Retrospective multicenter study compares vedolizumab and ustekinumab effectiveness in Crohn’s disease, indicating ustekinumab may offer quicker relief and better treatment maintenance.
Background Optimal sequencing of therapy in Crohn’s disease after anti-TNF failure remains uncertain. We compared the real-world effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab and ustekinumab in this setting. Methods This retrospective multicenter cohort included 482 patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease from 14 tertiary centers in Türkiye who received vedolizumab (n = 247) or ustekinumab (n = 235) after ≥1 anti-TNF. Clinical remission (Harvey–Bradshaw Index <5) and steroid-free clinical remission at weeks 14 and 52 were primary outcomes. Long-term response, treatment persistence, and safety were also assessed using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results At week 14, ustekinumab showed higher clinical remission (aOR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.15–1.94) and steroid-free clinical remission (aOR = 1.42, 95% CI:1.10–1.83) than vedolizumab (Table 1). Superiority persisted in patients with prior biologic exposure, though outcomes were similar among those with ≥2 biologics (Figure 1). At weeks 52 and 104, clinical remission and steroid-free clinical remission rates were comparable between groups (Table 1). Treatment persistence was significantly greater with ustekinumab (78.5% vs 53.1% after inverse probability of treatment weighting; aOR = 3.22, 95% CI: 2.43–4.27), and secondary loss of response was lower (14.5% vs 38.5%, p < 0.001). Adverse events were infrequent and similar across groups, with few serious events Conclusion In anti-TNF–experienced Crohn’s disease, ustekinumab provided superior early remission and higher treatment persistence compared with vedolizumab, while long-term efficacy and safety were similar. ustekinumab may be favored where rapid disease control and treatment durability are required, though both agents remain important therapeutic options. Conflict of interest: Sezgin, Orhan: Barutcu, Sezgin: No conflict of interest Dr. Araz, Filiz: No conflict of interest Bengi, Goksel: no conflicts Unal, Nalan Gulsen: No conflict of interest Akpinar, Hale: No conflict of interest Özer, Birol: No conflict of interest Hakim, Gozde: No conflict of interest Oruç, Nevin: No conflict of interest Karaogullarindan, Umit: No conflict of interest Altintas, Engin: No conflict of interest Ozseker, Burak: No conflict of interest Kasap, Elmas: No conflict of interest Ates, Fehmi: No conflict of interest Atay, Kadri: No conflict of interest Ucbilek, Enver: No conflict of interest Gişi, Kadir: No conflict of interest Kara, Banu: No conflict of interest Cekin, Ayhan Hilmi: No conflict of interest Akbay Harmandar, Ferda: No conflict of interest Yilmaz, Nimet: No conflict of interest Tasdogan, Burcak Evren: No conflict of interest Seydaoğlu, Gülşah: No conflict of interest Harput, Zekiye Nur: none Şahan, Mehmet Ali: No conflict of interest Aykut, Burak Mert: No conflict of interest Dolu, Süleyman: No conflict of interest Odabaş, Emre: No conflict of interest Kara, Taner: No conflict of interest Mamadov, Etibar: No conflict of interest Tuncel, Elif Tuğba: No conflict of interest Kuş, Mesut: No conflict of interest Çapar, Halil: No conflict of interest Çetin, Duran Deha: No conflict of interest Atar, Galip Egemen: No conflict of interest Yücel, Sevinç Püren: No conflict of interest
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sezgin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: