Lukin, Dana J.

Abstract Background There is an unmet need for ulcerative colitis (UC) treatments that show improved effectiveness while maintaining safety profiles comparable with existing advanced therapies. Dual targeted therapy (DTT) has been proposed as a strategy to combine benefits of different advanced therapies to improve outcomes. The ExiGem study (NCT06095128) aims to assess the efficacy and safety of combined therapy with vedolizumab (VDZ) and tofacitinib (TOF) in adults with UC. We report results for the induction phase from the first 24 patients. Methods ExiGem is an ongoing phase 4, single-arm, multicentre study including adults with moderately to severely active UC (complete Mayo [cMayo] score of 6–12 with a rectal bleeding subscore ≥ 1 and centrally read endoscopic subscore ≥ 2). Eligible patients have previously had an inadequate response, loss of response, or intolerance to 1 or 2 anti-tumour necrosis factor α treatments. Patients receive induction therapy with intravenous (IV) VDZ 300 mg at weeks 0, 2, and 6 plus twice-daily oral TOF 10 mg for 8 weeks and then VDZ 300 mg IV monotherapy as maintenance from week 14. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients in clinical remission by cMayo score at week 8. Secondary endpoints include clinical response and clinical remission by modified Mayo (mMayo) score at week 8. Changes in faecal calprotectin (FCP) levels and endoscopic improvement were evaluated. Efficacy data were analysed using non-responder imputation. For the final analysis a pre-specified Bayesian approach will be used. The safety profile of DTT was evaluated. Results Patient baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. At week 8, 12/24 patients (50%) and 14/24 patients (58%) had clinical remission assessed by cMayo and mMayo scores, respectively; these rates were higher than pre-specified benchmark rates (Figure 1). Clinical response was observed in 21/24 patients (88%). At week 8, 14/24 patients (58%) showed endoscopic improvement, and 12/21 patients (57%) had normalization of FCP levels (< 250 µg/g). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were experienced by 10 patients (42%), and 1 serious TEAE was reported (suspected viral infection). One severe adverse event (AE; cough) and 2 moderate AEs (herpes zoster, drug intolerance) were considered related to TOF. No moderate or severe AEs were considered related to VDZ. One patient withdrew from the study before week 8 owing to intolerance to TOF. Conclusion Initial data suggest that induction with a combination of VDZ and TOF can produce improved rates of response and remission in patients with UC with a comparable safety profile to existing advanced monotherapies. Further data, including outcomes of VDZ maintenance as monotherapy, are pending. Conflict of interest: Prof. Dr. Yarur, Andres: Andres Yarur has served as an advisory board member for Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda. This study was funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Adam Errington PhD of PharmaGenesis Cardiff, Cardiff, UK, and funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Barnes, Edward: 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. Ha, Christina: Christina Ha has served as an advisory board member for AbbVie, Bausch Health, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Merck, Takeda, and Sanofi has received educational programming support from AbbVie, Celltrion, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda and has received consulting fees from AbbVie. Hudesman, David: Consultant: Abbvie, Abivax, BMS, Biocon, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Pfizer, Prometheus, CorEvitas, Takeda, Johnson and Johnson, Sanofi Research Support: Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer Jairath, Vipul: Consulting Fees: Abbvie, Alimentiv, Amgen, Anaptys Bio, Asahi Kasei, Asieris, Astra Zeneca, Attovia, Blackbird Labs, BMS, Boehringer Ingleheim, Biomebank, Caldera, Calluna, Catalytic Health, Celltrion, Ensho, Enthera, Exeliome Biosciences, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Granite Bio, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mountainfield, MRM Health, Nxera, Organon, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pendopharm, Pioneering Medicine, Pfizer, Prometheus, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, SCOPE, Shattuck Labs, Sorriso, Spyre, Synedgen, Takeda, Teva, Tillotts, Union Therapeutics, Ventus, Ventyx, Vividion, Xencor, Zealand Pharma. Lukin, Dana: Dana Lukin has served as a consultant/advisory board member for AbbVie, AltruBio, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Palatin, Pfizer, Prime, PSI, Takeda, and Vedanta has received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Johnson & Johnson and serves as a speaker for AbbVie and Johnson & Johnson. Rubin, David T.: Grant support: Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Consultant: Abbvie, Abivax SA, Altrubio, Athos Therapeutics, Inc, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Connect BioPharma, Eli Lilly & Co., Genentech (Roche) Inc., Iterative Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Mirador, Odyssey Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi, Spyre, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Vedanta Biosciences, and Ventyx. Schreiber, Stefan Wolfgang: Stefan Schreiber has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Dr Falk Pharma, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Fresenius, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, I-MAB Biopharma, Janssen, Merck, Novartis/Sandoz, Pfizer, Protagonist, Takeda, and Ventyx Biosciences. Gower, Megan: Megan Gower is an employee and hold stock/stock options at Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Jones, Stephen: Stephen Jones is an independent medical consultant who provides services for Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Robinson, Ian: Ian Robinson is an employee and hold stock/stock options at Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Sanchirico, Marie: Marie Sanchirico is an employee and hold stock/stock options at Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Yajnik, Vijay: Vijay Yajnik is an employee and hold stock/stock options at Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.

Introduction Targeted immunomodulators (eg, advanced therapies) effectively achieve symptomatic remission in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, ~25%–50% of patients with IBD achieving symptomatic remission with an advanced therapy may have continued endoscopically/radiologically active bowel inflammation, and it is uncertain whether changing alternative advanced therapies in asymptomatic patients with IBD will reduce bowel inflammation and achieve durable deep remission. Methods and analysis The QUality Outcomes Treating IBD to Target (QUOTIENT) study is an open-label, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial that aims to compare the efficacy and safety of switching to an alternative advanced therapy targeting endoscopic/radiological remission (treat-to-target) versus continuing the initial, or index, advanced therapy, in asymptomatic patients with IBD with moderate-to-severe endoscopic/radiological bowel inflammation. Enrolment is planned for ~250 participants in Canada/USA, randomised 1:1 to switching to alternative advanced therapy or continuing index advanced therapy, and then followed 104 weeks within routine clinical practice. Patient-reported outcomes measure efficacy and quality of life/treatment burden/safety. Primary endpoint is the time from randomisation to treatment failure. Ethics and dissemination The study is conducted in compliance with the protocol, ICH Good Clinical Practice, applicable regulatory requirements and appropriate review boards/independent ethics committees (approval numbers: Pro00077486; Pro00061437; STUDY00002062; 22-004171; i22-01269; IRB22-0890; IRB_00154397; 2000032384; SHIRB#2022.095-2; STUDY00007146; MMC#2024-18; REB#125290; 17784; Pro00142214; 20240660-01H), with documented written informed consent. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, scientific presentations, and publicly available Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) websites, including lay summaries. The Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation Education, Support, and Advocacy Department, and our patient advocacy stakeholder, will develop educational and marketing resources to communicate findings to a broad audience (>250 000 patients/caregivers/healthcare professionals). Trial registration number NCT05230173 .

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)–associated peripheral spondyloarthritis (pSpA) decreases quality of life and remains poorly understood. Given the prevalence of this condition and its negative impact, it is surprising that evidence-based disease definitions and diagnostic strategies are lacking. This systematic review summarizes available data to facilitate development and validation of diagnostics, patient-reported outcomes, and imaging indices specific to this condition. Methods A literature search was conducted. Consensus or classification criteria, case series, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials related to diagnosis were included. Results A total of 44 studies reporting data on approximately 1500 patients with pSpA were eligible for analysis. Data quality across studies was only graded as fair to good. Due to large heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not possible. The majority of studies incorporated patient-reported outcomes and a physical examination. A total of 13 studies proposed or validated screening tools, consensus, classification, or consensus criteria. A total of 28 studies assessed the role of laboratory tests, none of which were considered sufficiently accurate for use in diagnosis. A total of 17 studies assessed the role of imaging, with the available literature insufficient to fully endorse any imaging modality as a robust diagnostic tool. Conclusions This review highlights existing inconsistency and lack of a clear diagnostic approach for IBD-associated pSpA. Given the absence of an evidence-based approach, a combination of existing criteria and physician assessment should be utilized. To address this issue comprehensively, our future efforts will be directed toward pursuit of a multidisciplinary approach aimed at standardizing evaluation and diagnosis of IBD-associated pSpA.

