Fenster, Marc

Abstract Background We aimed to describe the real-world durability of clinical and endoscopic outcomes of upadacitinib (UPA) in ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods We retrospectively analyzed an ongoing multi-center cohort of UC patients(pts) in the United States who were started on UPA for active disease. Primary outcome was clinical remission at 1yr assessed by partial Mayo score(pMS)(resolution of all UC related symptoms and physician global assessment). Secondary outcomes assessed at various timepoints, including after re-escalation, included clinical response(>50%reduction in symptoms utilizing the pMS), endoscopic response (Mayo endoscopic score≤1or absence of erosions/ulcerations) and histological remission(defined as normal or chronic inactive). Durable secondary outcomes achieved at both 6months and at 1yr and beyond were also assessed. Descriptive statistics were performed. Adverse events(AEs) investigated included cardiovascular events and herpes zoster (HZ). Results 416pts were included(Table 1) with median values for age at initiation of36.00yrs(range27-48), disease duration7.00yrs(range3-14)and follow-up 993days(IQR,672-1103), with206(49.52%)with follow-up at 1yr or beyond. Of these, 66.1%had extensive colitis. Induction duration was8wks in 86.5%and16wks in 4.8 %(20/416). Most received an induction dose of45mg(97.1%)and maintenance dose of30mg(85.8%). Among the evaluable population at1yr and beyond, 62.5%(45/80)were in clinical remission, 75.9%(22/29)in endoscopic response with58.6%(17/29) in remission and66.6%(20/30)in histological remission. At 6months, clinical remission was51.6%(42/93), endoscopic response was 75%(24/32) of which43.75%(14/32)were in remission and histologic remission was seen in 40.8%(20/49).Durable secondary outcomes of clinical remission were seen in 71.4%(30/42), endoscopic improvement in 45.8%(11/24), and histologic remission in35%(7/20). Re-escalation to 45mg occurred in 35pts, of which48.6%(17/35)were re-escalated due to incomplete induction clinical response with all achieving response(11 in remission). The rest(18/35)were re-escalated for clinical relapse after initial remission where72.2%(13/18)were able to recapture remission. After re-escalation,54.3%(19/35)continued on 45mg daily. AEs were reported in12.7%with HZ in 7pts(2.1%). One pt aged53yrs had an episode of TIA after 1yr on UPA at 15mg, without pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors and UPA use is ongoing at the same dose. There were no reported episodes of worsening of pre-existing cardiovascular disease or DVT/PE. Conclusion UPA is durably effective and safe in a real-world clinical setting with re-escalation to 45mg capturing response in a majority of the pts. Ongoing recruitment will provide further evidence on long term effectiveness and safety. Conflict of interest: Ms. Huang, Katherine: No conflict of interest Chandnani, Arun: No conflict of interest Samaan, Sami: None Tan, Tingyi: I have no conflict of interests to declare. Ramesh, Prajith Raj: None Conlon, Caroline: No conflict of interest Klein, Jeremy: None Reddy, Nikhil: No conflict of interest Ayoub, Malek: None Cervantes Limon, Gabriela: none Myers, Melissa: None Bucaram, Martha: No conflict of interest Lieto, Stephen: No conflict of interest Scalzo, Nicholas: No conflict of interest Cohen, Benjamin: Abbvie - consulting and speaking ALPCO - consulting J & J Innovative Medicine - consulting Takeda - consulting and speaking Emmes Biopharma Services LLC - DSMB Pfizer - consulting Mohamed, Islam: nothing to declare Ciorba, Matthew: Advisory Board: Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Geneoscopy Consulting: Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Geneoscopy Grant contracts: Janssen, Pfizer, Incyte Shukla, Richa: Speakers bureau - Abbvie and Lilly Wright, Michael: None Xu, An Tao: No conflict of interest Chowla, Navreet: No conflict of interest Ogholikhan, Sina: Abbvie Medical Director Kujawski, Michelle: Abbvie Scientific Director Dulaney, David: Speaker bureau - Regeneron Speaker bureau - Sanofi Speaker bureau - Takeda Speaker bureau - Eli Lilly Fenster, Marc: none Benson, Caroline: No conflict of interest Alhobayb, Tamara: No conflict of interest Berinstein, Jeffrey: No conflict of interest Shivashankar, Raina: Abbvie and BMS - speaker bureau Janssen and Celltrion - grant for IBD fellowship funding Pfizer - consultant Bishu, Shrinivas: None Patel, Anish: speaker: abbvie, J & J, Lilly, BMS, Pfizer, Phathom, Takeda consultant: abbvie Ungaro, Ryan: Personal Fees: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen, Takeda Johnson, Amanda: Research grant: Abbvie, Spyre Therapeutics Pekow, Joel R.: CVS Health - Consulting Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson - Stocks Yarur, Andres: Personal Fees: Consultant for Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, Abbvie, Eli Lilly. Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Johnson and Johnson. Deepak, Parakkal: Parakkal Deepak has received research support under a sponsored research agreement unrelated to the data in the abstract from AbbVie, Johnson and Johnson, Sanofi, Merck, Teva, Direct Biologics, Tr1x, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Roche Genentech, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Spyre and Agomab, has received consulting fees from Johnson and Johnson, Abbvie, Merck, Sobi, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Sandoz and CorEvitas, LLC and has served on the board of the Srategic Alliance for Intercultural Advocacy in GI.

