Ustekinumab as Induction and Maintenance Therapy for Crohn’s Disease

BACKGROUND Ustekinumab, a monoclonal antibody to the p40 subunit of interleukin-12 and inter-leukin-23, was evaluated as an intravenous induction therapy in two populations with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease. Ustekinumab was also evaluated as subcutaneous maintenance therapy. METHODS We randomly assigned patients to receive a single intravenous dose of ustekinumab (either 130 mg or approximately 6 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo in two induction trials. The UNITI-1 trial included 741 patients who met the criteria for primary or secondary nonresponse to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists or had unacceptable side effects. The UNITI-2 trial included 628 patients in whom conventional therapy failed or unacceptable side effects occurred. Patients who completed these induction trials then participated in IM-UNITI, in which the 397 patients who had a response to ustekinumab were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous maintenance injections of 90 mg of ustekinumab (either every 8 weeks or every 12 weeks) or placebo. The primary end point for the induction trials was a clinical response at week 6 (defined as a decrease from baseline in the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score of ≥100 points or a CDAI score <150). The primary end point for the maintenance trial was remission at week 44 (CDAI score <150). RESULTS The rates of response at week 6 among patients receiving intravenous ustekinumab at a dose of either 130 mg or approximately 6 mg per kilogram were significantly higher than the rates among patients receiving placebo (in UNITI-1, 34.3%, 33.7%, and 21.5%, respectively, with P≤0.003 for both comparisons with placebo; in UNITI-2, 51.7%, 55.5%, and 28.7%, respectively, with P<0.001 for both doses). In the groups receiving maintenance doses of ustekinumab every 8 weeks or every 12 weeks, 53.1% and 48.8%, respectively, were in remission at week 44, as compared with 35.9% of those receiving placebo (P = 0.005 and P = 0.04, respectively). Within each trial, adverse-event rates were similar among treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease, those receiving intravenous ustekinumab had a significantly higher rate of response than did those receiving placebo. Subcutaneous ustekinumab maintained remission in patients who had a clinical response to induction therapy. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01369329, NCT01369342, and NCT01369355.

Long-Term Safety of In Utero Exposure to Anti-TNF\u3b1 Drugs for the Treatment of Infl ammatory Bowel Disease: Results from the Multicenter European TEDDY Study

OBJECTIVES: The long-term safety of exposure to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs during pregnancy has received little attention. We aimed to compare the relative risk of severe infections in children of mothers with infl ammatory bowel disease (IBD) who were exposed to anti-TNF drugs in utero with that of children who were not exposed to the drugs. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter cohort study. Exposed cohort: children from mothers with IBD receiving anti-TNF medication (with or without thiopurines) at any time during pregnancy or during the 3 months before conception. Non-exposed cohort: children from mothers with IBD not treated with anti-TNF agents or thiopurines at any time during pregnancy or the 3 months before conception.The cumulative incidence of severe infections after birth was estimated using Kaplan\u2013Meier curves, which were compared using the log-rank test. Cox-regression analysis was performed to identify potential predictive factors for severe infections in the offspring. RESULTS: The study population comprised 841 children, of whom 388 (46%) had been exposed to anti-TNF agents. Median follow-up after delivery was 47 months in the exposed group and 68 months in the non-exposed group. Both univariate and multivariate analysis showed the incidence rate of severe infections to be similar in non-exposed and exposed children (1.6% vs. 2.8% per person-year, hazard ratio 1.2 (95% confi dence interval 0.8\u20131.8)). In the multivariate analysis, preterm delivery was the only variable associated with a higher risk of severe infection (2.5% (1.5\u20134.3). CONCLUSIONS: In utero exposure to anti-TNF drugs does not seem to be associated with increased short-term or long-term risk of severe infections in children

