Impact of Prior Biologic or Janus Kinase Inhibitor Therapy on Efficacy and Safety of Etrasimod in the ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 Trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Etrasimod is an oral, once daily, selective sphingosine 1-phosphate [S1P]1,4,5 receptor modulator for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis [UC]. This subgroup analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of etrasimod 2 mg once daily vs placebo by prior biologic/Janus kinase inhibitor [bio/JAKi] exposure in ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12. METHODS: Pre-defined efficacy endpoints were assessed at Weeks 12 and 52 in ELEVATE UC 52 and Week 12 in ELEVATE UC 12 in bio/JAKi-naïve and -experienced patients, and at Week 12 [pooled] based on prior advanced therapy exposure mechanism. RESULTS: In the ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 analysis populations, 80/274 [29.2%] and 74/222 [33.3%] patients receiving etrasimod and 42/135 [31.1%] and 38/112 [33.9%] patients receiving placebo, respectively, were bio/JAKi-experienced. In both bio/JAKi-naïve and -experienced patients, a significantly greater proportion receiving etrasimod vs placebo achieved clinical remission (p<0.05) in ELEVATE UC 52 at Weeks 12 [naïve: 30.9% vs 9.7%; experienced: 17.5% vs 2.4%] and 52 [naïve: 36.6% vs 7.5%; experienced: 21.3% vs 4.8%]; in ELEVATE UC 12, this was observed only for bio/JAKi-naïve patients [naïve: 27.7% vs 16.2%, p=0.033; experienced: 18.9% vs 13.2%, p=0.349]. Similar patterns were observed for most efficacy endpoints. Among patients with prior anti-integrin exposure [N=90], a significantly greater proportion achieved clinical response [54.1% vs 27.6%, p=0.030], but not clinical remission [9.8% vs 3.4%, p=0.248], with etrasimod vs placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Bio/JAKi-naïve and -experienced patients had clinically meaningful induction and maintenance treatment benefits with etrasimod vs placebo.

Machine learning to understand risks for severe COVID-19 outcomes: a retrospective cohort study of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, immunomodulatory medications, and comorbidities in a large US health-care system.

BACKGROUND: In the context of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), COVID-19 outcomes are incompletely understood and vary considerably depending on the patient population studied. We aimed to analyse severe COVID-19 outcomes and to investigate the effects of the pandemic time period and the risks associated with individual IMIDs, classes of immunomodulatory medications (IMMs), chronic comorbidities, and COVID-19 vaccination status. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, clinical data were derived from the electronic health records of an integrated health-care system serving patients in 51 hospitals and 1085 clinics across seven US states (Providence St Joseph Health). Data were observed for patients (no age restriction) with one or more IMID and for unmatched controls without IMIDs. COVID-19 was identified with a positive nucleic acid amplification test result for SARS-CoV-2. Two timeframes were analysed: March 1, 2020-Dec 25, 2021 (pre-omicron period), and Dec 26, 2021-Aug 30, 2022 (omicron-predominant period). Primary outcomes were hospitalisation, mechanical ventilation, and mortality in patients with COVID-19. Factors, including IMID diagnoses, comorbidities, long-term use of IMMs, and COVID-19 vaccination status, were analysed with multivariable logistic regression (LR) and extreme gradient boosting (XGB). FINDINGS: Of 2 167 656 patients tested for SARS-CoV-2, 290 855 (13·4%) had confirmed COVID-19: 15 397 (5·3%) patients with IMIDs and 275 458 (94·7%) without IMIDs. In the pre-omicron period, 169 993 (11·2%) of 1 517 295 people who were tested for COVID-19 tested positive, of whom 23 330 (13·7%) were hospitalised, 1072 (0·6%) received mechanical ventilation, and 5294 (3·1%) died. Compared with controls, patients with IMIDs and COVID-19 had higher rates of hospitalisation (1176 [14·6%] vs 22 154 [13·7%]; p=0·024) and mortality (314 [3·9%] vs 4980 [3·1%]; p<0·0001). In the omicron-predominant period, 120 862 (18·6%) of 650 361 patients tested positive for COVID-19, of whom 14 504 (12·0%) were hospitalised, 567 (0·5%) received mechanical ventilation, and 2001 (1·7%) died. Compared with controls, patients with IMIDs and COVID-19 (7327 [17·3%] of 42 249) had higher rates of hospitalisation (13 422 [11·8%] vs 1082 [14·8%]; p<0·0001) and mortality (1814 [1·6%] vs 187 [2·6%]; p<0·0001). Age was a risk factor for worse outcomes (adjusted odds ratio [OR] from 2·1 [95% CI 2·0-2·1]; p<0·0001 to 3·0 [2·9-3·0]; p<0·0001), whereas COVID-19 vaccination (from 0·082 [0·080-0·085]; p<0·0001 to 0·52 [0·50-0·53]; p<0·0001) and booster vaccination (from 2·1 [2·0-2·2]; p<0·0001 to 3·0 [2·9-3·0]; p<0·0001) status were associated with better outcomes. Seven chronic comorbidities were significant risk factors during both time periods for all three outcomes: atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic liver disease, and cancer. Two IMIDs, asthma (adjusted OR from 0·33 [0·32-0·34]; p<0·0001 to 0·49 [0·48-0·51]; p<0·0001) and psoriasis (from 0·52 [0·48-0·56] to 0·80 [0·74-0·87]; p<0·0001), were associated with a reduced risk of severe outcomes. IMID diagnoses did not appear to be significant risk factors themselves, but results were limited by small sample size, and vasculitis had high feature importance in LR. IMMs did not appear to be significant, but less frequently used IMMs were limited by sample size. XGB outperformed LR, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for models across different time periods and outcomes ranging from 0·77 to 0·92. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that age, chronic comorbidities, and not being fully vaccinated might be greater risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with IMIDs than the use of IMMs or the IMIDs themselves. Overall, there is a need to take age and comorbidities into consideration when developing COVID-19 guidelines for patients with IMIDs. Further research is needed for specific IMIDs (including IMID severity at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection) and IMMs (considering dosage and timing before a patient's first COVID-19 infection). FUNDING: Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, and the National Institutes of Health.

Real-world clinical outcomes and healthcare costs in patients with Crohn's disease treated with vedolizumab versus ustekinumab in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world treatment persistence, dose escalation, rates of opportunistic or serious infections, and healthcare costs in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) receiving vedolizumab (VDZ) vs ustekinumab (UST) in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective observational study in adults with CD initiated on VDZ or UST on/after 26 September 2016, was performed using the IBM Truven Health MarketScan databases (1 January 2009-30 September 2018). Rates of treatment persistence, dose escalation, opportunistic or serious infection-related encounters, and healthcare costs per patient per month (PPPM) were evaluated. Entropy balancing was used to balance patient characteristics between cohorts. Event rates were assessed using weighted Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared between cohorts using log-rank tests. Healthcare costs were compared between cohorts using weighted 2-part models. RESULTS: 589 VDZ and 599 UST patients were included (172 [29.2%] and 117 [19.5%] were bio-naïve, respectively). After weighting, baseline characteristics were comparable between cohorts. No significant difference in rates of treatment persistence (12-month: VDZ, 76.5%; UST, 82.1%; p = .17), dose escalation (12-month: VDZ, 29.3%; UST, 32.7%; p = .97), or opportunistic or serious infection-related encounters were observed between VDZ and UST. Total mean healthcare costs were significantly lower for patients treated with VDZ vs UST (mean cost difference = -$5051 PPPM; p < .01). Findings were consistent in bio-naïve patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, similar treatment persistence, dose escalation, and rates of opportunistic or serious infections were observed with VDZ- and UST-treated patients with CD. However, VDZ was associated with a significantly lower cost outlay for healthcare systems.

Crohn's disease (CD) causes inflammation in the digestive system. Vedolizumab (VDZ) and ustekinumab (UST) are therapies for patients with CD. Little is known about the clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of VDZ versus UST in the real world in the United States. We used health claims data and found that VDZ and UST had comparable real-world clinical outcomes. After 12 months of treatment, the proportions of patients with CD who stayed on treatment and those who needed to increase therapy dose were similar with VDZ and UST. The rate of infection was also similar between the two groups of patients. However, the monthly healthcare costs were $5051 less for patients treated with VDZ than with UST. This was mainly due to the lower cost of VDZ, which was almost half of that of UST. The lower treatment costs with VDZ may provide substantial savings for the healthcare system and patients specifically. Future cost-effectiveness studies on VDZ and UST are needed to aid treatment selection for patients with CD.

Achievement of Clinical, Endoscopic, and Histological Outcomes in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis Treated with Etrasimod, and Association with Faecal Calprotectin and C-reactive Protein: Results From the Phase 2 OASIS Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Etrasimod is an oral, once-daily, selective sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P)1,4,5 receptor modulator for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis [UC]. This post-hoc analysis of the phase 2 OASIS trial [NCT02447302] evaluated its efficacy for endoscopic improvement-histologic remission [EIHR] and assessed correlation between faecal calprotectin [FCP] and C-reactive protein [CRP] levels with efficacy outcomes. METHODS: In total, 156 adults with moderately to severely active UC received once-daily etrasimod (1 mg [n = 52]; 2 mg [n = 50]) or placebo [n = 54] for 12 weeks. Clinical, endoscopic, and histologic variables were evaluated at baseline and Week 12. EIHR was defined as achievement of endoscopic improvement [endoscopic subscore ≤ 1, without friability] and histologic remission [Geboes score < 2.0]. Outcomes included the relationships between FCP and CRP concentration and clinical, endoscopic, and histologic variables. RESULTS: Achievement of EIHR was significantly higher in patients who received etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo [19.5% vs 4.1%; Mantel-Haenszel estimated difference, 15.4%; p = 0.010]. In the etrasimod 2 mg group, median FCP and CRP levels at Week 12 were significantly lower in patients who achieved clinical remission, endoscopic improvement, histologic remission, and EIHR versus patients who did not [all p < 0.05]. An FCP concentration cutoff of 250 µg/g achieved optimum sensitivity and specificity for efficacy, including EIHR [0.857 and 0.786, respectively; κ coefficient, 0.3584]. Higher proportions of patients with FCP ≤ 250 µg/g achieved efficacy outcomes at Week 12 versus patients with FCP > 250 µg/g. CONCLUSIONS: Etrasimod was effective for inducing EIHR in patients with UC. FCP and CRP may be useful, noninvasive biomarkers to monitor treatment response. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV NUMBER: NCT02447302.

Use of a Novel Artificial Intelligence System Leads to the Detection of Significantly Higher Number of Adenomas During Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: Results From a Large, Prospective, US Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) has recently been proposed as a quality measure for colonoscopy. We evaluated the impact of a novel artificial intelligence (AI) system, compared with standard high-definition colonoscopy, for APC measurement. METHODS: This was a US-based, multicenter, prospective randomized trial examining a novel AI detection system (EW10-EC02) that enables a real-time colorectal polyp detection enabled with the colonoscope (CAD-EYE). Eligible average-risk subjects (45 years or older) undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy were randomized to undergo either CAD-EYE-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) or conventional colonoscopy (CC). Modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed for all patients who completed colonoscopy with the primary outcome of APC. Secondary outcomes included positive predictive value (total number of adenomas divided by total polyps removed) and adenoma detection rate. RESULTS: In modified intention-to-treat analysis, of 1,031 subjects (age: 59.1 ± 9.8 years; 49.9% male), 510 underwent CAC vs 523 underwent CC with no significant differences in age, gender, ethnicity, or colonoscopy indication between the 2 groups. CAC led to a significantly higher APC compared with CC: 0.99 ± 1.6 vs 0.85 ± 1.5, P = 0.02, incidence rate ratio 1.17 (1.03-1.33, P = 0.02) with no significant difference in the withdrawal time: 11.28 ± 4.59 minutes vs 10.8 ± 4.81 minutes; P = 0.11 between the 2 groups. Difference in positive predictive value of a polyp being an adenoma among CAC and CC was less than 10% threshold established: 48.6% vs 54%, 95% CI -9.56% to -1.48%. There were no significant differences in adenoma detection rate (46.9% vs 42.8%), advanced adenoma (6.5% vs 6.3%), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (12.9% vs 10.1%), and polyp detection rate (63.9% vs 59.3%) between the 2 groups. There was a higher polyp per colonoscopy with CAC compared with CC: 1.68 ± 2.1 vs 1.33 ± 1.8 (incidence rate ratio 1.27; 1.15-1.4; P < 0.01). DISCUSSION: Use of a novel AI detection system showed to a significantly higher number of adenomas per colonoscopy compared with conventional high-definition colonoscopy without any increase in colonoscopy withdrawal time, thus supporting the use of AI-assisted colonoscopy to improve colonoscopy quality ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04979962).