Gisbert, Javier P.

Abstract Background and Aims Upadacitinib (UPA)—an oral, reversible selective Janus kinase inhibitor—has a favorable benefit–risk profile for patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). We evaluated the benefit–risk of UPA in select subgroups with CD or UC. Methods Patients were randomized to UPA 45 mg (UPA45) once daily (QD) or placebo (PBO) induction for 12 (CD: U-EXCEED, U-EXCEL) or 8 weeks (UC: U-ACHIEVE, U-ACCOMPLISH). Clinical responders were re-randomized to QD UPA 15 mg (UPA15), UPA 30 mg (UPA30), or PBO for 52-week maintenance (CD: U-ENDURE; UC: U-ACHIEVE). This exploratory post hoc analysis assessed efficacy and safety outcomes (adverse events of special interest [AESIs]: serious infections, major adverse cardiovascular [CV] events, malignancies, and venous thromboembolic events) by CV risk, prior treatment failure, and age. Results This analysis included 1021 patients with CD and 1097 with UC during induction, and 673 with CD and 746 with UC during maintenance. Improved efficacy outcomes comparable to the overall study populations were observed with UPA versus PBO across subgroups. Patients receiving UPA30 generally showed numerically higher rates of improvements versus UPA15. AESI rates were generally comparable between UPA and PBO across subgroups except for numerically higher rates of herpes zoster and serious infections in CD with UPA. Conclusions UPA resulted in consistent benefit versus placebo across CV risk, prior treatment failure, and age subgroups. No treatment differences were seen in AESIs across subgroups except herpes zoster and serious infections, reinforcing the favorable benefit–risk profile for UPA in CD and UC seen in the overall study populations. Clinical trial numbers NCT02819635, NCT03653026, NCT03345836, NCT03345849, NCT03345823

Abstract Background Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), together known as inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), affect approximately seven million people globally. The continuous rise in IBD prevalence and the aging of populations will inevitably lead to an increasing use of health care resources. In parallel with these trends, continuing innovations in IBD therapeutics, diagnostics, and preventatives are creating more options for IBD patients seeking to reduce their disease burden. These trends pose an imminent burden on health care systems and require that we identify modifiable cost drivers in IBD care and develop strategies for delivering equitable and affordable care for all patients. Methods This Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology Commission, consisting of a diverse faculty of health care professionals with expertise in the field of IBD and health economists, was formed to deliver an extensive summary of the literature and discuss key topics on the costs and cost-effectiveness of treating IBD in the present, and how this is likely to look in the future. Furthermore, it offers suggestions for how to deliver affordable IBD care in the coming years. The report’s focus was on high-income countries in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, and Asia. Results The Commission drew together a wide range of expertise to discuss the current costs of IBD care, the drivers of increasing costs, as well as how to deliver affordable care for IBD in the future. The key conclusions are that (i) increases in health care costs must be evaluated against improved disease control and reductions in indirect costs, and (ii) that overarching systems for data interoperability, registries, and big data approaches must be established for continuous assessment of effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of care. International collaborations should be sought in order to evaluate novel models of care (such as value-based health care, including integrated health care and participatory health care models), as well as to improve the education and training of clinicians, patients, and policymakers. Measures to reduce the costs of IBD care are summarised in Table 1. Conclusion Increases in health care costs must be evaluated against improved disease control and reductions in indirect costs. Evaluations should be systematically aligned between countries and regions. Detailed analysis of the current epidemiology and the likely effects of changing IBD management on disease course and socioeconomic outcomes is essential; and will become even more imperative in the era of precision medicine, where complex biotechnologies will require expensive analyses, highly skilled personnel, and drug development for what may sometimes be relatively small patient groups.

