Global chemical effects of the microbiome include new bile-acid conjugations.

A mosaic of cross-phylum chemical interactions occurs between all metazoans and their microbiomes. A number of molecular families that are known to be produced by the microbiome have a marked effect on the balance between health and disease1-9. Considering the diversity of the human microbiome (which numbers over 40,000 operational taxonomic units10), the effect of the microbiome on the chemistry of an entire animal remains underexplored. Here we use mass spectrometry informatics and data visualization approaches11-13 to provide an assessment of the effects of the microbiome on the chemistry of an entire mammal by comparing metabolomics data from germ-free and specific-pathogen-free mice. We found that the microbiota affects the chemistry of all organs. This included the amino acid conjugations of host bile acids that were used to produce phenylalanocholic acid, tyrosocholic acid and leucocholic acid, which have not previously been characterized despite extensive research on bile-acid chemistry14. These bile-acid conjugates were also found in humans, and were enriched in patients with inflammatory bowel disease or cystic fibrosis. These compounds agonized the farnesoid X receptor in vitro, and mice gavaged with the compounds showed reduced expression of bile-acid synthesis genes in vivo. Further studies are required to confirm whether these compounds have a physiological role in the host, and whether they contribute to gut diseases that are associated with microbiome dysbiosis.

Subcutaneous Infliximab (CT-P13 SC) as Maintenance Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Two Randomized Phase 3 Trials (LIBERTY).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: CT-P13 subcutaneous (SC), an SC formulation of the intravenous (IV) infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 IV, creates a unique exposure profile. The LIBERTY studies aimed to demonstrate superiority of CT-P13 SC vs placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: Two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies were conducted in patients with moderately to severely active CD or UC and inadequate response or intolerance to corticosteroids and immunomodulators. All patients received open-label CT-P13 IV 5 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2, and 6. At week 10, clinical responders were randomized (2:1) to CT-P13 SC 120 mg or placebo every 2 weeks until week 54 (maintenance phase) using prefilled syringes. (Co-) primary end points were clinical remission and endoscopic response (CD) and clinical remission (UC) at week 54 (all-randomized population). RESULTS: Overall, 396 patients with CD and 548 patients with UC received induction treatment. At week 54 in the CD study, statistically significant higher proportions of CT-P13 SC-treated patients vs placebo-treated patients achieved clinical remission (62.3% vs 32.1%; P < .0001) and endoscopic response (51.1% vs 17.9%; P < .0001). In the UC study, clinical remission rates at week 54 were statistically significantly higher with CT-P13 SC vs placebo (43.2% vs 20.8%; P < .0001). Achievement of key secondary end points was significantly higher with CT-P13 SC vs placebo across both studies. CT-P13 SC was well tolerated, with no new safety signals identified. CONCLUSIONS: CT-P13 SC was more effective than placebo as maintenance therapy and was well tolerated in patients with moderately to severely active CD or UC who responded to CT-P13 IV induction. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Numbers: NCT03945019 (CD) and NCT04205643 (UC).

Etrasimod as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis (ELEVATE): two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies.

BACKGROUND: Etrasimod, a once-daily, oral, sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator that selectively activates S1P receptor subtypes 1, 4, and 5, with no detectable activity on S1P2,3, is in development for the treatment of immune-mediated diseases, including ulcerative colitis. In these two phase 3 trials, we aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of etrasimod in adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: In two independent randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials, ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12, adults with active moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis and an inadequate or loss of response or intolerance to at least one approved ulcerative colitis therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to once-daily oral etrasimod 2 mg or placebo. Patients in ELEVATE UC 52 were enrolled from 315 centres in 40 countries. Patients in ELEVATE UC 12 were enrolled from 407 centres in 37 countries. Randomisation was stratified by previous exposure to biologicals or Janus kinase inhibitor therapy (yes vs no), baseline corticosteroid use (yes vs no), and baseline disease activity (modified Mayo score [MMS]; 4-6 vs 7-9). ELEVATE UC 52 comprised a 12-week induction period followed by a 40-week maintenance period with a treat-through design. ELEVATE UC 12 independently assessed induction at week 12. The primary efficacy endpoints were the proportion of patients with clinical remission at weeks 12 and 52 in ELEVATE UC 52 and week 12 in ELEVATE UC 12. Safety was evaluated in both trials. ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03945188 and NCT03996369, respectively. FINDINGS: Patients in ELEVATE UC 52 were enrolled between June 13, 2019, and Jan 28, 2021. Patients in ELEVATE UC 12 were enrolled between Sept 15, 2020, and Aug 12, 2021. ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 screened 821 patients and 606 patients, respectively, with 433 and 354 subsequently undergoing random assignment. The full analysis set of ELEVATE UC 52 comprised 289 patients assigned to etrasimod and 144 to placebo. In ELEVATE UC 12, 238 patients were assigned to etrasimod and 116 to placebo. In ELEVATE UC 52, a significantly greater proportion of patients in the etrasimod group achieved clinical remission compared with patients in the placebo group at completion of the 12-week induction period (74 [27%] of 274 patients vs ten [7%] of 135 patients; p<0·0001) and at week 52 (88 [32%] of 274 patients vs nine [7%] of 135 patients; p<0·0001). In ELEVATE UC 12, 55 (25%) of 222 patients in the etrasimod group had clinical remission compared with 17 (15%) of 112 patients in the placebo group at the end of the 12-week induction period (p=0·026). Adverse events were reported in 206 (71%) of 289 patients in the etrasimod group and 81 (56%) of 144 patients in the placebo group in ELEVATE UC 52 and 112 (47%) of 238 patients in the etrasimod group and 54 (47%) of 116 patients in the placebo group in ELEVATE UC 12. No deaths or malignancies were reported. INTERPRETATION: Etrasimod was effective and well tolerated as an induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Etrasimod is a treatment option with a unique combination of attributes that might address the persistent unmet needs of patients with ulcerative colitis. FUNDING: Arena Pharmaceuticals.