Endoscopic Postoperative Recurrence in Crohn's Disease After Curative Ileocecal Resection with Early Prophylaxis by Anti-TNF, Vedolizumab or Ustekinumab: A Real-World Multicentre European Study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic-post-operative-recurrence [ePOR] in Crohn's disease [CD] after ileocecal resection [ICR] is a major concern. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of early prophylaxis with biologics and to compare anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] therapy to vedolizumab [VDZ] and ustekinumab [UST] in a real-world setting. METHODS: A retrospective multicentre study of CD-adults after curative ICR on early prophylaxis was undertaken. ePOR was defined as a Rutgeerts score [RS] ≥ i2 or colonic-segmental-SES-CD ≥ 6. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate risk factors, and inverse probability treatment weighting [IPTW] was applied to compare the effectiveness between agents. RESULTS: The study included 297 patients (53.9% males, age at diagnosis 24 years [19-32], age at ICR 34 years [26-43], 18.5% smokers, 27.6% biologic-naïve, 65.7% anti-TNF experienced, 28.6% two or more biologics and 17.2% previous surgery). Overall, 224, 39 and 34 patients received anti-TNF, VDZ or UST, respectively. Patients treated with VDZ and UST were more biologic experienced with higher rates of previous surgery. ePOR rates within 1 year were 41.8%. ePOR rates by treatment groups were: anti-TNF 40.2%, VDZ 33% and UST 61.8%. Risk factors for ePOR at 1 year were: past-infliximab (adjusted odds ratio [adj.OR] = 1.73 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.01-2.97]), past-adalimumab [adj.OR = 2.32 [95% CI: 1.35-4.01] and surgical aspects. After IPTW, the risk of ePOR within 1 year of VDZ vs anti-TNF or UST vs anti-TNF was comparable (OR = 0.55 [95% CI: 0.25-1.19], OR = 1.86 [95% CI: 0.79-4.38]), respectively. CONCLUSION: Prevention of ePOR within 1 year after surgery was successful in ~60% of patients. Patients treated with VDZ or UST consisted of a more refractory group. After controlling for confounders, no differences in ePOR risk were seen between anti-TNF prophylaxis and other groups

Infliximab Reduces Endoscopic, but Not Clinical, Recurrence of Crohn's Disease after Ileocolonic Resection

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Most patients with Crohn\u2019s disease (CD) eventually require an intestinal resection. However, CD frequently recurs after resection. We performed a randomized trial to compare the ability of infliximab vs placebo to prevent CD recurrence. METHODS: We evaluated the efficacy of infliximab in preventing postoperative recurrence of CD in 297 patients at 104 sites worldwide from November 2010 through May 2012. All study patients had undergone ileocolonic resection within 45 days before randomization. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups given infliximab (5 mg/kg) or placebo every 8 weeks for 200 weeks. The primary end point was clinical recurrence, defined as a composite outcome consisting of a CD Activity Index score >200 and a 70-point increase from baseline, and endoscopic recurrence (Rutgeerts score i2, determined by a central reader) or development of a new or re-draining fistula or abscess, before or at week 76. Endoscopic recurrence was a major secondary end point. RESULTS: A smaller proportion of patients in the infliximab group had a clinical recurrence before or at week 76 compared with the placebo group, but this difference was not statistically significant (12.9% vs 20.0%; absolute risk reduction [ARR] with infliximab, 7.1%; 95% confidence interval: 1.3% to 15.5%; P \ubc .097). A significantly smaller proportion of patients in the infliximab group had endoscopic recurrence compared with the placebo group (30.6% vs 60.0%; ARR with infliximab, 29.4%; 95% confidence interval: 18.6% to 40.2%; P < .001). Additionally, a significantly smaller proportion of patients in the infliximab group had endoscopic recurrence based only on Rutgeerts scores i2 (22.4% vs 51.3%; ARR with infliximab, 28.9%; 95% confidence interval: 18.4% to 39.4%; P < .001). Patients previously treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor agents or those with more than 1 resection were at greater risk for clinical recurrence. The safety profile of infliximab was similar to that from previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab is not superior to placebo in preventing clinical recurrence after CD-related resection. However, infliximab does reduce endoscopic recurrence

Etrolizumab versus infliximab for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (GARDENIA): a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3 study

Background: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted anti-β7 integrin monoclonal antibody. In a previous phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission versus placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of etrolizumab with infliximab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Methods: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, phase 3 study (GARDENIA) across 114 treatment centres worldwide. We included adults (age 18–80 years) with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6–12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) who were naive to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. Patients were required to have had an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg once every 4 weeks or intravenous infliximab 5 mg/kg at 0, 2, and 6 weeks and every 8 weeks thereafter for 52 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants, and baseline disease activity. All participants and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had both clinical response at week 10 (MCS ≥3-point decrease and ≥30% reduction from baseline, plus ≥1-point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore or absolute rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1) and clinical remission at week 54 (MCS ≤2, with individual subscores ≤1); efficacy was analysed using a modified intention-to-treat population (all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug). GARDENIA was designed to show superiority of etrolizumab over infliximab for the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02136069, and is now closed to recruitment. Findings: Between Dec 24, 2014, and June 23, 2020, 730 patients were screened for eligibility and 397 were enrolled and randomly assigned to etrolizumab (n=199) or infliximab (n=198). 95 (48%) patients in the etrolizumab group and 103 (52%) in the infliximab group completed the study through week 54. At week 54, 37 (18·6%) of 199 patients in the etrolizumab group and 39 (19·7%) of 198 in the infliximab group met the primary endpoint (adjusted treatment difference –0·9% [95% CI –8·7 to 6·8]; p=0·81). The number of patients reporting one or more adverse events was similar between treatment groups (154 [77%] of 199 in the etrolizumab group and 151 [76%] of 198 in the infliximab group); the most common adverse event in both groups was ulcerative colitis (55 [28%] patients in the etrolizumab group and 43 [22%] in the infliximab group). More patients in the etrolizumab group reported serious adverse events (including serious infections) than did those in the infliximab group (32 [16%] vs 20 [10%]); the most common serious adverse event was ulcerative colitis (12 [6%] and 11 [6%]). There was one death during follow-up, in the infliximab group due to a pulmonary embolism, which was not considered to be related to study treatment. Interpretation: To our knowledge, this trial is the first phase 3 maintenance study in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis to use infliximab as an active comparator. Although the study did not show statistical superiority for the primary endpoint, etrolizumab performed similarly to infliximab from a clinical viewpoint. Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche

Etrolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis in patients previously treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (HICKORY): a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial

Background: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted, anti-β7 integrin, monoclonal antibody. In an earlier phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission compared with placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who had been previously treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents. Methods: HICKORY was a multicentre, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in adult (18–80 years) patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6–12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) previously treated with TNF inhibitors. Patients were recruited from 184 treatment centres across 24 countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and the Middle East. Patients needed to have an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. In cohort 1, patients received open-label etrolizumab 105 mg every 4 weeks for a 14-week induction period. In cohort 2, patients were randomly assigned (4:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for the 14-week induction phase. Patients in either cohort achieving clinical response to etrolizumab induction were eligible for the maintenance phase, in which they were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg or placebo every 4 weeks through to week 66. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants (induction randomisation only), baseline disease activity, week 14 MCS remission status (maintenance randomisation only), and induction cohort (maintenance randomisation only). All patients and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were remission (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] ≤2, with individual subscores of ≤1 and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0) at week 14, and remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response (MCS with ≥3-point decrease and ≥30% reduction from baseline, plus ≥1 point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore or absolute rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1) at week 14. Efficacy was analysed using a modified intent-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug during the induction phase. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02100696. Findings: HICKORY was conducted from May 21, 2014, to April 16, 2020, during which time 1081 patients were screened, and 609 deemed eligible for inclusion. 130 patients were included in cohort 1. In cohort 2,479 patients were randomly assigned to the induction phase (etrolizumab n=384, placebo n=95). 232 patients were randomly assigned to the maintenance phase (etrolizumab to etrolizumab n=117, etrolizumab to placebo n=115). At week 14, 71 (18·5%) of 384 patients in the etrolizumab group and six (6·3%) of 95 patients in the placebo group achieved the primary induction endpoint of remission (p=0·0033). No significant difference between etrolizumab and placebo was observed for the primary maintenance endpoint of remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response at week 14 (27 [24·1%] of 112 vs 23 [20·2%] of 114; p=0·50). Four patients in the etrolizumab group reported treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. The proportion of patients reporting at least adverse event was similar between treatment groups for induction (etrolizumab 253 [66%] of 384; placebo 63 [66%] of 95) and maintenance (etrolizumab to etrolizumab 98 [88%] of 112; etrolizumab to placebo 97 [85%] of 114). The most common adverse event in both groups was ulcerative colitis flare. Most adverse events were mild or moderate. During induction, the most common serious adverse event was ulcerative colitis flare (etrolizumab ten [3%] of 384; placebo: two [2%] of 95). During maintenance, the most common serious adverse event in the etrolizumab to etrolizumab group was appendicitis (two [2%] of 112) and the most common serious adverse events in the etrolizumab to placebo group were ulcerative colitis flare (two [2%] of 114) and anaemia (two [2%] of 114). Interpretation: HICKORY demonstrated that a significantly higher proportion of patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who had been previously treated with anti-TNF agent were able to achieve remission at week 14 when treated with etrolizumab compared with placebo; however, there was no significant difference between groups in remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response at week 14. Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche