Shivashankar, Raina

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.

This article reviews therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) use for current inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatments. IBD comprises Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis-chronic gastrointestinal inflammatory disorders. Treatment options for moderate to severe IBD include thiopurines; methotrexate; biologic agents targeting tumor necrosis factor, α4β7 integrin or interleukins 12 and 23; and Janus kinase inhibitors. TDM is recommended to guide treatment decisions for some of these agents. Published literature concerning TDM for IBD treatments was reviewed. S.D.L., R.S., and E.V.L. drew on their clinical experiences. Polymorphisms resulting in altered enzymatic activity inactivating thiopurine metabolites can lead to myelotoxicity and hepatotoxicity. Increased elimination of biologic agents can result from immunogenicity or higher disease activity, leading to low drug concentration and consequent nonresponse or loss of response. TDM may aid treatment and dose decisions for individual patients, based on monitoring metabolite levels for thiopurines, or serum drug trough concentration and antidrug antibody levels for biologic agents. Challenges remain around TDM implementation in IBD, including the lack of uniform assay methods and guidance for interpreting results. The Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib is not impacted by enzyme polymorphisms or disease activity, and is not expected to stimulate the formation of neutralizing antidrug antibodies. TDM is associated with implementation challenges, despite the recommendation of its use for guiding many IBD treatments. Newer small molecules with less susceptibility to patient variability factors may fulfill the unmet need of treatment options that do not require TDM, although further study is required to confirm this.

AbstractA 63-year-old man presented with generalized fatigue, chills, malaise, dyspnea, intermittent fevers, and 50-pound weight loss of 4 months′ duration. Blood cultures were positive for pan-sensitive Streptococcus anginosus. Transesophageal echocardiography showed an 11 mm × 3 mm mobile mass attached to the mitral valve, a 16 mm × 16 mm mobile mass attached to the pulmonary valve, and a small membranous ventricular septal defect. The patient received 12 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics with eventual resolution of the masses. Multi-valve endocarditis involving both the left and right chambers is rarely reported without prior history of IV drug use or infective endocarditis. Our case emphasizes the importance of careful assessment for ventricular septal defects or extra-cardiac shunts in individuals who present with simultaneous right and left-sided endocarditis.

SummaryBackgroundClostridium difficile infection (CDI) recurs in 20–30% of patients.AimTo describe the predictors of recurrence in out‐patients with CDI.MethodsOut‐patient cases of CDI in Olmsted County, MN residents diagnosed between 28 June 2007 and 25 June 2010 were identified. Recurrent CDI was defined as recurrence of diarrhoea with a positive C. difficile PCR test from 15 to 56 days after the initial diagnosis with interim resolution of symptoms. Patients who had two positive tests within 14 days were excluded. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the association of clinical variables with time to recurrence of CDI.ResultsThe cohort included 520 out‐patients; 104 had recurrent CDI (cumulative incidence of 17.5% by 30 days). Univariate analysis identified increasing age and antibiotic use to be associated with recurrent CDI. Severe CDI, peripheral leucocyte count and change in serum creatinine >1.5‐fold were not. In a multiple variable model, concomitant antibiotic use was associated with risk of recurrent CDI (HR = 5.4, 95% CI 1.6–17.5, P = 0.005), while age (HR per 10 year increase = 1.1, 95% CI 0.9–1.3, P = 0.22); peripheral leucocyte count >15 × 109/L (HR = 1.0, 95% CI 0.5–2.1, P = 0.92); and change in serum creatinine greater than 1.5‐fold (HR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.4–1.5, P = 0.44) were not.ConclusionsAntibiotic use was independently associated with a dramatic risk of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in an out‐patient cohort. It is important to avoid unnecessary systemic antibiotics in patients with Clostridium difficile infection, and patients with ongoing antibiotic use should be monitored closely for recurrent infection.