Abstract Background A meta-analysis by our group has shown an elevated risk of lymphoma with thiopurine therapy for IBD (Kandiel 2005 Gut). It summed referral data and population (pop) data, but the risk of lymphoma in referral centers may be skewed higher due to referral bias (Ang 2006 PMID 16531538). Since a previous meta-analysis presented in 2012 (Kotlyar 2012, DDW), there have been two large population based studies published (Pasternak 2013 Am J of Epidemiol, Abbas 2013 Gastroenterology). The latter study reported on a nationwide database of patients from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Hospitals from the United States. Aims Calculate the standard incidence rate of lymphoma in pts exposed to AZA/6-MP in population cohort studies and contrast these results to referral center studies. Methods We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database for: “lymphoproliferative and thiopurines”; and “azathioprine and lymphoma”. Included citations were IBD cohort studies, evaluated cancer as an outcome, and pts. received AZA and/or 6-MP. Additionally a comprehensive search of the literature and abstracts from international meetings (2005-2013) was done. In our study additional data were extracted from the Spanish collaborative registry ENEIDA. Pooled standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. CIs assumed a Poisson distribution. To examine for heterogeneity, the deviance statistic from Poisson regression models was examined. Results There were 507 citations, and fifteen citations were included. Two studies (Korelitz and Kinlen) were obtained from Kandiel 2005, and Lewis 2001 was replaced by Armstrong 2010 as data were of the GPRD database. In referral studies (n=7), the SIR = 6.47 (95% CI: 3.77-10.36). In pop studies (n=8), the SIR = 2.27 (95% CI: 1.76-2.88). Overall the SIR was = 2.61 (95% CI: 2.08-3.23). Data from referral centers did not show significant heterogeneity (p=0.052), while pop studies did show significant heterogeneity (p=0.003). Results between referral and pop centers showed a significant difference (p<0.01). Conclusion Pts with IBD who are treated with thiopurines have approximately a 3-fold increased risk of lymphoma as compared to the general pop. The SIR of referral studies were seen to be significantly higher than those of population based studies, consistent with possible referral bias. Also, the addition of two population based studies have added 58,349 person-years of follow-up to our analysis.With a total of 84 lymphomas observed, and with total pt-years being 184,085, this study shows 2,191 pt-yrs per lymphoma in the exposed group. Meta-analysis of Standardized Incidence Ratios (SIR) Disclosures: Lewis: Pfizer: Consultancy; Centocor: Consultancy; Allos: Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Dark Canyon Labs: Consultancy; Roche Pharma AG: Consultancy. Beaugerie:Ferring : Speakers Bureau; Schering-Plough: Speakers Bureau; Merck : Speakers Bureau. Loftus:Pfizer: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Braintree: Research Funding; Abbott: Consultancy, Research Funding; UCB: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Centocor: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Lichtenstein:Abbott: Research Funding; BristolMyers: Consultancy; Centocor: Consultancy, Research Funding; Elan: Research Funding; Ferring: Consultancy; MilleniumResearch: Consultancy; Procter and Gamble: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prometheus: Consultancy, Research Funding; Salix: Consultancy, Research Funding; Warner-Chilcotte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Schering-Plough: Consultancy; Shire: Consultancy, Research Funding; Wyeth: Consultancy; UCB: Consultancy.

SummaryBackgroundRecent advances in eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) have confirmed the existence of a new disease phenotype, proton pump inhibitor (PPI)‐responsive oesophageal eosinophilia (PPI‐REE).AimTo summarise evidence supporting the use of PPI therapy in patients with suspected EoE (oesophageal dysfunction plus >15 eos/HPF in oesophageal biopsies).MethodsA literature search was conducted through MEDLINE, using the MeSH search terms ‘eosinophilic oesophagitis’, ‘proton pump inhibitors’ and ‘oesophageal eosinophilia’. Relevant articles and their reference lists were identified through manual review.ResultsTen articles, including 258 patients with suspected EoE (152 children, 106 adults) undergoing clinico‐histological re‐evaluation after PPI therapy, were identified. In children, clinical response ranged from 78% to 86% and histological remission from 23% to 40%. In adults, symptom response ranged from 25% to 80% and histological remission from 33% to 61%. Among PPI‐REE patients with oesophageal pH‐monitoring, 35 showed pathological and 10 normal studies. PPI‐REE was significantly commoner with documented gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) when compared to patients with negative pH monitoring (70% vs. 29%, P < 0.001). Symptom improvement/resolution occurred in 50–85% of patients without histological remission on PPI therapy. Six PPI‐REE patients demonstrated clinico‐histological relapse on PPI therapy.ConclusionsAt least one third of patients with suspected EoE achieve clinico‐histological remission on PPI therapy. Response is more limited in children compared with that in adults. pH monitoring does not accurately predict response to PPI therapy, albeit histological remission is significantly higher, up to 70%, upon documented GERD. Symptom improvement is common with PPI therapy despite persistent eosinophilic infiltration.