Ozanimod as Induction and Maintenance Therapy for Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Ozanimod, a selective sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator, is under investigation for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ozanimod as induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. In the 10-week induction period, patients in cohort 1 were assigned to receive oral ozanimod hydrochloride at a dose of 1 mg (equivalent to 0.92 mg of ozanimod) or placebo once daily in a double-blind manner, and patients in cohort 2 received open-label ozanimod at the same daily dose. At 10 weeks, patients with a clinical response to ozanimod in either cohort underwent randomization again to receive double-blind ozanimod or placebo for the maintenance period (through week 52). The primary end point for both periods was the percentage of patients with clinical remission, as assessed with the three-component Mayo score. Key secondary clinical, endoscopic, and histologic end points were evaluated with the use of ranked, hierarchical testing. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: In the induction period, 645 patients were included in cohort 1 and 367 in cohort 2; a total of 457 patients were included in the maintenance period. The incidence of clinical remission was significantly higher among patients who received ozanimod than among those who received placebo during both induction (18.4% vs. 6.0%, P<0.001) and maintenance (37.0% vs. 18.5% [among patients with a response at week 10], P<0.001). The incidence of clinical response was also significantly higher with ozanimod than with placebo during induction (47.8% vs. 25.9%, P<0.001) and maintenance (60.0% vs. 41.0%, P<0.001). All other key secondary end points were significantly improved with ozanimod as compared with placebo in both periods. The incidence of infection (of any severity) with ozanimod was similar to that with placebo during induction and higher than that with placebo during maintenance. Serious infection occurred in less than 2% of the patients in each group during the 52-week trial. Elevated liver aminotransferase levels were more common with ozanimod. CONCLUSIONS: Ozanimod was more effective than placebo as induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; True North ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02435992.).

Evolution of Symptoms After Ustekinumab Induction Therapy in Patients With Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Ustekinumab is an effective treatment of Crohn's disease (CD). Of interest to patients is knowing how soon symptoms may improve. We analyzed ustekinumab response dynamics from the ustekinumab CD trials. METHODS: Patients with CD received intravenous induction with ustekinumab ∼6 mg/kg (n = 458) or placebo (n = 457). Week 8 ustekinumab responders received subcutaneous ustekinumab 90 mg as the first maintenance dose or as an extended induction dose for nonresponders. Patient-reported symptom changes (stool frequency, abdominal pain, general well-being) within the first 14 days and clinical outcomes through week 44 were evaluated using the CD Activity Index. RESULTS: After ustekinumab infusion, stool frequency improvement was significantly (P < .05) greater than placebo on day 1 and for all patient-reported symptoms by day 10. In patients with no history of biologic failure or intolerance, cumulative clinical remission rates increased from 23.0% at week 3 to 55.5% at week 16 after the subcutaneous dose at week 8. Corresponding cumulative rates for patients with a history of biologic failure or intolerance increased from 12.9% to 24.1%. Neither change from baseline in CD Activity Index score nor week 8 ustekinumab pharmacokinetics were associated with week 16 response. Among all patients who received subcutaneous ustekinumab 90 mg q8w, up to 66.7% were in clinical response at week 44. CONCLUSIONS: Ustekinumab induction provided symptom relief by day 1 post-infusion. Following ustekinumab infusion and a subcutaneous 90 mg injection, clinical outcomes continued to increase through week 16 and up to week 44. Regardless of week 8 clinical status or ustekinumab pharmacokinetics, patients should receive additional treatment at week 8. CLINICALTRIALS: gov numbers, NCT01369329, NCT01369342, and NCT01369355.

Guselkumab in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: QUASAR Phase 2b Induction Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The QUASAR Phase 2b Induction Study evaluated the efficacy and safety of guselkumab, an interleukin-23p19 subunit antagonist, in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) with prior inadequate response and/or intolerance to corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, and/or advanced therapy. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, induction study, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive intravenous guselkumab 200 or 400 mg or placebo at weeks 0/4/8. The primary endpoint was clinical response (compared with baseline, modified Mayo score decrease ≥30% and ≥2 points, rectal bleeding subscore ≥1-point decrease or subscore of 0/1) at week 12. Guselkumab and placebo week-12 clinical nonresponders received subcutaneous or intravenous guselkumab 200 mg, respectively, at weeks 12/16/20 (uncontrolled study period). RESULTS: The primary analysis population included patients with baseline modified Mayo scores ≥5 and ≤9 (intravenous guselkumab 200 mg, n = 101; 400 mg, n = 107; placebo, n = 105). Week-12 clinical response percentage was greater with guselkumab 200 mg (61.4%) and 400 mg (60.7%) vs placebo (27.6%; both P < .001). Greater proportions of guselkumab-treated vs placebo-treated patients achieved all major secondary endpoints (clinical remission, symptomatic remission, endoscopic improvement, histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement, and endoscopic normalization) at week 12. Among guselkumab week-12 clinical nonresponders, 54.3% and 50.0% of patients in the 200- and 400-mg groups, respectively, achieved clinical response at week 24. Safety was similar among guselkumab and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Guselkumab intravenous induction was effective vs placebo in patients with moderately to severely active UC. Guselkumab was safe, and efficacy and safety were similar between guselkumab dose groups. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number: NCT04033445.

Efficacy and Safety of Ustekinumab for Ulcerative Colitis Through 4 Years: Final Results of the UNIFI Long-Term Maintenance Study.

INTRODUCTION: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic condition that may require long-term treatment. We report the final efficacy and safety results of the UNIFI long-term extension study of ustekinumab in patients with UC through 4 years. METHODS: Ustekinumab induction responders who completed 44 weeks of maintenance treatment and agreed to enter the long-term extension continued their subcutaneous maintenance therapy (90 mg ustekinumab every 8 or 12 weeks [q8w or q12w] or placebo). Starting at week 56, randomized patients could receive dose adjustment to 90 mg q8w. Symptoms and adverse events were assessed through the study; endoscopic assessment was conducted at week 200. RESULTS: Of the 348 patients randomized to subcutaneous ustekinumab at maintenance baseline (q8w and q12w combined), 55.2% were in symptomatic remission at week 200. A greater proportion of biologic-naive patients (67.2% [117/174]) were in symptomatic remission than those with a history of biologic failure (41.6% [67/161]). Among patients in symptomatic remission at week 200, 96.4% were corticosteroid-free. Of the 171 patients with endoscopic evaluation at week 200, 81.6% (71/87) in the q12w group and 79.8% (67/84) in the q8w group had endoscopic improvement. From weeks 156 to the final safety visit (up to week 220), no deaths, major adverse cardiovascular events, or tuberculosis occurred in patients receiving ustekinumab. Nasopharyngitis, UC worsening, and upper respiratory tract infections were the most frequently reported adverse events. DISCUSSION: The long-term efficacy of ustekinumab maintenance in patients with UC was confirmed through 4 years. No new safety signals were observed. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02407236.

Ustekinumab versus adalimumab for induction and maintenance therapy in biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Active-comparator trials are important to inform patient and physician choice. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with either ustekinumab or adalimumab in biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, active-comparator, phase 3b trial (SEAVUE) at 121 hospitals or private practices in 18 countries. We included biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease and a Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220-450, who had not responded to or were intolerant to conventional therapy (or were corticosteroid dependent) and had at least one ulcer of any size at baseline endoscopic evaluation. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1; via an interactive web response system) to receive ustekinumab (approximately 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 0, then 90 mg subcutaneously once every 8 weeks) or adalimumab (160 mg on day 0, 80 mg at 2 weeks, then 40 mg once every 2 weeks, subcutaneously) through week 56. Study treatments were administered as monotherapy and without dose modifications. Patients, investigators, and study site personnel were masked to treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were in clinical remission (CDAI score <150) at week 52 in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all patients who were randomly assigned to a treatment group). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03464136, and EudraCT, 2017-004209-41. FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2018, and Dec 12, 2019, 633 patients were assessed for eligibility and 386 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ustekinumab (n=191) or adalimumab (n=195). 29 (15%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and 46 (24%) of 195 in the adalimumab group discontinued study treatment before week 52. There was no significant difference between the ustekinumab and adalimumab groups in the occurrence of the primary endpoint; at week 52, 124 (65%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group versus 119 (61%) of 195 in the adalimumab group were in clinical remission (between-group difference 4%, 95% CI -6 to 14; p=0·42). Safety for both groups was consistent with previous reports. Serious infections were reported in four (2%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and five (3%) of 195 in the adalimumab group. No deaths occurred through week 52 of the study. INTERPRETATION: Both ustekinumab and adalimumab monotherapies were highly effective in this population of biologic-naive patients, with no difference in the primary outcome between the drugs. FUNDING: Janssen Scientific Affairs.

