The impact of biological interventions for ulcerative colitis on health-related quality of life

Background Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the colon that has a relapsing‐remitting course. Health related quality of life (HRQL) is significantly lower in patients with UC than the general population due to the negative effects of the disease on physical, psychological and social well‐being. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating medical interventions for UC have traditionally used clinical disease activity indices that focus on symptoms to define primary outcomes such as clinical remission or improvement. However, this approach does not evaluate benefits that are highly relevant to patients such as HRQL Objectives The primary objective was to assess the impact of biologic therapy on the HRQL of UC patients. Search methods We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL from inception to September, 2015. Conference abstracts and reference lists were also searched. Selection criteria RCTs that compared biologics to placebo in UC patients and reported on HRQL using the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ), or the SF‐36 or EQ‐5D to measure HRQL were included. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was improvement in HRQL. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome was assessed using GRADE. Main results Nine RCTs (n = 4143) were included. Biologics included rituximab (one small study), interferon‐ß‐1a (one study), vedolizumab (one study), and the tumor necrosis factor‐alpha (TNF‐α) antagonists infliximab (two studies), adalimumab (three studies), and golimumab (one study). Risk of bias was low in eight studies. The rituximab study was judged to be at high risk of bias due to attrition bias. The studies comparing interferon‐ß‐1a and rituximab to placebo found no clear evidence of a difference in the proportion of patients who experienced an improvement in HRQL at 8 or 12 weeks respectively. The proportion of patients with a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQL at 6 or 52 weeks was significantly higher in vedolizumab patients compared to placebo. At 6 weeks 37% (83/225) of vedolizumab patients had an improvement in IBDQ score of at least 16 points from baseline compared to 23% (34/149) of placebo patients (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.27; 1 study). At 52 weeks, 64% (157/247) of vedolizumab patients had an improvement in IBDQ score of at least 16 points from baseline compared to 38% (48/126) of placebo patients (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.27; 1 study). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting these outcomes was moderate due to sparse data (< 400 events). Patients who received maintenance vedolizumab every eight weeks had significantly higher mean SF‐36 scores than placebo patients at 52 weeks (MD 3.40, 95% CI 1.56 to 5.24, 1 study 248 patients). This difference appears to be clinically meaningful as the lower boundary for a clinically meaningful change in SF‐36 is three points. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (< 400 events). Adalimumab patients had significantly higher mean IBDQ scores than placebo patients at weeks 8 (MD 9.00, 95% CI 2.65 to 15.35; 1 study, 494 patients) and 52 (MD 8.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 15.32; 1 study, 494 patients). However, these differences may not be clinically meaningful as the lower boundary for a clinically meaningful change in IBDQ is 16 points. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (< 400 events). Golimumab patients who received a dose of 200/100 mg (MD 12.20, 95% CI 6.52 to 17.88; 504 patients) or 400/200 mg (MD 12.10, 95% CI 6.40 to 17.80; 508 patients) had significantly higher mean IBDQ scores than placebo patients at week 6. Although a GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting these outcomes was high, the difference in IBDQ scores may not be clinically meaningful. Infliximab patients had significantly higher mean IBDQ scores at week 6 or 8 than placebo patients (MD 18,58, 95% CI 13.19 to 23.97; 2 studies, 529 patients). This difference in HRQL is clinically meaningful. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was high. The proportion of patients with a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQL at eight weeks was significantly higher in infliximab patients compared to placebo. Sixty‐nine per cent (333/484) of infliximab patients had an improvement in IBDQ score of > 16 points from baseline compared to 50% of placebo patients (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.60; 1 study). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was high. Similar results were found between infliximab and placebo when HRQL was measured using the SF‐36 instrument. One small study (n = 43) found no difference in HRQL between infliximab and placebo when measured by the EQ‐5D. Pooled analyses of TNF‐α antagonists showed a benefit in HRQL favouring TNF‐α over placebo. Authors' conclusions These results suggest that biologics have the potential to improve HRQL in UC patients. High quality evidence suggests that infliximab provides a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQL in UC patients receiving induction therapy. Moderate quality evidence suggests that vedolizumab provides a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQL in UC patients receiving maintenance therapy. These findings are important since there is a paucity of effective drugs for the treatment of UC that have the potential to both decrease disease activity and improve HRQL. More research is needed to assess the long‐term effect of biologic therapy on HRQL in patients with UC. More research is needed to assess the impact of golimumab and adalimumab on HRQL in UC patients. Trials involving direct head to head comparisons of biologics would help determine which biologics provide optimum benefit for HRQL.