15.07.2013 Views

marc lémann,* jean–yves mary,‡ bernard duclos,§ michel - IG-IBD

marc lémann,* jean–yves mary,‡ bernard duclos,§ michel - IG-IBD

marc lémann,* jean–yves mary,‡ bernard duclos,§ michel - IG-IBD

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

April 2006 INFLIXIMAB AND AZATHIOPRINE 1057<br />

Figure 1. Flow chart of patients<br />

randomized in the trial. The figures<br />

in parentheses correspond<br />

to the number of patients in the<br />

naive stratum and the failure<br />

stratum, respectively.<br />

Characteristics of the 113 enrolled patients are<br />

shown in Table 1. Comparability of the 2 treatment<br />

groups was verified for all clinical characteristics, except<br />

for the percentage of patients with active perianal<br />

lesions, the CDAI level in failure stratum, and the<br />

duration of steroid treatments in the naive stratum.<br />

Efficacy<br />

The numbers of patients available for efficacy<br />

evaluation at weeks 12, 24, and 52 are shown in Figure<br />

1. At week 24, the percentage of success (CDAI 150<br />

and off steroids) was significantly higher in the infliximab<br />

group than in the placebo group (57% vs 29%;<br />

OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5–7.4; P .003); the corresponding<br />

rates were 75% vs 38% (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 2.2–11.0; P<br />

.001) at week 12, and 40% vs 22% (OR, 2.4; 95% CI,<br />

1.0–5.7; P .04) at week 52 (Figure 2).<br />

There was no significant interaction between treatment<br />

and stratum (P .10; .32, and .82 at weeks 12,<br />

24, and 52, respectively). The comparison of infliximab<br />

and placebo in each stratum is indicated in Figure 3. In<br />

the naive stratum, at week 24, the percentage of success<br />

was significantly higher in the infliximab group than in<br />

the placebo group (63% vs 32%; OR, 3.7; 95% CI,<br />

1.1–11.3; P .02); the corresponding rates were 83% vs<br />

41% (OR, 7.1; 95% CI, 2.1–24.9; P .009) at week 12,<br />

and 52% vs 32%; (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, .7–6.9; P .14)<br />

at week 52. In the failure stratum, the success rate also<br />

was higher in the infliximab group than in the placebo<br />

group at week 24 (50% vs 26%; OR, 2.9; 95% CI,<br />

.9–9.3; P .08) and at week 12 (64% vs 34%; OR, 3.4;<br />

95% CI, 1.1–10.3; P .03); a trend was found at week<br />

52 (27% vs 12%; OR, 2.8; 95% CI, .6–12.4; P .16).<br />

These results must be considered cautiously because of<br />

the absence of demonstrable interaction.<br />

Steroid resistance was less common in the infliximab<br />

group than in the placebo group (5% vs 23%;<br />

OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 1.3–19.2; P .01). The median<br />

cumulative dose (interquartile range) of prednisone<br />

was lower in the infliximab group at 1110 mg/24 wk<br />

(630–1720 mg/24 wk) vs 1870 mg/24 wk (1110–<br />

2710 mg/24 wk) (P .002). The median (interquartile<br />

range) of the side-effect steroid score, however,

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!