Risankizumab as maintenance therapy for moderately to severely active Crohn's disease: results from the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, withdrawal phase 3 FORTIFY maintenance trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a great unmet need for new therapeutics with novel mechanisms of action for patients with Crohn's disease. The ADVANCE and MOTIVATE studies showed that intravenous risankizumab, a selective p19 anti-interleukin (IL)-23 antibody, was efficacious and well tolerated as induction therapy. Here, we report the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous risankizumab as maintenance therapy. METHODS: FORTIFY is a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, maintenance withdrawal study across 273 clinical centres in 44 countries across North and South America, Europe, Oceania, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region that enrolled participants with clinical response to risankizumab in the ADVANCE or MOTIVATE induction studies. Patients in ADVANCE or MOTIVATE were aged 16-80 years with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. Patients in the FORTIFY substudy 1 were randomly assigned again (1:1:1) to receive either subcutaneous risankizumab 180 mg, subcutaneous risankizumab 360 mg, or withdrawal from risankizumab to receive subcutaneous placebo (herein referred to as withdrawal [subcutaneous placebo]). Treatment was given every 8 weeks. Patients were stratified by induction dose, post-induction endoscopic response, and clinical remission status. Patients, investigators, and study personnel were masked to treatment assignments. Week 52 co-primary endpoints were clinical remission (Crohn's disease activity index [CDAI] in the US protocol, or stool frequency and abdominal pain score in the non-US protocol) and endoscopic response in patients who received at least one dose of study drug during the 52-week maintenance period. Safety was assessed in patients receiving at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03105102. FINDINGS: 712 patients were initially assessed and, between April 9, 2018, and April 24, 2020, 542 patients were randomly assigned to either the risankizumab 180 mg group (n=179), the risankizumab 360 mg group (n=179), or the placebo group (n=184). Greater clinical remission and endoscopic response rates were reached with 360 mg risankizumab versus placebo (CDAI clinical remission was reached in 74 (52%) of 141 patients vs 67 (41%) of 164 patients, adjusted difference 15% [95% CI 5-24]; stool frequency and abdominal pain score clinical remission was reached in 73 (52%) of 141 vs 65 (40%) of 164, adjusted difference 15% [5-25]; endoscopic response 66 (47%) of 141 patients vs 36 (22%) of 164 patients, adjusted difference 28% [19-37]). Higher rates of CDAI clinical remission and endoscopic response (but not stool frequency and abdominal pain score clinical remission [p=0·124]) were also reached with risankizumab 180 mg versus withdrawal (subcutaneous placebo; CDAI clinical remission reached in 87 [55%] of 157 patients, adjusted difference 15% [95% CI 5-24]; endoscopic response 74 [47%] of 157, adjusted difference 26% [17-35]). Results for more stringent endoscopic and composite endpoints and inflammatory biomarkers were consistent with a dose-response relationship. Maintenance treatment was well tolerated. Adverse event rates were similar among groups, and the most frequently reported adverse events in all treatment groups were worsening Crohn's disease, arthralgia, and headache. INTERPRETATION: Subcutaneous risankizumab is a safe and efficacious treatment for maintenance of remission in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease and offers a new therapeutic option for a broad range of patients by meeting endpoints that might change the future course of disease. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Risankizumab as induction therapy for Crohn's disease: results from the phase 3 ADVANCE and MOTIVATE induction trials.

BACKGROUND: Risankizumab, an interleukin (IL)-23 p19 inhibitor, was evaluated for safety and efficacy as induction therapy in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. METHODS: ADVANCE and MOTIVATE were randomised, double-masked, placebo-controlled, phase 3 induction studies. Eligible patients aged 16-80 years with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease, previously showing intolerance or inadequate response to one or more approved biologics or conventional therapy (ADVANCE) or to biologics (MOTIVATE), were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of intravenous risankizumab (600 mg or 1200 mg) or placebo (2:2:1 in ADVANCE, 1:1:1 in MOTIVATE) at weeks 0, 4, and 8. We used interactive response technology for random assignment, with stratification by number of previous failed biologics, corticosteroid use at baseline, and Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's disease (SES-CD). All patients and study personnel (excluding pharmacists who prepared intravenous solutions) were masked to treatment allocation throughout the study. Coprimary endpoints were clinical remission (defined by Crohn's disease activity index [CDAI] or patient-reported outcome criteria [average daily stool frequency and abdominal pain score]) and endoscopic response at week 12. The intention-to-treat population (all eligible patients who received at least one dose of study drug in the 12-week induction period) was analysed for efficacy outcomes. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Both trials were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03105128 (ADVANCE) and NCT03104413 (MOTIVATE), and are now complete. FINDINGS: Participants were enrolled between May 10, 2017, and Aug 24, 2020 (ADVANCE trial), and Dec 18, 2017 and Sept 9, 2020 (MOTIVATE trial). In ADVANCE, 931 patients were assigned to either risankizumab 600 mg (n=373), risankizumab 1200 mg (n=372), or placebo (n=186). In MOTIVATE, 618 patients were assigned to risankizumab 600 mg (n=206), risankizumab 1200 mg (n=205), or placebo (n=207). The primary analysis population comprised 850 participants in ADVANCE and 569 participants in MOTIVATE. All coprimary endpoints at week 12 were met in both trials with both doses of risankizumab (p values ≤0·0001). In ADVANCE, CDAI clinical remission rate was 45% (adjusted difference 21%, 95% CI 12-29; 152/336) with risankizumab 600 mg and 42% (17%, 8-25; 141/339) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 25% (43/175) with placebo; stool frequency and abdominal pain score clinical remission rate was 43% (22%, 14-30; 146/336) with risankizumab 600 mg and 41% (19%, 11-27; 139/339) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 22% (38/175) with placebo; and endoscopic response rate was 40% (28%, 21-35; 135/336) with risankizumab 600 mg and 32% (20%, 14-27; 109/339) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 12% (21/175) with placebo. In MOTIVATE, CDAI clinical remission rate was 42% (22%, 13-31; 80/191) with risankizumab 600 mg and 40% (21%, 12-29; 77/191) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 20% (37/187) with placebo; stool frequency and abdominal pain score clinical remission rate was 35% (15%, 6-24; 66/191) with risankizumab 600 mg and 40% (20%, 12-29; 76/191) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 19% (36/187) with placebo; and endoscopic response rate was 29% (18%, 10-25; 55/191) with risankizumab 600 mg and 34% (23%, 15-31; 65/191) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 11% (21/187) with placebo. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar among the treatment groups in both trials. Three deaths occurred during induction (two in the placebo group [ADVANCE] and one in the risankizumab 1200 mg group [MOTIVATE]). The death in the risankizumab-treated patient was deemed unrelated to the study drug. INTERPRETATION: Risankizumab was effective and well tolerated as induction therapy in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Upadacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: results from three phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: There is a great unmet need for advanced therapies that provide rapid, robust, and sustained disease control for patients with ulcerative colitis. We assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, as induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: This phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical programme consisted of two replicate induction studies (U-ACHIEVE induction [UC1] and U-ACCOMPLISH [UC2]) and a single maintenance study (U-ACHIEVE maintenance [UC3]). The studies were conducted across Europe, North and South America, Australasia, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region at 199 clinical centres in 39 countries (UC1), 204 clinical centres in 40 countries (UC2), and 195 clinical centres in 35 countries (UC3). Patients aged 16-75 years with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Adapted Mayo score 5-9; endoscopic subscore 2 or 3) for at least 90 days were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral upadacitinib 45 mg once daily or placebo for 8 weeks (induction studies). Patients who achieved clinical response following 8-week upadacitinib induction were re-randomly assigned (1:1:1) to upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo for 52 weeks (maintenance study). All patients were randomly assigned using web-based interactive response technology. The primary endpoints were clinical remission per Adapted Mayo score at week 8 (induction) and week 52 (maintenance). The efficacy analyses in the two induction studies were based on the intent-to-treat population, which included all randomised patients who received at least one dose of treatment. In the maintenance study, the primary efficacy analyses reported in this manuscript were based on the first 450 (planned) clinical responders to 8-week induction therapy with upadacitinib 45 mg once daily. The safety analysis population in the induction studies consisted of all randomised patients who received at least one dose of treatment; in the maintenance study, this population included all patients who received at least one dose of treatment as part of the primary analysis population. These studies are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02819635 (U-ACHIEVE) and NCT03653026 (U-ACCOMPLISH). FINDINGS: Between Oct 23, 2018, and Sept 7, 2020, 474 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 45 mg once daily (n=319) or placebo (n=155) in UC1. Between Dec 6, 2018, and Jan 14, 2021, 522 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 45 mg once daily (n=345) or placebo (n=177) in UC2. In UC3, a total of 451 patients (21 from the phase 2b study, 278 from UC1, and 152 from UC2) who achieved a clinical response after 8 weeks of upadacitinib induction treatment were randomly assigned again to upadacitinib 15 mg (n=148), upadacitinib 30 mg (n=154), and placebo (n=149) in the primary analysis population. Statistically significantly more patients achieved clinical remission with upadacitinib 45 mg (83 [26%] of 319 patients in UC1 and 114 [34%] of 341 patients in UC2) than in the placebo group (seven [5%] of 154 patients in UC1 and seven [4%] of 174 patients; p<0·0001; adjusted treatment difference 21·6% [95% CI 15·8-27·4] for UC1 and 29·0% [23·2-34·7] for UC2). In the maintenance study, clinical remission was achieved by statistically significantly more patients receiving upadacitinib (15 mg 63 [42%] of 148; 30 mg 80 [52%] of 154) than those receiving placebo (18 [12%] of 149; p<0·0001; adjusted treatment difference 30·7% [21·7-39·8] for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo and 39·0% [29·7-48·2] for upadacitinib 30 mg vs placebo). The most commonly reported adverse events in UC1 were nasopharyngitis (15 [5%] of 319 in the upadacitinib 45 mg group vs six [4%] of 155 in the placebo group), creatine phosphokinase elevation (15 [4%] vs three [2%]), and acne (15 [5%] vs one [1%]). In UC2, the most frequently reported adverse event was acne (24 [7%] of 344 in the upadacitinib 45 mg group vs three [2%] of 177 in the placebo group). In both induction studies, serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment were less frequent in the upadacitinib 45 mg group than in the placebo group (serious adverse events eight [3%] vs nine (6%) in UC1 and 11 [3%] vs eight [5%] in UC2; adverse events leading to discontinuation six [2%] vs 14 [9%] in UC1 and six [2%] vs nine [5%] in UC2). In UC3, the most frequently reported adverse events (≥5%) were worsening of ulcerative colitis (19 [13%] of 148 in the upadacitinib 15 mg group vs 11 [7%] of 154 in the upadacitinib 30 mg group vs 45 [30%] of 149 in the placebo group), nasopharyngitis (18 [12%] vs 22 [14%] vs 15 [10%]), creatine phosphokinase elevation (nine [6%] vs 13 [8%] vs three [2%]), arthralgia (nine [6%] vs five [3%] vs 15 [10%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (seven [5%] vs nine [6%] vs six [4%]). The proportion of serious adverse events (ten [7%] vs nine [6%] vs 19 [13%]) and adverse events leading to discontinuation (six [4%] vs ten [6%] vs 17 [11%]) was lower in both upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group. Events of cancer, adjudicated major adverse cardiac events, or venous thromboembolism were reported infrequently. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Upadacitinib demonstrated a positive efficacy and safety profile and could be an effective treatment option for patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Net Remission Rates with Biologic Treatment in Crohn's Disease: A Reappraisal of the Clinical Trial Data.

Biologic therapies have greatly advanced the medical care of patients with Crohn's disease (CD); however, up to 50% of patients have no response and up to 80% fail to achieve remission.1-4 One way to investigate this treatment gap in CD is to look at the "net" remission rates in clinical trials defined as the actual percentage of patients enrolled during induction who are in remission at the end of maintenance. Indeed, most of the seminal clinical trials in CD used a "responder" methodology, where only patients who responded during induction were rerandomized to maintenance.

Oral Ritlecitinib and Brepocitinib for Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis: Results From a Randomized, Phase 2b Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib (oral JAK3/TEC family kinase inhibitor) and brepocitinib (oral TYK2/JAK1 inhibitor) as induction therapy were assessed in patients with active, moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. METHODS: This phase 2b, parallel-arm, double-blind umbrella study randomized patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis to receive 8-week induction therapy with ritlecitinib (20, 70, 200 mg), brepocitinib (10, 30, 60 mg), or placebo once daily. The primary endpoint was total Mayo Score (TMS) at week 8. RESULTS: Of 319 randomized patients, 317 received ritlecitinib (n = 150), brepocitinib (n = 142), or placebo (n = 25). The placebo-adjusted mean TMSs (90% confidence interval) at week 8 were -2.0 (-3.2 to -0.9), -3.9 (-5.0 to -2.7), and -4.6 (-5.8 to -3.5) for ritlecitinib 20, 70, and 200 mg, respectively (P = .003, P < .001, P < .001), and -1.8 (-2.9 to -0.7), -2.3 (-3.4 to -1.1), and -3.2 (-4.3 to -2.1) for brepocitinib 10, 30, and 60 mg, respectively (P = .009, P = .001, P < .001). Estimates (90% confidence interval) for placebo-adjusted proportions of patients with modified clinical remission at week 8 were 13.7% (0.5%-24.2%), 32.7% (20.2%-45.3%), and 36.0% (23.6%-48.6%) for ritlecitinib 20, 70, and 200 mg, respectively, and 14.6% (1.9%-25.7%), 25.5% (11.0%-38.1%), and 25.5% (11.0%-38.1%) for brepocitinib 10, 30, and 60 mg, respectively. Adverse events were mostly mild, and there were no serious cases of herpes zoster infection. Infections were observed with brepocitinib (16.9% [12.5%-23.7%]), ritlecitinib (8.7% [5.2%-13.4%]), and placebo (4.0% [0.2%-17.6%]). One death due to myocardial infarction (ritlecitinib) and 1 thromboembolic event (brepocitinib) occurred; both were considered unrelated to study drug. CONCLUSIONS: Ritlecitinib and brepocitinib induction therapies were more effective than placebo for the treatment of moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis, with an acceptable short-term safety profile. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number: NCT02958865.

Efficacy and Safety of Ivarmacitinib in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe, Active, Ulcerative Colitis: A Phase II Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Current therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) fail to achieve satisfactory disease control. Selective inhibition of Janus kinase (JAK) type 1 may improve clinical outcomes in patients with UC while avoiding the side effects associated with pan-JAK inhibition. The safety and efficacy of the selective JAK1 inhibitor ivarmacitinib (formerly SHR0302) were evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe, active UC. METHODS: AMBER2 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial conducted at 63 clinical centers in China, the United States, and Europe. Patients (N = 164) were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive oral ivarmacitinib 8 mg once daily (QD), 4 mg twice daily (BID), or 4 mg QD, or placebo for 8 weeks, followed by an 8-week extension period. The primary endpoint was clinical response rate at week 8. Hochberg's procedure was used to control the study-wise type 1 error at alpha=0.1. RESULTS: A total of 146 (89.0%) patients completed 8 weeks of treatment. Week 8 clinical response rates were significantly higher in the 8 mg QD (46.3%; P = .066), 4 mg BID (46.3%; P = .059), and 4 mg QD (43.9%; P = .095) groups vs placebo (26.8%). Week 8 rates of clinical remission were 22.0% (P = .020), 24.4% (P = .013), and 24.4% (P = .011) in the 3 ivarmacitinib treatment groups, respectively, vs 4.9% for placebo. During the initial 8-week period, treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 43.9% to 48.8% of ivarmacitinib-treated patients and in 39.0% of the placebo group, and were predominantly mild. There were no deaths, or major adverse cardiovascular or thromboembolic events. CONCLUSION: Ivarmacitinib demonstrated clinical efficacy and was well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe, active, UC. Ivarmacitinib represents a promising new treatment for moderate-to-severe UC. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number, NCT03675477.

Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Biologic Therapy for Crohn's Disease: A CA-IBD Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We compared the safety and effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) antagonists vs vedolizumab vs ustekinumab in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) in a multicenter cohort (CA-IBD). METHODS: We created an electronic health record-based cohort of adult patients with CD who were initiating a new biologic agent (TNF-α antagonists, ustekinumab, vedolizumab) from 5 health systems in California between 2010 and 2017. We compared the risk of serious infections (safety) and all-cause hospitalization and inflammatory bowel disease-related surgery (effectiveness) between different biologic classes using propensity score (PS) matching. RESULTS: As compared with TNF-α antagonists (n = 1030), 2:1 PS-matched, ustekinumab-treated patients with CD (n = 515) experienced a lower risk of serious infections (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20-0.64), without any difference in the risk of hospitalization (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.21) or surgery (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.69-1.70). Compared with vedolizumab (n = 221), 1:1 PS-matched, ustekinumab-treated patients with CD (n = 221) experienced a lower risk of serious infections (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.60), without significant differences in risk of hospitalization (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54-1.07) or surgery (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.54-3.72). Compared with TNF-α antagonists (n = 442), 2:1 PS-matched, vedolizumab-treated patients with CD (n = 221) had a similar risk of serious infections (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.84-2.78), hospitalization (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.98-1.77), and surgery (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.27-1.47). High comorbidity burden, concomitant opiate use, and prior hospitalization were associated with serious infections and hospitalization in biologic-treated patients with CD. CONCLUSION: In a multicenter cohort of biologic-treated patients with CD, ustekinumab was associated with a lower risk of serious infections compared with TNF-α antagonists and vedolizumab, without any differences in risk of hospitalization or surgery. The risk of serious infections was similar for TNF-α antagonists vs vedolizumab.

Effectiveness and Safety of Biologic Therapy in Hispanic Vs Non-Hispanic Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A CA-IBD Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are limited data on outcomes of biologic therapy in Hispanic patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). We compared risk of hospitalization, surgery, and serious infections in Hispanic vs non-Hispanic patients with IBD in a multicenter, electronic health record-based cohort of biologic-treated patients. METHODS: We identified adult patients with IBD who were new users of biologic agents (tumor necrosis factor α [TNF-α] antagonists, ustekinumab, vedolizumab) from 5 academic institutions in California between 2010 and 2017. We compared the risk of all-cause hospitalization, IBD-related surgery, and serious infections in Hispanic vs non-Hispanic patients using 1:4 propensity score matching and survival analysis. RESULTS: We compared 240 Hispanic patients (53% male; 45% with ulcerative colitis; 73% TNF-α antagonist-treated; 20% with prior biologic exposure) with 960 non-Hispanic patients (51% male; 44% with ulcerative colitis; 67% TNF-α antagonist-treated; 27% with prior biologic exposure). After propensity score matching, Hispanic patients were younger (37 ± 15 vs 40 ± 16 y; P = .02) and had a higher burden of comorbidities (Elixhauser index, >0; 37% vs 26%; P < .01), without any differences in patterns of medication use, burden of inflammation, and hospitalizations. Within 1 year of biologic initiation, Hispanic patients had higher rates of hospitalizations (31% vs 23%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.01-1.74) and IBD-related surgery (7.1% vs 4.6%; aHR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.07-3.72), with a trend toward higher risk of serious infections (8.8% vs 4.9%; aHR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.99-3.05). CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter, propensity score-matched cohort of biologic-treated patients with IBD, Hispanic patients experienced higher rates of hospitalization, surgery, and serious infections. Future studies are needed to investigate the biological, social, and environmental drivers of these differences.

