Targownik, Laura E.

Abstract Background and Aims This post hoc analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis stratified by corticosteroid use from the ulcerative colitis Phase 3 clinical trial programme. Methods Patients were randomised [1:2] to 8 weeks’ placebo or upadacitinib 45 mg once daily; Week 8 responders were re-randomised [1:1:1] to 52 weeks’ placebo or upadacitinib 15 or 30 mg daily. Corticosteroid dose was kept stable during induction but tapered according to a protocol-defined schedule [or investigator discretion] during maintenance Weeks 0–8. Efficacy outcomes and exposure-adjusted, treatment-emergent adverse event [TEAE] rates were assessed for induction and maintenance stratified by corticosteroid use at induction baseline. Results Overall, 377/988 [38%] patients were receiving corticosteroids at induction baseline [placebo, n = 133; upadacitinib 45 mg, n = 244] and 252 [37%] of the 681 clinical responders who entered maintenance were on corticosteroids at induction baseline [n = 84 for each treatment]. Similar proportions of patients receiving upadacitinib achieved clinical remission per Adapted Mayo Score with and without baseline corticosteroids at Weeks 8 and 52. The total proportion of patients re-initiating corticosteroids was higher with placebo [24/84;29%] vs upadacitinib 15 mg [16/81; 20%)] and 30 mg [11/81; 14%]. During induction, patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline had higher rates of TEAEs, serious TEAEs, and serious infections vs those not receiving corticosteroids; however, TEAE rates were similar during maintenance after corticosteroid withdrawal. Conclusions Upadacitinib is an effective steroid-sparing treatment in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT02819635; NCT03653026

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 The oral, selective Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib (UPA) has demonstrated efficacy as induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active Ulcerative Colitis (UC) in a Phase 3 clinical programme comprising two identical induction trials (U-ACHIEVE Induction [NCT02819635] and U-ACCOMPLISH [NCT03653026]) and a maintenance study (U-ACHIEVE Maintenance). This analysis assessed the impact of baseline corticosteroid (CS) use on the efficacy and safety of UPA in patients in these trials. Methods Patients were randomised 2:1 to UPA 45 mg once daily (QD) or placebo (PBO) for 8 weeks. Patients who achieved a clinical response at Week 8 were re-randomised 1:1:1 to UPA 15 mg QD, UPA 30 mg QD or PBO for 52 weeks. Here, we report induction and maintenance endpoints and safety data stratified by baseline CS use. Results Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally well balanced across treatment groups, regardless of baseline CS use. Clinical remission rates among patients receiving UPA 45 mg induction therapy did not differ by baseline CS use (Figure 1A). In the induction period, rates of treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest (AESI), including serious and opportunistic infections, were increased in the UPA 45 mg plus baseline CS group compared with the PBO and UPA without baseline CS groups (Table 1). In the maintenance study, CS tapering was mandated. CS-free remission at Week 52 (defined as clinical remission, per Adapted Mayo Score, and CS free for ≥90 days immediately prior to Week 52) was significantly increased with UPA 30 and 15 mg compared with PBO (both p<0.001; Figure 1B). Among patients receiving UPA maintenance, rates of treatment-emergent AESIs in the baseline CS versus no baseline CS groups were 33% versus 39% and 27% versus 35% in the UPA 30 mg and UPA 15 mg groups, respectively. Malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolic events, and serious and opportunistic infections were reported infrequently in patients receiving UPA (Table 1). Conclusion This post hoc analysis suggests that, in patients with moderately to severely active UC, UPA is superior to PBO in conferring CS-free remission. Baseline CS use was not associated with any apparent efficacy benefit and carried a potential increased safety risk. These results suggest that achieving early disease control with UPA and without CS use is an optimal treatment strategy for this population.

Abstract Background & Aims Crohn’s disease (CD) is a lifelong illness with substantial morbidity, although new therapies and treatment paradigms have been developed. We provide guidance for treatment of ambulatory patients with mild to severe active luminal CD. Methods We performed a systematic review to identify published studies of the management of CD. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Statements were developed through an iterative online platform and then finalized and voted on by a group of specialists. Results The consensus includes 41 statements focused on 6 main drug classes: antibiotics, 5-aminosalicylate, corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, biologic therapies, and other therapies. The group suggested against the use of antibiotics or 5-aminosalicylate as induction or maintenance therapies. Corticosteroid therapies (including budesonide) can be used as induction, but not maintenance therapies. Among immunosuppressants, thiopurines should not be used for induction, but can be used for maintenance therapy for selected low-risk patients. Parenteral methotrexate was proposed for induction and maintenance therapy in patients with corticosteroid-dependent CD. Biologic agents, including tumor necrosis factor antagonists, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab, were recommended for patients failed by conventional induction therapies and as maintenance therapy. The consensus group was unable to clearly define the role of concomitant immunosuppressant therapies in initiation of treatment with a biologic agent. Conclusions Optimal management of CD requires careful patient assessment, acknowledgement of patient preferences, evidence-based use of existing therapies, and thorough assessment to define treatment success.