Citations

Abstract Background We evaluated the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits of upadacitinib (UPA) induction and maintenance treatment in a phase 3 study of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) across a broad range of patient-centered outcomes. Methods Patients received UPA 45 mg once daily or placebo as induction treatment for 8 weeks. Patients who achieved clinical response were rerandomized to receive once daily UPA 15 mg, 30 mg, or placebo as maintenance treatment for 52 weeks. The percentages of patients reporting a clinically meaningful within-person change from baseline in the Ulcerative Colitis Symptoms Questionnaire, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire, Work Productivity and Impairment Questionnaire, 36-Item Short Form Survey, and European Quality of Life-5 Dimension 5 Levels were evaluated at weeks 2 and 8 of induction and at weeks 0 and 52 of maintenance. Results Significant improvements from baseline in all HRQoL measures except the Work Productivity and Impairment Questionnaire–absenteeism were achieved with UPA (P < .001) vs placebo as early as week 2 of induction. These improvements were sustained at week 52 with significantly more patients treated with either 15 mg or 30 mg UPA vs placebo achieving meaningful within-person change in the Ulcerative Colitis Symptoms Questionnaire; Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire; overall work impairment, presenteeism, and activity impairment; both 36-Item Short Form Survey Physical and Mental Component Summaries; and European Quality of Life-5 Dimension 5 Levels (P < .001). Conclusions Induction treatment with UPA 45 mg significantly improved HRQoL measures. A significantly higher percentage of patients who responded to induction treatment with UPA maintained clinically meaningful improvements consistently across a wide range of HRQoL outcomes after 52 weeks of maintenance therapy with UPA (15 mg and 30 mg) compared with placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Numbers: NCT02819635, NCT03653026).

INTRODUCTION: Children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may respond differently to COVID-19 immunization as compared with healthy children or adults with IBD. Those younger than 12 years receive a lower vaccine dose than adults. We sought to describe the safety and humoral immune response to COVID-19 vaccine in children with IBD. METHODS: We recruited children with IBD, ages 5–17 years, who received ≥ 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine by a direct-to-patient outreach and at select sites. Patient demographics, IBD characteristics, medication use, and vaccine adverse events were collected. A subset of participants had quantitative measurement of anti-receptor binding domain IgG antibodies after 2-part immunization. RESULTS: Our study population included 280 participants. Only 1 participant required an ED visit or hospitalization because of an adverse event. Of 99 participants who underwent anti-receptor binding domain IgG antibody measurement, 98 had a detectable antibody, with a mean antibody level of 43.0 μg/mL (SD 67) and a median of 22 μg/mL (interquartile range 12–38). In adjusted analyses, older age ( P = 0.028) and antitumor necrosis factor monotherapy compared with immunomodulators alone ( P = 0.005) were associated with a decreased antibody level. Antibody response in patients treated with antitumor necrosis factor combination vs monotherapy was numerically lower but not significant. DISCUSSION: Humoral immune response to COVID-19 immunization in children with IBD was robust, despite a high proportion of this pediatric cohort being treated with immunosuppressive agents. Severe vaccine-related AEs were rare. Overall, these findings provide a high level of reassurance that pediatric patients with IBD respond well and safely to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Abstract Background Much of our understanding about the natural history of pouch-related disorders has been generated from selected populations. We designed a geographically diverse, prospective registry to study the disease course among patients with 1 of 4 inflammatory conditions of the pouch. The primary objectives in this study were to demonstrate the feasibility of a prospective pouch registry and to evaluate the predominant treatment patterns for pouch-related disorders. Methods We used standardized diagnostic criteria to prospectively enroll patients with acute pouchitis, chronic antibiotic-dependent pouchitis (CADP), chronic antibiotic refractory pouchitis (CARP), or Crohn’s disease (CD) of the pouch. We obtained detailed clinical and demographic data at the time of enrollment, along with patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Results We enrolled 318 patients (10% acute pouchitis, 27% CADP, 12% CARP, and 51% CD of the pouch). Among all patients, 55% were on a biologic or small molecule therapy. Patients with CD of the pouch were more likely to use several classes of therapy (P < .001). Among patients with active disease at the time of enrollment, 23% with CARP and 40% with CD of the pouch were in clinical remission at 6 months after enrollment. Conclusions In a population where most patients had refractory inflammatory conditions of the pouch, we established a framework to evaluate PROs and clinical effectiveness. This infrastructure will be valuable for long-term studies of real-world effectiveness for pouch-related disorders.

Lay SummaryWe demonstrate low rates of breakthrough coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and mild course of illness following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination in a large cohort of inflammatory bowel disease patients. Residence in southern United States and lower median anti-receptor binding antibody level were associated with development of COVID-19.

Abstract Background Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral selective and reversible JAK inhibitor, demonstrated significantly greater efficacy compared with placebo (PBO) for induction of remission in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) in two phase 3 induction trials. Aims Evaluate safety and efficacy of 52 weeks of UPA 15 mg QD (UPA15) and 30mg QD (UPA30) compared to placebo in patients achieving clinical response following UPA 45 mg treatment in the induction trials. Methods The primary analysis (n=451) evaluated efficacy and safety of UPA15 and UPA30 compared to PBO as maintenance therapy. The primary endpoint was clinical remission via adapted Mayo score at wk 52. Ranked secondary endpoints included endoscopic improvement, maintenance of clinical remission, corticosteroid-free clinical remission, maintenance of endoscopic improvement, endoscopic remission, maintenance of clinical response and Histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement (HEMI). Results Baseline characteristics were similar between all treatment groups. Both UPA15 and UPA30 met the primary endpoint, and all secondary endpoints. Significantly greater percentages of patients receiving UPA15 and UPA30 vs. PBO achieved clinical remission (42.3% and 51.7%, vs. 12.1%), endoscopic improvement (48.7% and 61.6%, vs. 14.5%), maintenance of clinical remission (59.2% and 69.7%, vs. 22.2%), corticosteroid-free clinical remission (57.1% and 68.0%, vs. 22.2%), maintenance of endoscopic improvement (61.6% and 69.5%, vs. 18.9%), endoscopic remission, (24.2% and 25.9%, vs. 5.6%) and HEMI (34.8% and 49.3%, vs. 11.8%) (p<0.001 for all endpoints). UPA15 and UPA30 were both well-tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. Rates for serious adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were similar between UPA15 and UPA30 groups and lower compared to the PBO group. Most common AEs were nasopharyngitis and creatine phosphokinase elevation among UPA groups and UC exacerbation within the PBO group (30.2%). Herpes zoster was only reported in UPA groups (3.9%-4.1%). Similar rates of malignancy excluding NMSC were seen within all groups (0.7%-1.3%). MACE were only reported among patients receiving PBO (0.7%), while VTE were only found with UPA30 (1.3%). Conclusions In patients responding to UPA induction therapy, both UPA15 and UPA30 were safe and effective as maintenance treatment at 52 wk for all primary and secondary endpoints. Patients receiving UPA30 responded approximately 10% better for most endpoints compared to those receiving UPA15. Both doses were well-tolerated, with no new safety signals observed. Funding Agencies AbbVie

Abstract Background Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is reduced in patients (pts) with ulcerative colitis (UC). We report on the HRQOL benefits of maintenance treatment with upadacitinib (UPA), a selective and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor, in pts with moderately to severely active UC in the Phase, 3 multicentre, randomised, double-blind U-ACHIEVE maintenance study (NCT02819635). Methods This study included a primary analysis of, 451 pts who achieved clinical response following treatment with UPA, 45 mg once daily (QD) in two replicate, 8-week induction studies, U-ACHIEVE induction, and U-ACCOMPLISH (NCT03653026). In U-ACHIEVE maintenance, pts from both induction studies were re-randomised, 1:1:1 to receive QD UPA, 15 mg, UPA, 30 mg, or PBO. HRQOL outcomes evaluated included the percent of pts reporting a clinically meaningful within-person change (MWPC) from induction baseline to Week, 0 (maintenance baseline) and Week, 52 (end of maintenance) in a broad range of HRQOL measures, including Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ), Work Productivity and Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI), Short Form, 36 (SF-36), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L), and Ulcerative Colitis Symptoms Questionnaire (UC-SQ). Results A total of, 149, 148, and, 154 pts received PBO, UPA, 15 mg, and UPA, 30 mg QD, respectively, during maintenance. At Week, 0 of the maintenance study, there were no significant differences between UPA and PBO treatment groups in the percentage of pts reporting MWPC relative to induction baseline for most pt-reported outcomes (PROs) as all pts enrolled in maintenance were UPA clinical responders during IP. For IBDQ, a significantly greater proportion of pts achieved MWPC criteria (p<0.001) with UPA, 15 mg (68.9%) and UPA, 30 mg (78.6%) vs, 39.6% for PBO at Week, 52 (Figure, 1). Also, a significantly greater proportion of pts treated with either, 15 mg or, 30 mg UPA dosage vs PBO over, 52 weeks achieved MWPC for the WPAI domains (p≤0.01) of overall work improvement, presenteeism, and activity impairment (Figure, 2), in both physical and mental component summaries of SF-36 (p<0.001, Figure, 3), in EQ-5D-5L (p<0.001, Figure, 4), and in UC-SQ (p<0.001). A numerically greater proportion of pts receiving UPA, 30 mg vs, 15 mg achieved MWPC in most PROs at Week 52. Conclusion A significantly higher percentage of pts with moderately to severely active UC who responded to UPA induction therapy maintained clinically meaningful improvements with UPA, 15 mg of, 30 mg compared to PBO consistently across a broad range of HRQOL outcomes after, 52 weeks of maintenance treatment. These HRQOL aspects include IBD symptoms (IBDQ, UC-SQ), work productivity (WPAI), physical and mental functioning (SF-36), and general well-being (IBDQ, EQ-5D).

Abstract Background Upadacitinib (UPA), a selective and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor, has been shown to be safe and effective when administered at a dose of 45 mg once daily (QD) as 8-week induction therapy in moderate-to-severe Ulcerative Colitis (UC). This analysis evaluated outcomes following extended induction (45 mg QD for 16 weeks) followed by maintenance (15 or 30 mg QD) treatment with UPA in patients with UC who did not achieve a clinical response after 8 weeks’ induction. Methods Patients with moderate-to-severe UC who failed to achieve a clinical response (Adapted Mayo score decrease of ≥2 points and ≥30% from baseline, plus ≥1-point decrease in rectal bleeding score [RBS] or absolute RBS ≤1) to 8 weeks’ induction treatment with UPA 45 mg QD in the U-ACHIEVE Induction (NCT02819635) or U-ACCOMPLISH (NCT03653026) studies, continued to receive UPA 45 mg QD in an 8-week open-label extension. Responders at the end of the open-label extension entered the U-ACHIEVE Maintenance study and were randomised 1:1 to UPA 15 mg or 30 mg QD for 52 weeks. The efficacy endpoints were evaluated at Week 16 for the induction studies and at Week 52 for the maintenance study. Results In total, 125 patients who failed to achieve a clinical response after 8 weeks’ induction treatment received open-label UPA 45 mg for a further 8 weeks. Of these patients, 48.3% achieved a clinical response at Week 16 and were re-randomised to UPA 15 or 30 mg in U-ACHIEVE Maintenance. Among 16-week responders who entered the maintenance study, clinical remission, maintenance of clinical response, and endoscopic improvement, respectively, at Week 52 were achieved in 33.3% versus 19.0%, 66.7% versus 35.7%, and 37.5% versus 23.8% of those who received UPA 30 versus UPA 15 mg QD as maintenance treatment (Table 1). Adverse events of special interest were reported infrequently in the two maintenance treatment groups (Table 2). Conclusion In this analysis, prolonged induction treatment for a total of 16 weeks was beneficial in almost half of UC patients who failed to achieve a clinical response after 8 weeks’ induction with UPA 45 mg. The benefit of maintenance therapy in these delayed responders was further demonstrated, with UPA 30 mg providing greater benefit than UPA 15 mg QD.

INTRODUCTION: Although an additional coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine dose for immunocompromised persons has been recommended in some countries, further data to guide vaccination strategies for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are urgently needed. We sought to identify factors affecting initial humoral immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines among patients with IBD. METHODS: In this prospective cohort of SARS-CoV-2 immunized patients with IBD, we evaluated associations between participant age, sex, vaccine type, medication use, and the presence of a detectable antireceptor binding domain antibody and quantitative antibody level. RESULTS: In total, 1,909 participants were included (1,123, 692, and 94 received BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S, respectively) of whom 96% achieved a positive antibody response. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with lack of antibody response were older age ( P = 0.043), BNT162b2 vs mRNA-1273 (odds ratio [OR] 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0–3.9), and combination therapy with anti-TNF and 6MP, azathioprine, or methotrexate (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.4–7.3). The use of 5-aminosalicylate or sulfasalazine (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1–0.8) and ustekinumab (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.05–0.8) was associated with decreased odds of lacking antibody response. DISCUSSION: Most patients with IBD mount an initial response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination; however, older patients and those treated with anti-TNF and immunomodulator have blunted responses and may benefit the most from an additional vaccine dose. Patients treated with other classes of immunosuppressive medications have more robust initial immune responses to vaccination. These data should inform key decisions about patient selection for additional coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine doses in patients with IBD.

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination is recommended for all individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including those on immunosuppressive therapies; however, little is known about vaccine safety and efficacy in these patients or the impact of vaccination on IBD disease course. Methods We evaluated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine–related adverse events (AEs) and the effect of vaccination on IBD disease course among participants in the PREVENT-COVID (Partnership to Report Effectiveness of Vaccination in populations Excluded from iNitial Trials of COVID) study, a prospective, observational cohort study. Localized and systemic reactions were assessed via questionnaire. Disease flare was defined by worsening IBD symptoms and change in IBD medications. Outcomes were stratified by vaccine type and IBD medication classes. Results A total of 3316 individuals with IBD received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccine. Injection site tenderness (68%) and fatigue (46% dose 1, 68% dose 2) were the most commonly reported localized and systemic AEs after vaccination. Severe localized and systemic vaccine-related AEs were rare. The mRNA-1273 vaccine was associated with significantly greater severe AEs at dose 2 (localized 4% vs 2%, systemic 15% vs 10%; P < .001 for both). Prior COVID-19 infection, female sex, and vaccine type were associated with severe systemic reactions to dose 1, while age <50 years, female sex, vaccine type, and antitumor necrosis factor and vedolizumab use were associated with severe systemic reactions to dose 2. Overall rates (2%) of IBD flare were low following vaccination. Conclusions Our findings provide reassurance that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine is safe and well tolerated among individuals with IBD, which may help to combat vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine confidence.