Huang, K

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 A subset of risankizumab (RZB)-treated patients experience suboptimal or secondary loss of response to standard dosing. We explored factors associated with future RZB dose-optimization, and outcomes of optimization in a multicenter consortium of adults with Crohn’s Disease (CD). Methods Baseline characteristics at time of RZB initiation and subsequent clinical, endoscopic, and biochemical outcomes were collected in a multi-center cohort. Outcomes for dose-optimized RZB were reported as clinical response and remission (based on HBI or PGA when HBI unavailable), endoscopic remission (based on SEMA-CD or absence of ulcers when SEMA-CD not available), and biochemical response. Characteristics were compared between standard and dose-optimized groups using chi-square and two-sample t-tests. Additional models adjusting for age and sex assessed predictors of dose optimization. Results We identified 309 patients treated with standard dose and 58 for whom dose-optimized RZB was recommended. Of the 58, 29 were excluded from outcomes analysis due to lack of follow-up (n = 19) or insurance denial of dose optimization (n = 10). Demographic information is outlined in Table 1. Baseline characteristics associated with future dose optimization included number of prior advanced therapies (ATs) (OR, 1.29, p < 0.001), prior anti-TNF (OR,4.06; p = 0.022), and prior ustekinumab (UST) use (OR,1.82; p = 0.053) (Table 2). The 29 patients included in the outcome analysis received dose-optimized RZB for primary non-response (n = 2), partial response (n = 23), or secondary loss of response (n = 4) after a median of 321 days (IQR, 234-440) from index RZB start. Median follow-up after dose optimization was 217 days (IQR, 147-331). All patients were AT-exposed (Table 1). Baseline clinical symptoms were present in 27 patients (93.1%), with median HBI of 6.5 (IQR, 6.0-8.0). Active endoscopic disease was observed in 11/12 patients (91.7%) who had baseline endoscopy. Dosing was every 4 weeks in 19 (65.5%), every 6 weeks in 9 (31.0%), and combined IV re-induction plus every 4-weeks in 1 (3.4%) patient. Clinical response and remission was seen in 16 (55.2%) and 12 (41.4%) patients, respectively. A ≥ 50% CRP reduction was seen in 5/12 (41.7%) patients with baseline elevated CRP. Among 7 patients with baseline active endoscopic disease with available follow-up, 3 (42.9%) achieved endoscopic remission. No adverse events were reported. Conclusion In this multi-center retrospective cohort, prior AT-exposure (especially anti-TNF) was associated with need for RZB dose-optimization. Dose optimization successfully captured clinical response in a significant proportion of patients who experienced partial response or loss of response to RZB. Conflict of interest: Johnson, Amanda: Research grant: Abbvie, Spyre Therapeutics Ramesh, Prajith Raj: None Said, Hyder: No conflict of interest Huang, Katherine: No conflict of interest Devi, Jalpa: none Pekow, Joel R.: CVS Health - Consulting Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson - Stocks Alhobayb, Tamara: No conflict of interest Bassmeyer, Blake: No conflict of interest Mohamed, Mouhand: No conflict of interest Shivashankar, Raina: Abbvie and BMS - speaker bureau Janssen and Celltrion - grant for IBD fellowship funding Pfizer - consultant Rathi, Jaya: No conflict of interest Luu, Bryan: No conflict of interest Khan, Abdul: No conflict of interest Loftus, Jr, Edward: Grant: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Receptos, Robarts Clinical Trials, Takeda, Theravance, UCB. Personal Fees: AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calibr, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Gilead, Iterative Scopes, Janssen, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB. Bishu, Shrinivas: None Patel, Anish: speaker: abbvie, J & J, Lilly, BMS, Pfizer, Phathom, Takeda consultant: abbvie Shukla, Richa: Speakers bureau - Abbvie and Lilly Yarur, Andres: Personal Fees: Consultant for Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, Abbvie, Eli Lilly. Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Johnson and Johnson. Ungaro, Ryan: Personal Fees: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen, Takeda 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.

162 Background: In preclinical studies, the tryptophan-metabolizing enzyme, Indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1), promotes resistance to radiation in colorectal cancer, and IDO1 inhibition with epacadostat improves tumor radiosensitivity. In a phase 1 trial, patients (pts) with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC, n=17) were treated with epacadostat in combination with short course radiotherapy (SCRT) and CAPOX which was well-tolerated, and the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of epacadostat was 400mg BID. Here we report efficacy and safety from the NCI-supported phase 2 (NCT03516708) multicenter, open-label trial (treatment cohort). Methods: Pts were treated with standard of care (SOC) SCRT, then SOC neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by SOC surgical resection or non-operative management (NOM). Epacadostat (400 mg BID) started with SCRT and continued until starting NAC (a minimum of 21 days). Eight pts were enrolled prior to discontinuation of epacadostat by Incyte in February/March 2025. The primary endpoint is Neoadjuvant Rectal (NAR) score. In patients who underwent NOM, we calculated MRI-based tumor regression grade (MR-TRG). Secondary endpoints are pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, complete clinical response (cCR) rate, and progression free survival (PFS). Results: Table 1 summarizes baseline characteristics and endpoints (primary and secondary). NOM was pursued in 7/8 (87.5%) pts, surgical resection was performed on 1/8 (12.5%). At median follow-up of 12 months, local tumor regrowth occurred in 1 pt initially treated with NOM (after tumor regrowth, he underwent salvage surgery and is currently on surveillance). Treatment with epacadostat was interrupted in 2/8 (25%) patients due to grade 3 maculopapular skin rash. Most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) regardless of causality (all grades (G)/G3-4) were bloating (75%/0%), increased ALT (62.5%/0%), increased AST (50%/0%), nausea (50%/0%), and constipation (50%/0%). Grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 non-cardiac chest pain occurred in 1 patient each (both unrelated to epacadostat). Conclusions: Epacadostat demonstrates promising efficacy and manageable safety in patients with LARC. The biomarker cohort and correlative studies are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03516708 . Baseline characteristics and endpoints. Patient Age Sex Ethnicity Stage Surgery/NOM NAR MR-TRG cCR/pCR Recurrence 1 52 M Caucasian T3N1 NOM NA 2 Y/NA No 2 45 M Caucasian T3N1 NOM NA 3 Y/NA Local tumor regrowth 3 48 M Caucasian T3N2 NOM NA 3 Y/NA No 4 61 M Caucasian T4N2 NOM NA 3 Y/NA No 5 57 M Caucasian T3N0 NOM NA 1 Y/NA No 6 60 F Caucasian T3N1 Surgery 15 3 N/ypT3N0 No 7 67 M Caucasian T4N0 NOM NA 3 Y/NA No 8 51 M Caucasian T4N2 NOM NA P NA No