PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 9, 2026JAMA Network Open2 citationsOpen Access

Comparative Safety of Advanced Therapies for Crohn Disease

View Full Paper
SPS K ParkDADhruv AhujaKYKuan-Hung Yeh

Key Points

  • To evaluate the comparative safety of advanced therapies for Crohn disease regarding serious infections, VTE, and MACE.
  • Retrospective comparative effectiveness research study conducted using an administrative claims database.
  • Included patients with Crohn disease from 2016 to 2022 who initiated advanced therapy treatments.
  • Outcomes measured included serious infections, VTE, and MACE, analyzed through propensity score-based methods.
  • Serious infection rates between therapies varied but were not statistically significant.
  • VTE and MACE incidence rates were low across all therapies with no significant differences detected.
  • Findings support that effectiveness, rather than safety concerns, should guide therapy decisions for Crohn disease.

Abstract

Importance With the availability of multiple classes of advanced therapies for the treatment of Crohn disease (CD), understanding the comparative safety of different therapies can inform treatment positioning. Objective To compare the risk of serious infections, venous thromboembolism (VTE), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with different advanced therapies in patients with CD. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective comparative effectiveness research study was conducted between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2022, with a mean (SD) follow-up of 26.9 (2.4) months until July 1, 2024. Using an administrative claims database (OptumLabs Data Warehouse), commercially insured patients with CD, who initiated treatment with tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF) antagonists, anti-integrin agents (vedolizumab), interleukin (IL)-12/23p40 antagonists (ustekinumab), IL-23p19 antagonists (primarily risankizumab), or Janus kinase inhibitors (upadacitinib) between 2016 and 2022 and had follow-up for at least 1 year before and after treatment initiation, were included. Exposure TNF antagonists vs anti-integrin agents (vedolizumab) vs IL-12/23p40 antagonists (ustekinumab) vs IL-23p19 antagonists (risankizumab) vs Janus kinase inhibitors (upadacitinib). Main Outcomes and Measures The risk of serious infections, VTE, and MACE was compared with various advanced therapies through multinomial propensity score-based inverse probability treatment weighting, with propensity scores estimated through generalized boosted models, accounting for disease characteristics, health care utilization, comorbidities, and prior and concomitant medications, and through competing risk of mortality. Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for multiple treatment comparisons were calculated. Results This study included 12 245 patients with CD (mean SD age, 46.5 17.5 years; 6642 females 54.2%), who were treated with TNF antagonists (n = 5274), vedolizumab (n = 2716), ustekinumab (n = 3544), risankizumab (n = 559), or upadacitinib (n = 152). Serious infection incidence rates ranged from 5.46 (95% CI, 4.86-6.07) to 9.02 (95% CI, 6.38-11.89) per 100 person-years across therapies. After adjusting for confounding variables, there were no statistically significant differences in the risk of serious infections across different agents, including between risankizumab and ustekinumab (HR, 1.14 95% CI, 0.78-1.67), risankizumab and TNF antagonists (HR, 1.00 95% CI, 0.68-1.47), or ustekinumab and TNF antagonists (HR, 0.88 95% CI, 0.74-1.04). The incidence of VTE (incidence rate, 0.90 95% CI, 0.71-1.10 to 2.33 95% CI, 1.06-3.82 per 100 person-years) and MACE (0.68 95% CI, 0.51-0.85 to 1.49 95% CI, 0.43-2.76 per 100 person-years) was low, without any significant differences across agents. Conclusions and Relevance In this comparative effectiveness research study of patients with CD, no significant differences in the risks of serious infections, VTE, or MACE across various advanced therapies were found. These findings support clinical decision-making on choice of advanced therapies for most individual patients with CD to be driven primarily by comparative treatment effectiveness rather than driven by concerns of serious adverse events.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Park et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/698979a6f0ec2af6756e76adhttps://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.57922
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper