Sands, Bruce E

Abstract Background Ulcerative colitis (UC) has a detrimental impact on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL).1 Long-term treatment goals for patients with moderately to severely active UC include restoration of HRQoL. This post-hoc analysis evaluated the effect of induction and maintenance treatment with risankizumab (RZB) on HRQoL outcomes. Methods Data from two Phase 2b/3 clinical trials (INSPIRE induction: NCT03398148 and COMMAND maintenance: NCT03398135) were evaluated. Patients received RZB 1200 mg intravenous (IV) or placebo (PBO) induction treatment at weeks 0, 4, and 8. Patients with a clinical response per Adapted Mayo score to RZB IV were randomised 1:1:1 to subcutaneous (SC) RZB 180 or 360 mg, or placebo (PBO [RZB withdrawal] SC) every 8 weeks for 52 weeks of maintenance. The proportion of patients achieving a meaningful within-person change (MWPC) for each HRQoL outcome was reported. HRQoL outcomes included Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, disease-specific instruments such as Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) and Ulcerative Colitis Symptom Questionnaire (UCSQ), as well as generic quality-of-life questionnaires like Work Productivity and Activity Index-Ulcerative Colitis (WPAI-UC), 36-Item Short-Form Survey (SF-36), and EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels. MWPCs were measured from baseline to induction Week 12 and to maintenance Week 52. Estimated differences in proportions with 95% confidence intervals and p-values between RZB and PBO were compared using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline strata. Results For RZB 1200 mg IV (n=650) versus PBO IV-treated (n=325) patients, a greater proportion of patients achieved MWPC across all HRQoL outcomes at Week 12 of induction (p<0.01; Table). At Week 52 of maintenance, a greater proportion of patients treated with RZB 180 mg SC (N=179) versus PBO (withdrawal) SC (N=183) achieved MWPC across all HRQoL outcomes (p<0.05), except for absenteeism from WPAI-UC (p=0.33). For RZB 360 mg SC (N=186) versus PBO (withdrawal) SC, a greater proportion of patients achieved MWPC for UCSQ, IBDQ, and SF-36 physical component summary (all p<0.05). Conclusion In this analysis, a greater proportion of patients treated with RZB versus PBO achieved MWPC on various HRQoL outcomes after completing 12-week induction IV therapy. HRQoL improvements were sustained up to Week 52 of treatment. This suggests RZB has the potential to help patients achieve restoration of HRQoL as a long-term goal of treatment in patients with moderately to severely active UC. 1. Mavroudis G. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2022;15:17562848211062406.

Abstract Background The primary objective of the VIVID-1 trial (NCT03926130) was to demonstrate efficacy and safety of mirikizumab (miri), a p19-directed anti-IL-23 antibody, compared to placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. Miri demonstrated statistically significant improvements in co-primary and all key secondary endpoints versus (vs) PBO1. Here we present the results of secondary endpoints on the comparisons of miri to ustekinumab (uste), a p40 directed anti-IL-12/IL-23 inhibitor from the Phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active- and PBO-controlled, treat-through (TT) study, VIVID-1 (NCT03926130). Methods Adult pts (N=1065) were randomised 6:3:2 to miri (N=579) 900mg intravenously (IV) every 4 weeks (Q4W) to W12, then 300mg subcutaneously (SC) Q4W to W52, uste (N=287) one ~6 mg/kg IV dose, then 90mg SC Q8W to W52 or PBO (N=199). At W12 PBO responders continued PBO to W52; PBO non-responders received the same blinded miri regimen as described above (IV then SC). Efficacy of miri vs uste was assessed by the proportion of pts achieving endoscopic response and by the proportion of pts achieving clinical remission by Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at W52 (both gated). Additional non-multiplicity-adjusted endpoints included endoscopic remission, corticosteroid-free clinical remission by CDAI, and the composite of CDAI clinical remission and endoscopic response at W52. (Figure 1 for definitions). Results Baseline characteristics were overall balanced across the three treatment groups (table 1). Pts treated with miri achieved all key major secondary endpoints (p<.000001) compared to PBO (Figure 1). Miri achieved non-inferiority to uste for clinical remission by CDAI (p=0.113117) (Figure 1C). Although superiority to uste in endoscopic response was not achieved (p=0.51) (Figure 1A), in biologic failed pts miri demonstrated a numerical trend towards greater response rates compared to uste for endoscopic response and clinical remission by CDAI (Figure 1 B & D). The overall safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of miri. The proportion of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE) were similar for miri (78.6%) and uste (77.3%); most common TEAEs were COVID-19, anaemia, arthralgia, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis and injection site reaction. Instances of serious adverse events were comparable for miri (10.3%) and uste (10.7%). Conclusion In this phase 3 TT design study, miri achieved non-inferiority to uste for clinical remission by CDAI. In biologic failed pts miri had a numerical trend towards greater response compared to uste in clinical and endoscopic endpoints, with an acceptable safety profile. 1Ferrante et al., submitted to ECCO 2024

INTRODUCTION: The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has compiled risk factors that may be predictive of disease complications in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the AGA risk factors for risk stratification in UC and CD. METHODS: We included participants of 2 cohorts: the Ocean State Crohn's and Colitis Area Registry cohort and the Mayo Clinic cohort. Baseline clinical risk factors were extracted according to the AGA pathway. Our primary end point was defined as follows: (i) any inflammatory bowel disease related–hospitalization, (ii) any inflammatory bowel disease–related bowel surgery, or (iii) any progression of disease. We analyzed the association of the number of AGA risk factors with our end point. Statistical multivariable modeling was performed with Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 412 patients with CD were included. Comparing ≥3 risk factors with 0–1 risk factor, we found a significantly increased risk of complications in both the Ocean State Crohn's and Colitis Area Registry cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 2.75, 95% confidence interval 1.71–4.41) and Mayo Clinic cohort (HR 2.07, 95% confidence interval 1.11–3.84). Diagnosis at younger age (HR 2.07), perianal disease (HR 1.99), and B2/B3 behavior (HR 1.92) were significantly associated with disease complications. We did not observe a consistent association between number of risk factors nor any specific individual risk factors and risk of disease complications in the 265 patients with UC included. DISCUSSION: We found a significant association between the number of AGA risk factors and the risk of disease complication in CD; this association was not significant in UC. The presence of ≥ 3 risk factors in CD leads to the highest risk of complications. The AGA care pathway is a useful tool to stratify patients who are at higher risk of disease complications in patients with CD.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the real-world effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab (UST) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: This study used a retrospective, multicenter, multinational consortium of UST-treated CD patients. Data included patient demographics, disease phenotype, disease activity, treatment history, and concomitant medications. Cumulative rates of clinical, steroid-free, endoscopic, and radiographic remissions were assessed using time-to-event analysis, and clinical predictors were assessed by using multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses. Serious infections and adverse events were defined as those requiring hospitalization or treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: A total of 1,113 patients (51.8% female, 90% prior antitumor necrosis factor exposure) were included, with a median follow-up of 386 days. Cumulative rates of clinical, steroid-free, endoscopic, and radiographic remissions at 12 months were 40%, 32%, 39%, and 30%, respectively. Biologic-naive patients achieved significantly higher rates of clinical and endoscopic remissions at 63% and 55%, respectively. On multivariable analyses, prior antitumor necrosis factor (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.49–0.99) and vedolizumab exposure (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.48–0.88) were independently associated with lower likelihoods of achieving endoscopic remission. In patients who experienced loss of remission, 77 of 102 (75%) underwent dose optimization, and 44 of 77 (57%) achieved clinical response. An additional 152 of 681 patients (22.3%) were dose-optimized because of primary nonresponse incomplete response to UST, of whom 40.1% (61 of 152) responded. Serious infections occurred in 3.4% of patients while other noninfectious adverse events (lymphoma [n = 1], arthralgia [n = 6], rash [n = 6], headache [n = 3], hepatitis [n = 3], hair loss [n = 3], neuropathy [n = 1], and vasculitis [n = 1]) occurred in 2.4% of patients. DISCUSSION: UST represents a safe and effective treatment option for CD, with 40% of patients from a highly refractory cohort achieving clinical remission by 12 months. The greatest treatment effect of UST was seen in biologic-naive patients, and dose escalation may recapture clinical response.

BACKGROUND: Ozanimod, an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator selectively targeting S1P 1 and S1P 5 , demonstrated superior efficacy and safety vs placebo for up to 52 weeks in adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) in a phase 3 study (True North). In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of prior biologic exposure on response to ozanimod. METHODS: True North consisted of two cohorts. In cohort 1, patients with UC received double-blind treatment with once-daily ozanimod 0.92 mg (equivalent to ozanimod HCl 1 mg) or placebo. In cohort 2, patients received open-label once daily ozanimod 0.92 mg. Ozanimod responders after a 10-week induction were re-randomized to double-blind maintenance with ozanimod 0.92 mg or placebo through week 52. Outcomes based on prior biologic exposure (biologic-naïve, 1 biologic, and 2+ biologics) and prior biologic type (anti-tumor necrosis factor [TNF] agents, vedolizumab, or both) were analyzed for clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic improvement, and mucosal healing. Patients exposed to only a JAK inhibitor were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 992 patients (n = 213 placebo and n = 426 ozanimod in cohort 1, n = 353 ozanimod in cohort 2) were included in the analysis for induction; 616 were biologic-naïve, 162 had exposure to 1 biologic, and 214 were exposed to 2 or more biologics. At baseline, biologic-exposed patients had more prior corticosteroid use, longer disease duration, and more extensive disease than biologic-naïve patients. During induction, greater therapeutic effects of ozanimod were generally seen in biologic-naïve vs biologic-exposed patients, and ozanimod-treated patients had greater responses on nearly all reported endpoints at week 10 (cohort 1). Clinical remission was achieved in 23% vs 6.6% of patients on ozanimod vs placebo who were biologic naïve, 17.2% vs 8.3% on 1 prior biologic, and 3.7% vs 2.5% on 2 or more biologics. Clinical response was reached in 53% vs 28% of patients on ozanimod vs placebo who were biologic naïve, 50% vs 33% on 1 biologic, and 27% vs 15% on 2 or more biologics. During maintenance, ozanimod-treated patients had greater responses on all endpoints versus placebo, with similar proportions of patients achieving clinical response to ozanimod regardless of prior biologic exposure (61% for biologic naïve, 60% for 1 biologic, and 55% for 2 or more biologics). At week 52, the proportion of patients on ozanimod with clinical remission was similar in the 1-biologic and 2+-biologic exposure groups (28% and 26%, respectively), and proportions of patients on ozanimod with endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing were similar for the 1-biologic and biologic-naïve groups (47% and 50%, 30%, and 33%, respectively). Among patients with inadequate response to prior anti-TNF agents, vedolizumab, or both at baseline, treatment effects favored ozanimod vs placebo on these endpoints in all three groups during both induction and maintenance. CONCLUSION: Ozanimod improved clinical, endoscopic, and histologic outcomes in both biologic-exposed and -naïve patients. Patients with prior biologic use may require additional time to respond to treatment. Outcomes were improved with ozanimod regardless of prior use of anti-TNF agents and vedolizumab.