and a high clinical remission rate (39.9%) in the observational and RCT subgroups. Moreover, our analysis showed a low prevalence of overall drug-related adverse effects (15.8%), of total incidence of infections (7.6%), and of frequency of druginduced reactions (3.5%). Our meta-analysis indicated that ustekinumab is well tolerated and is associated with clinical responses and remissions in CD patients.

The subgroup analysis, based on the study design, RCT or cohort study, showed consistent and comparable effects in terms of the response and remission rates. However, the subgroup of RCTs had higher rates of total drug-attributed adverse effects, of total incidence of infections, and of drug-induced reactions.

The results obtained from the present systematic review and meta-analysis are clinically significant and can be applied to patients with moderate to severe CD because the studies included in the present report were of moderate to high quality and employed large samples. Moreover, ustekinumab use could be generalized to different populations in which the drug had proven good effect and low incidence of adverse effects.

Ustekinumab was first used for treating patients with moderate to severe CD in an RCT by Sandborn et al. in 2008.¹³ This study showed that ustekinumab induced a clinical response in CD patients with a moderate to severe disease score, particularly if they had been taking infliximab drugs. A more recent study by Sandborn et al.¹⁷ showed the beneficial effect of ustekinumab in patients who did not benefit from TNF antagonists. The initial response to ustekinumab showed better response and remission rates during the maintenance phase in this study. A recent meta-analysis of observational studies showed that ustekinumab had an adequate effectiveness level and a good safety profile.⁵² In fact, other similar drugs achieved similar response rates.⁵³

The RCTs included in our analysis were of moderate to high quality, and the observational cohort studies were of moderate quality. We followed the PRISMA and MOOSE statements strictly while performing and reporting the present meta-analysis. Furthermore, we conducted all steps of the present systematic review according to the Cochrane handbook of systematic reviews for interventions.

The studies included in our meta-analysis had a high dropout rate. However, these studies were analyzed based on the intention-to-treat approach.

The present study has certain limitations. First, we could not compare ustekinumab to other similar treatments or placebo due to a lack of available evidence. Second, we found significant heterogeneity within the included studies for almost all outcomes; this variation could not be resolved with the use of the leave-one-out method or subgroup analysis based on the country, dose, or administration route. This heterogeneity might be attributed to the use of the drug in different populations with variable demographic and disease characteristics. Finally, we could not determine the publication bias among the included studies because the open meta-analyst software does not enable this type of analysis.⁵⁴

We have some recommendations for future research on this subject using this drug. These include the implementation of large-sized RCTs with longer follow-up periods. Moreover, future studies should compare ustekinumab to the best available drug used for these cases to use it at a broader level and integrate it into the conventional treatment for CD.

Conclusion

Our analysis showed that, in patients with moderate to severe CD, treatment with ustekinumab was well tolerated and was associated with high response and remission rates. Future large-sized RCTs are needed to obtain a deeper understanding regarding the effect of ustekinumab in patients with CD.

References

• ¹
  Khan S, Rupniewska E, Neighbors M, Singer D, Chiarappa J, Obando C. Real-world evidence on adherence, persistence, switching and dose escalation with biologics in adult inflammatory bowel disease in the United States: A systematic review. J Clin Pharm Ther 2019;44(04):495–507
• ²
  Wilkins T, Jarvis K, Patel J. Diagnosis and management of Crohn’s disease. Am Fam Physician 2011;84(12):1365–1375
• ³
  Greuter T, Piller A, Fournier N, et al; Swiss IBD Cohort Study Group. Upper gastrointestinal tract involvement in Crohn’s Disease: frequency, risk factors, and disease course. J Crohn’s Colitis 2018;12(12):1399–1409
• ⁴
  Uhlig HH, Schwerd T, Koletzko S, et al; COLORS in IBD Study Group and NEOPICS. The diagnostic approach to monogenic very early onset inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 2014;147 (05):990–1007.e3
• ⁵
  Zaidi D, Wine E. Regulation of Nuclear Factor Kappa-Light-Chain-Enhancer of Activated B Cells (NF-ĸβ) in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Front Pediatr 2018;6:317. Published 2018 Oct 30
• ⁶
  Gajendran M, Loganathan P, Catinella AP, Hashash JG. A comprehensive review and update on Crohn’s disease. Dis Mon 2018;64 (02):20–57
• ⁷
  Bernstein CN, Blanchard JF, Rawsthorne P, Yu N. The prevalence of extraintestinal diseases in inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96(04):1116–1122
• ⁸
  Vavricka SR, Brun L, Ballabeni P, et al. Frequency and risk factors for extraintestinal manifestations in the Swiss inflammatory bowel disease cohort. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106(01):110–119
• ⁹
  Lennard-Jones JE, Shivananda S. Clinical uniformity of inflammatory bowel disease a presentation and during the first year of disease in the north and south of Europe. EC-IBD Study Group. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1997 Apr;9(04):353–359
• ¹⁰
  Ha F, Khalil H. Crohn’s disease: a clinical update. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2015;8(06):352–359
• ¹¹
  Boyapati R, Satsangi J, Ho GT. Pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease. F1000Prime Rep 2015 Apr 2;7:44
• ¹²
  Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Reinisch W, Mantzaris GJ, Kornbluth A, Rachmilewitz D, Lichtiger S, D’Haens G, Diamond RH, Broussard DL, Tang KL, van der Woude CJ, Rutgeerts P; SONIC Study Group. Infliximab, azathioprine, or combination therapy for Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2010 Apr 15;362(15):1383–1395
• ¹³
  Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Fedorak RN, et al; Ustekinumab Crohn’s Disease Study Group. A randomized trial of Ustekinumab, a human interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibody, in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2008;135(04):1130–1141
• ¹⁴
  Mannon PJ, Fuss IJ, Mayer L, Elson CO, Sandborn WJ, Present D, Dolin B, Goodman N, Groden C, Hornung RL, Quezado M, Yang Z, Neurath MF, Salfeld J, Veldman GM, Schwertschlag U, Strober W; Anti-IL-12 Crohn’s Disease Study Group. Anti-interleukin-12 antibody for active Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2004 Nov 11;351(20):2069-79. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa033402. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 24;352(12):1276. Yang, Zhiqiong [added]
  » https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa033402
• ¹⁵
  Benson JM, Peritt D, Scallon BJ, et al. Discovery and mechanism of ustekinumab: a human monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-12 and interleukin-23 for treatment of immune-mediated disorders. MAbs 2011;3(06):535–545
• ¹⁶
  Simon EG, Ghosh S, Iacucci M, Moran GW. Ustekinumab for the treatment of Crohn’s disease: can it find its niche? Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2016;9(01):26–36
• ¹⁷
  Sandborn WJ, Gasink C, Gao LL, et al; CERTIFI Study Group. Ustekinumab induction and maintenance therapy in refractory Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2012;367(16):1519–1528
• ¹⁸
  Papp KA, Griffiths CEM, Gordon K, et al; PHOENIX 1 Investigators PHOENIX 2 Investigators ACCEPT Investigators. Long-term safety of ustekinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis: final results from 5 years of follow-up. Br J Dermatol 2013;168 (04):844–854
