Gasink, Christopher

Abstract Background and Aims Previously published long-term safety data reported a favourable ustekinumab safety profile for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. We present the final cumulative safety data from pooled ustekinumab IBD phase 2/3 clinical studies through 5 years in Crohn’s disease [CD] and 4 years in ulcerative colitis [UC]. Methods In phase 3 studies, patients received a single intravenous placebo or ustekinumab [130 mg or ~6 mg/kg] induction dose followed by subcutaneous maintenance doses of placebo or ustekinumab [90 mg q8w or q12w]. Analyses included all patients who received one dose of study treatment and included patients who were biologic-naïve and patients with a history of biologic failure. Safety outcomes are summarized and presented using number of events per 100 patient-years of follow-up and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Results In this final pooled safety analysis, 2575 patients were treated with ustekinumab with 4826 patient-years of follow-up. Rates of key safety events, including major adverse cardiac events and malignancies, were similar between placebo and ustekinumab or not higher for ustekinumab. Opportunistic infections, including tuberculosis, and malignancies were reported infrequently. Rates of key safety events in the IBD group were no higher in the ustekinumab group than in the placebo group for both patients who were biologic-naïve or who had a history of biologic failure. No lymphomas or cases of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome [formerly known as reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome] were reported. Conclusion The final cumulative ustekinumab safety data through 5 years in CD and 4 years in UC demonstrated favourable safety compared to placebo and continue to support the well-established safety profile across all approved indications. Clinical trials.gov numbers NCT00265122, NCT00771667, NCT01369329, NCT01369342, NCT01369355, NCT02407236

Abstract Background Entry criteria and outcome measures of Crohn’s disease (CD) clinical trials have evolved. Patients are now required to have active inflammation on screening endoscopy, with some studies requiring moderate-severe SES-CD scores. Recent trials have endoscopic response as a co-primary endpoint and endoscopic remission (ER) and deep remission (DR) as major secondary endpoints. Pivotal CD maintenance studies typically examine only responders to induction. The SEAVUE study required ≥1 ulceration of any size (SES-CD≥3) at baseline and had a treat-through design. To examine the results in the context of these trial design characteristics, we evaluated endoscopic outcomes at wk52 in the subgroup of pts with moderate-severe baseline SES-CD scores in SEAVUE, as well as those who were in clinical response after induction. Methods Biologic-naïve pts failing or intolerant to conventional therapy with CDAI≥220/≤450 and SES-CD≥3 were eligible. Pts were randomized, 1:1 to UST (~6mg/kg IV at wk0 then, 90mg SC q8w) or ADA (SC, 160mg at wk0, 80mg at wk2, then, 40mg q2w). Endoscopic outcomes were evaluated in all pts and the subgroup with moderate-severe endoscopic disease (baseline SES-CD≥6 for ileocolonic or colonic disease or SES-CD≥4 for isolated ileal disease). Endoscopic response was a ≥50% reduction from baseline in SES-CD, SES-CD≤3, or SES-CD=0 for pts with baseline SES-CD=3. ER was SES-CD≤3 or, 0 in pts with baseline SES-CD=3. DR was CDAI<150 and ER. Results Endoscopic outcomes for the subgroup with moderate-severe endoscopic disease were similar to those of the full cohort of pts. In UST-treated pts, endoscopic response was achieved at wk52 in, 41.9% in the full cohort and, 43.1% in the moderate-severe subgroup (Table, 1). In ADA-treated pts, endoscopic responses were, 36.9% and, 35.4%, respectively. For pts who were in clinical response after induction (Table, 1), endoscopic response rates were, 48.2% in the full cohort and, 49.5% in the moderate-severe subgroup for UST and, 44.8% and, 43.1%, respectively, for ADA. ER and DR rates were generally similar between the full cohort and the moderate-severe subgroup (Table, 2; eg, ERs were UST, 28.5% and ADA, 30.7% in full cohort; UST, 27.1% and, 27.8% ADA in subgroup). ER and DR rates were, 3%-7% higher in induction responders compared with the full cohort. Of note, even among wk16 nonresponders, some pts attained endoscopic outcomes at wk52 (eg, endoscopic responses in wk16 nonresponders were UST, 21.4% and ADA 13.3%). Conclusion In SEAVUE, both the UST and ADA treatment groups achieved high endoscopic response, ER, and DR rates at wk52. Results in pts with moderate-severe endoscopic disease were similar to those of the full cohort, but clinical responders after induction had higher rates than the full cohort.

Abstract Background We studied the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab (UST) vs adalimumab (ADA) through 1 year in biologic-naïve patients (pts) with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. Methods SEAVUE was a multicenter, randomized, blinded, parallel-group, active-controlled study in adults with CD Activity Index (CDAI) scores ≥220/≤450. Biologic-naïve pts failing/intolerant to conventional therapy with any size ulcer on baseline (BL) ileocolonoscopy were eligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 to UST (⁓6mg/kg IV at BL then 90mg SC every 8 weeks [Ws]) or ADA (160/80mg SC at BL/W2, then 40mg SC every 2 Ws) per US-approved regimens (no dose modifications). Primary endpoint was clinical remission at W52 (CDAI <150). Major secondary endpoints were corticosteroid-free remission, clinical response (≥100-point CDAI decrease from BL), remission in pt-reported CDAI components (PRO-2 symptom remission: abdominal pain mean daily score ≤1 and stool frequency mean daily score ≤3), and endoscopic remission (SES-CD score ≤3/0 for pts with BL score=3) at W52 and clinical remission at W16. Results 386 pts were randomized to UST or ADA. BL demographics and disease characteristics were balanced between groups and indicative of pts with early, moderate-to-severe CD (median CD duration, 2.58 years; CDAI, 289.5; SES-CD, 8.0). At W52, 65% of UST-treated and 61% of ADA-treated pts achieved clinical remission (Δ=4.0%; 95% CI, -5.5%, 13.5%; p=0.417). Major secondary endpoints, including endoscopic remission, were similar between groups (Table 1), as were remission rates at assessment points through W52. Some other secondary endpoints showed numerical (not statistical) differences between UST and ADA (Table 1). Key safety events are summarized in Table 2. Among UST-treated and ADA-treated pts, 34.0% and 40.5% had infections, 2.6% and 7.2% had serious adverse events (AEs) of worsening CD, and 6.3% and 11.3% had AEs that led to discontinuation (DC) of study drug, respectively. One ADA-treated pt had active pulmonary TB. Injection-site reactions associated with active treatment occurred in 1.0% of UST-treated and 10.3% of ADA-treated pts. Overall, 15.2% of UST-treated and 23.6% of ADA-treated pts DC before W52. Reasons for DC were primarily lack of efficacy (UST, 2.1% vs ADA, 5.1%), AEs (UST, 5.7% vs ADA, 10.7%), and withdrawal of consent (UST, 5.8% vs ADA, 5.1%). Time to treatment DC was longer with UST vs ADA (post hoc analysis). Conclusion Both UST and ADA were highly effective in this population of biologic-naïve pts. Rates of clinical remission at W52 were not statistically significantly different between treatment groups. DC rates were numerically lower for UST. Safety results were consistent with prior experience for both treatments.