Abstract Background and Aim Data are lacking on predicting inpatient mortality (IM) in patients admitted for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). IM is a critical outcome; however, difficulty in its prediction exists due to infrequent occurrence. We assessed IM predictors and developed a predictive model for IM using machine‐learning (ML). Methods Using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2005–2017), we extracted adults admitted for IBD. After ML‐guided predictor selection, we trained and internally validated multiple algorithms, targeting minimum sensitivity and positive likelihood ratio (+LR) ≥ 80% and ≥ 3, respectively. Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) compared algorithm performance. The best performing algorithm was additionally trained and validated for an IBD‐related surgery sub‐cohort. External validation was done using NIS 2018. Results In 398 426 adult IBD admissions, IM was 0.32% overall, and 0.87% among the surgical cohort ( n = 40 784). Increasing age, ulcerative colitis, IBD‐related surgery, pneumonia, chronic lung disease, acute kidney injury, malnutrition, frailty, heart failure, blood transfusion, sepsis/septic shock and thromboembolism were associated with increased IM. The QLattice algorithm, provided the highest performance model (+LR: 3.2, 95% CI 3.0–3.3; area‐under‐curve [AUC]:0.87, 85% sensitivity, 73% specificity), distinguishing IM patients by 15.6‐fold when comparing high to low‐risk patients. The surgical cohort model (+LR: 8.5, AUC: 0.94, 85% sensitivity, 90% specificity), distinguished IM patients by 49‐fold. Both models performed excellently in external validation. An online calculator ( https://clinicalc.ai/im‐ibd/ ) was developed allowing bedside model predictions. Conclusions An online prediction‐model calculator captured > 80% IM cases during IBD‐related admissions, with high discriminatory effectiveness. This allows for risk stratification and provides a basis for assessing interventions to reduce mortality in high‐risk patients.

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.

INTRODUCTION: Limited guidance exists for the postdischarge care of patients with ulcerative colitis hospitalized for moderate-severe flares. METHODS: RAND methodology was used to establish appropriateness of inpatient and postdischarge steroid dosing, discharge criteria, follow-up, and postdischarge biologic or small molecule initiation. A literature review informed on the panel's voting, which occurred anonymously during 2 rounds before and after a moderated virtual session. RESULTS: Methylprednisolone 40–60 mg intravenous every 24 hours or hydrocortisone 100 mg intravenous 3 times daily is appropriate for inpatient management, with methylprednisolone 40 mg being appropriate if intolerant of higher doses. It is appropriate to discharge patients once rectal bleeding has resolved (Mayo subscore 0–1) and/or stool frequency has returned to baseline frequency and form (Mayo subscore 0–1). It is appropriate to discharge patients on 40 mg of prednisone after observing patients for 24 hours in hospital to ensure stability before discharge. For patients being discharged on steroids without in-hospital biologic or small molecule therapy initiation, it is appropriate to start antitumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy after discharge for anti-TNF-naive patients. For anti-TNF-exposed patients, it is appropriate to start vedolizumab or ustekinumab for all patients and tofacitinib for those with a low risk of adverse events. It is appropriate to follow up patients clinically within 2 weeks and with lower endoscopy within 4–6 months after discharge. DISCUSSION: We provide recommendations on the inpatient and postdischarge management of patients with ulcerative colitis hospitalized for moderate-severe flares.

Abstract Background Vedolizumab effectiveness estimates immediately after Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) are limited by use in refractory populations. We aimed to compare treatment patterns and outcomes of vedolizumab in 2 time frames after FDA approval. Methods We used 2 data sets for time trend analysis, an academic multicenter vedolizumab consortium (VICTORY) and the Truven MarketScan database, and 2 time periods, May 2014–June 2015 (Era 1) and July 2015–June 2017 (Era 2). VICTORY cumulative 12-month clinical remission, corticosteroid-free remission, and mucosal healing rates, and Truven 12-month hospitalization and surgery rates, were compared between Eras 1 and 2 using time-to-event analyses. Results A total of 3661 vedolizumab-treated patients were included (n = 1087 VICTORY, n = 2574 Truven). In both cohorts, CD and UC patients treated during Era 2 were more likely to be biologic naïve. Compared with Era 1, Era 2 CD patients in the VICTORY consortium had higher rates of clinical remission (31% vs 40%, P = 0.03) and mucosal healing (42% vs 58%, P < 0.01). These trends were not observed for UC. In the Truven database, UC patients treated during Era 2 had lower rates of inflammatory bowel disease–related hospitalization (22.4% vs 9.6%, P < 0.001) and surgery (17.2% vs 9.4%, P = 0.008), which was not observed for CD. Conclusion Since FDA approval, remission and mucosal healing rates have increased for vedolizumab-treated CD patients, and vedolizumab-treated UC patients have had fewer hospitalizations and surgeries. This is likely due to differences between patient populations treated immediately after drug approval and those treated later.