• ¹⁹
  Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Medicine 2009;6 (07):e1000097
• ²⁰
  Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Metaanalysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283(15):2008–2012
• ²¹
  Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557–560
• ²²
  Modesti PA, Reboldi G, Cappuccio FP, Agyemang C, Remuzzi G, Rapi S, Perruolo E, Parati G; ESH Working Group on CV Risk in Low Resource Settings. Panethnic Differences in Blood Pressure in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One 2016 Jan 25;11(01):e0147601
• ²³
  Ahmed Z, Venkata K, Zhang N, Malik TA. Comparative effectiveness of ustekinumab versus adalimumab in induction of clinical response and remission in Crohn’s Disease: experience of a realworld cohort at a tertiary care inflammatory bowel disease referral center. Gastroenterol Res 2019;12(05):245–251
• ²⁴
  Battat R, Kopylov U, Bessissow T, et al. Association between Ustekinumab trough concentrations and clinical, biomarker, and endoscopic outcomes in patients with Crohn’s Disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15(09):1427–1434.e2
• ²⁵
  Biemans VBC, van der Meulen-de Jong AE, van der Woude CJ, et al. Ustekinumab for Crohn’s Disease: Results of the ICC Registry, a nationwide prospective observational cohort study. J Crohn’s Colitis 2020;14(01):33–45
• ²⁶
  Chavannes M, Martinez-Vinson C, Hart L, et al. Management of paediatric patients with medically refractory Crohn’s disease using Ustekinumab: a multi-centred cohort study. J Crohn’s Colitis 2019;13(05):578–584
• ²⁷
  Dayan JR, Dolinger M, Benkov K, et al. Real world experience with ustekinumab in children and young adults at a tertiary care pediatric inflammatory bowel disease center. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2019;69(01):61–67
• ²⁸
  Eberl A, Hallinen T, Af Björkesten CG, et al. Ustekinumab for Crohn’s disease: a nationwide real-life cohort study from Finland (FINUSTE). Scand J Gastroenterol 2019;54(06):718–725
• ²⁹
  Greenup AJ, Rosenfeld G, Bressler B. Ustekinumab use in Crohn’s disease: a Canadian tertiary care centre experience. Scand J Gastroenterol 2017;52(12):1354–1359
• ³⁰
  Harris KA, Horst S, Gadani A, et al. Patients with refractory Crohn’s Disease successfully treated with Ustekinumab. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2016;22(02):397–401
• ³¹
  Iborra M, Beltrán B, Fernández-Clotet A, et al; GETECCU Group (Grupo Español de Trabajo en Enfermedad de Crohn y Colitis Ulcerosa) Real-world short-term effectiveness of ustekinumab in 305 patients with Crohn’s disease: results from the ENEIDA registry. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2019;50(03):278–288
• ³²
  Khorrami S, Ginard D, Marín-Jiménez I, et al. Ustekinumab for the Treatment of Refractory Crohn’s Disease: The Spanish Experience in a Large Multicentre Open-label Cohort. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2016;22(07):1662–1669
• ³³
  Kopylov U, Afif W, Cohen A, et al. Subcutaneous ustekinumab for the treatment of anti-TNF resistant Crohn’s disease–the McGill experience. J Crohn’s Colitis 2014;8(11):1516–1522
• ³⁴
  Kubesch A, Rueter L, Farrag K, Krause T, Stienecker K, Hausmann J, Filmann N, Dignass A, Stein J, Blumenstein I. Short and Long-Term Effectiveness of Ustekinumab in Patients with Crohn’s Disease: Real-World Data from a German IBD Cohort. J Clin Med 2019 Dec 4;8(12):2140
• ³⁵
  Liefferinckx C, Verstockt B, Gils A, et al; Belgian Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research and Development Group [BIRD group]. Long-term clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab in patients with Crohn’s disease who failed biologic therapies: A national cohort study. J Crohn’s Colitis 2019;13(11):1401–1409
• ³⁶
  Lightner AL, McKenna NP, Tse CS, et al. Postoperative outcomes in Ustekinumab- treated patients undergoing abdominal operations for Crohn’s disease. J Crohn’s Colitis 2018;12(04):402–407
• ³⁷
  Ma C, Fedorak RN, Kaplan GG, et al. Clinical, endoscopic and radiographic outcomes with ustekinumab in medically-refractory Crohn’s disease: real world experience from a multicentre cohort. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2017;45(09):1232–1243