Abstract Background We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of risankizumab (RZB) for Crohn’s disease (CD) in routine clinical practice. Methods We performed a retrospective review of a multicenter consortium of CD patients treated with RZB. Co-primary outcomes were week 12 clinical remission (Harvey Bradshaw Index [HBI] score of ≤4 or physician global assessment in those without HBI or with ileostomy) and 6-month endoscopic remission (Simplified Endoscopic Mucosal Assessment for Crohn’s Disease of 0-1 or absence of ulcers). Secondary outcomes included steroid-free clinical remission, clinical response, radiographic response, cumulative clinical and endoscopic remission rates at 6 and 12 months, and adverse events. Results A total of 309 patients were included (median disease duration 14 years [IQR, 6-24]; median follow-up 7.1 months [IQR, 4.1-10.3]). Most patients (85.8%) were advanced therapy (AT)-exposed, and 169 (54.7%) had prior ustekinumab (UST) exposure. Week 12 clinical remission rates were 49.7% (98/197) overall, and 44.2% (50/113) vs 57.1% (48/84) in UST-exposed vs naïve patients (P = .073). Among those with active disease on baseline endoscopy (n = 122) who had an available follow-up at 6 months, 52.4% (22/42) achieved endoscopic remission. Cumulative rates of clinical and endoscopic remission at 12 months were 65.0% and 49.5%, respectively. Cumulative 12-month endoscopic remission was 33.9% (19/56) in UST-exposed and 68.1% (32/47) in UST-naïve patients (P < .001). Risankizumab was well-tolerated with no new safety signals identified. Conclusions In this large multicenter cohort of patients with CD, RZB was well-tolerated and effective in achieving favorable clinical and endoscopic outcomes in both AT-exposed and naïve populations, including those with exposure to UST.

Abstract Background Pivotal trials have shown that ustekinumab is effective in ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the population included in these trials do not represent the cohort of patients treated in the real world. In this study, we aimed to describe the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in a clinical cohort of patients with UC. Methods We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study and included patients with active UC starting ustekinumab. Variables collected included demographics, clinical data, and disease activity (measured using partial Mayo score [PMS] and endoscopic Mayo score) at follow-up. The primary outcomes were cumulative rates of steroid-free clinical and biochemical remission (SFCBR), defined as a PMS <2 while off steroids and a normal C-reactive protein and/or fecal calprotectin. Results A total of 245 patients met inclusion criteria. The median time of follow-up was 33 (interquartile range, 17-53) weeks, and 214 (87.3%) had previous exposure to a biologic and/or tofacitinib. Rates of SFCBR, clinical remission, and endoscopic remission at 6 and 12 months were 12.0% (n = 16 of 139), 29.0% (n = 71 of 175), and 18.0% (n = 7 of 39), and 23.8% (n = 15 of 63), 54.3% (n = 57 of 105), and 31.0% (n = 9 of 29), respectively. Non-Hispanic White race, higher baseline PMS, and the use of concomitant corticosteroids were independently associated with failure to achieve SFCBR. Of the 73 that were dose escalated, 28.4% did not respond, 49.3% experienced a benefit, and 21.6% achieved remission. Conclusions In a population enriched with refractory UC, ustekinumab was well tolerated and induced remission in a significant number of patients. Larger studies with a longer follow-up are warranted.

Abstract Background Combining biologics and small molecules could potentially overcome the plateau of drug efficacy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and effectiveness of dual biologic therapy (DBT), or small molecule combined with a biologic therapy (SBT) in IBD patients. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Clinical trials.gov until November 3, 2020, including studies with 2 or more IBD patients on DBT or SBT. Main outcome was safety assessed as pooled rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) for each combination. Effectiveness was reported as pooled rates of clinical, endoscopic, and/or radiographic response and remission. The certainty of evidence was rated according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Results Of the 3688 publications identified, 13 studies (1 clinical trial, 12 observational studies) involving 266 patients on 7 different combinations were included. Median number of prior biologics ranged from 0 to 4, and median duration of follow-up was 16–68 weeks. Most common DBT and SBT were vedolizumab (VDZ) with anti-tumor necrosis factor (aTNF, n = 56) or tofacitinib (Tofa, n = 57), respectively. Pooled rates of SAE for these were 9.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5–21.4) for VDZ-aTNF and 1.0% (95% CI, 0.0–7.6) for Tofa-VDZ. The overall certainty of evidence was very low due to the observational nature of the studies, and very serious imprecision and inconsistency. Conclusions DBT or SBT appears to be generally safe and may be effective in IBD patients, but the evidence is very uncertain.

Abstract Background Pivotal trials have shown that ustekinumab (UST) is effective in ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the population included in these trials do not always represent the cohort of patients treated in the “real world”. In this study, we aimed to describe the effectiveness and safety of UST in a clinical cohort of patients with UC Methods We performed a multi-center cohort study and included patients with active UC starting UST. Variables collected included demographics, previous and current UC medications, disease activity (measured using partial and endoscopic Mayo score [PMS and EMS]) at 8 weeks, 6 months and end of follow-up. We also abstracted UST drug level and anti-UST antibodies (AUA), albumin and C-reactive protein levels. Primary outcomes were clinical response at week 8 defined as a reduction of 3 points in the PMS or PMS<2. Secondary outcomes were clinical remission defined as a PMS <2 and endoscopic remission defined as a MES ≤1, and the development of an adverse event (AE) attributed to UST. Results Ninety-five patients were included with a median age of 42 years (IQR:32-57) and 53 (56%) were female. Median follow-up was 5 months (IQR:2.2-7.4). Only 4 (4.3%) were naïve to biologics or tofacitinib and 62 (66%) had previous exposure to at least 2 other biologics. No variables were found to be associated with response at week 8 (Figure 2). Those patients who responded at week 8 had higher median albumin levels vs those who did not (median of 4.4 [IQR: 4.1-4.6] vs 4.1 g/dL [IQR:3.8-4.3]; p=0.02). There were no differences in baseline CRP levels (1mg/dL [IQR:0.6-2.8] vs 0.6 mg/dL [0.3-1.5]; p=0.06). Among the 33 patients who had follow-up endoscopic assessment, 7 (21.2%) had achieved endoscopic remission and 4 (12%) achieved histologic remission. Median UST level was 4.1 mcg/ml (IQR:2.5-5.1) and no patients had detectable AUA. Five patients underwent colectomy (5.3%). Only 6 patients (6.6%) presented with an AE (all minor that included, rash, headaches, arthralgias and infection). Conclusion In a population enriched with refractory UC, UST was well tolerated and induce response and remission in a significant number of patients. The rate of response was lower in obese patients and those with extensive colitis but was not associated with previous exposure to biologics and/or tofacitinib. Larger studies with a longer follow-up are warranted. Figure 1: Rates of clinical response and remission in patients with UC receiving ustekinumab Figure 2: Association between several baseline characteristics and response to ustekinumab in UC