• ³⁸
  Miyazaki T, Watanabe K, Kojima K, et al. Efficacies and related issues of Ustekinumab in Japanese patients with Crohn’s Disease: a preliminary study. Digestion 2020;101(01):53–59
• ³⁹
  Novello M, Stocchi L, Holubar S, et al. Surgical outcomes of patients treated with ustekinumab vs. vedolizumab in inflammatory bowel disease: a matched case analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2019;34(03):451–457
• ⁴⁰
  Painchart C, Brabant S, Duveau N, et al. Ustekinumab serum trough levels may identify suboptimal responders to ustekinumab in Crohn’s Disease. Dig Dis Sci 2020;65(05):1445–1452
• ⁴¹
  Rowan CR, Keegan D, Byrne K, et al. Subcutaneous rather than intravenous ustekinumab induction is associated with comparable circulating drug levels and early clinical response: a pilot study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2018;48(03):333–339
• ⁴²
  Saman S, Goetz M, Wendler J, Malek NP, Wehkamp J, Klag T. Ustekinumab is effective in biological refractory Crohn’s disease patients-regardless of approval study selection criteria. Intest Res 2019;17(03):340–348
• ⁴³
  Shim HH, Ma C, Kotze PG, et al. Preoperative Ustekinumab treatment is not associated with increased postoperative complications in Crohn’s Disease: A Canadian multi-centre observational cohort study. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol 2018;1(03):115–123
• ⁴⁴
  Bar-Gil Shitrit A, Ben-Ya’acov A, Siterman M, et al. Safety and effectiveness of ustekinumab for induction of remission in patients with Crohn’s disease: A multicenter Israeli study. United European Gastroenterol J 2020;8(04):418–424
• ⁴⁵
  Soufflet N, Boschetti G, Roblin X, et al. Concentrations of Ustekinumab during induction therapy associate with remission in patients with Crohn’s Disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17(12):2610–2612
• ⁴⁶
  Thomann AK, Schulte L-A, Globig A-M, et al. Ustekinumab serum concentrations are associated with clinical outcomes in Crohn’s disease - a regional multi-center pilot study. Z Gastroenterol 2020;58(05):439–444
• ⁴⁷
  Verstockt B, Dreesen E, Noman M, et al. Ustekinumab Exposureoutcome Analysis in Crohn’s Disease Only in Part Explains Limited Endoscopic Remission Rates. J Crohn’s Colitis 2019;13(07): 864–872
• ⁴⁸
  Weaver KN, Gregory M, Syal G, et al. Ustekinumab is effective for the treatment of crohn’s disease of the pouch in a multicenter cohort. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2019;25(04):767–774
• ⁴⁹
  Wils P, Bouhnik Y, Michetti P, et al; Groupe d’Etude Thérapeutique des Affections Inflammatoires du Tube Digestif. Subcutaneous Ustekinumab Provides clinical benefit for two-thirds of patients with Crohn’s Disease Refractory to anti-tumor necrosis factor agents. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;14(02):242–50. e1, 2
• ⁵⁰
  Feagan BG, Sandborn WJ, Gasink C, et al; UNITI–IM-UNITI Study Group. Ustekinumab as induction and maintenance therapy for Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2016;375(20): 1946–1960
• ⁵¹
  Hanauer SB, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. IM-UNITI: Three-year Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Ustekinumab Treatment of Crohn’s Disease. J Crohn’s Colitis 2020;14(01):23–32
• ⁵²
  Macaluso FS, Maida M, Ventimiglia M, Cottone M, Orlando A. Effectiveness and safety of Ustekinumab for the treatment of Crohn’s disease in real-life experiences: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2020;20(02): 193–203
• ⁵³
  Ebada MA, Elmatboly AM, Ali AS, et al. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis about the safety and efficacy of infliximab biosimilar, CT-P13, for patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Int J Colorectal Dis 2019;34(10):1633–1652
• ⁵⁴
  Wallace BC, Schmid CH, Lau J, et al. Meta-Analyst: software for meta-analysis of binary, continuous and diagnostic data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009;9:80

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  15 Aug 2022
• Date of issue
  June 2022

History

• Received
  01 Oct 2020
• Accepted
  18 Jan 2021