Guselkumab for the Treatment of Crohn's Disease: Induction Results From the Phase 2 GALAXI-1 Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guselkumab, a selective p19 interleukin-23 antagonist, is approved for the treatment of plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of guselkumab in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease with inadequate response or intolerance to conventional or biologic therapy. METHODS: GALAXI-1, a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, randomized patients 1:1:1:1:1 to intravenous guselkumab 200 mg, 600 mg, or 1200 mg at weeks 0, 4, and 8; intravenous ustekinumab approximately 6 mg/kg at week 0 and 90 mg subcutaneously at week 8; or placebo. Change from baseline in Crohn's Disease Activity Index score (primary end point), clinical remission, clinical response, Patient Reported Outcomes-2 remission, clinical-biomarker response, endoscopic response (major secondary end points), and safety in guselkumab-treated patients vs placebo were evaluated through week 12. Ustekinumab was a reference arm. RESULTS: Of 309 patients evaluated, approximately 50% had disease refractory to prior biologic therapy. At week 12, significantly greater reductions in Crohn's Disease Activity Index from baseline (least squares means: 200 mg: -160.4, 600 mg: -138.9, and 1200 mg: -144.9 vs placebo: -36.2; all, P < .05) and significantly greater proportions of patients achieved clinical remission in each guselkumab group vs placebo (Crohn's Disease Activity Index <150; 57.4%, 55.6%, and 45.9% vs 16.4%; all, P < .05). Greater proportions of patients receiving guselkumab achieved clinical response, Patient Reported Outcomes-2 remission, clinical-biomarker response, and endoscopic response at week 12 vs placebo. Efficacy of ustekinumab vs placebo was also demonstrated. Safety event rates were generally similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: At week 12, all 3 dose regimens of guselkumab induced greater clinical and endoscopic improvements vs placebo, with a favorable safety profile. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT03466411.

Efficacy and Safety of Mirikizumab in a Randomized Phase 2 Study of Patients With Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Mirikizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin 23p19 with demonstrated efficacy in psoriasis and ulcerative colitis. We investigated the safety and efficacy of mirikizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: Patients (N = 191) were randomized (2:1:1:2) to receive placebo (PBO), 200, 600, or 1000 mg mirikizumab, administered intravenously (IV) every 4 weeks. Patients who received mirikizumab and achieved ≥1 point improvement in Simple Endoscopic Score-CD at Week 12 (rerandomized maintenance cohort) were rerandomized to continue their induction IV treatment (combined IV groups [IV-C]) or receive 300 mg mirikizumab subcutaneously (SC) every 4 weeks. Nonrandomized maintenance cohort included endoscopic nonimprovers (1000 mg) and PBO patients (PBO/1000 mg) who received 1000 mg mirikizumab IV from Week 12. The primary objective was to evaluate superiority of mirikizumab to PBO in inducing endoscopic response (50% reduction from baseline in Simple Endoscopic Score-CD) at Week 12. RESULTS: At Week 12, endoscopic response was significantly higher by the predefined 2-sided significance level of 0.1 for all mirikizumab groups compared with PBO (200 mg: 25.8%, 8/31, 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.4-41.2, P = .079; 600 mg: 37.5%, 12/32, 95% CI, 20.7-54.3, P = .003; 1000 mg: 43.8%, 28/64, 95% CI, 31.6-55.9, P < .001; PBO: 10.9 %, 7/64, 95% CI, 3.3-18.6). Endoscopic response at Week 52 was 58.5% (24/41) and 58.7% (27/46) in the IV-C and SC groups, respectively. Frequencies of adverse events (AE) in the mirikizumab groups were similar to PBO. Through Week 52, frequencies of treatment-emergent AEs were similar across all groups. Frequencies of serious AE and discontinuations due to AE were higher in the nonrandomized maintenance cohort. CONCLUSION: Mirikizumab effectively induced endoscopic response after 12 weeks in patients with moderate-to-severe CD and demonstrated durable efficacy to Week 52. A detailed summary can be found in the Video Abstract. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02891226.

Higher vs Standard Adalimumab Induction Dosing Regimens and Two Maintenance Strategies: Randomized SERENE CD Trial Results.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Dose-optimization strategies for biologic therapies in Crohn's disease (CD) are not well established. The SERENE CD (Study of a Novel Approach to Induction and Maintenance Dosing With Adalimumab in Patients With Moderate to Severe Crohn's Disease) trial evaluated higher vs standard adalimumab induction dosing and clinically adjusted (CA) vs therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) maintenance strategies in patients with moderately to severely active CD. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial, eligible adults (Crohn's Disease Activity Index score of 220-450, endoscopic evidence of mucosal inflammation, and previous failure of standard therapies) were randomized to higher induction regimen (adalimumab 160 mg at weeks 0, 1, 2, and 3; n = 308) or standard induction regimen (adalimumab 160 mg at week 0 and 80 mg at week 2; n = 206) followed by 40 mg every other week from week 4 onward. Co-primary end points included clinical remission at week 4 and endoscopic response at week 12. At week 12, patients were re-randomized to maintenance therapy optimized by Crohn's Disease Activity Index and C-reactive protein (CA; n = 92) or serum adalimumab concentrations and/or clinical criteria (TDM; n = 92); exploratory end points were evaluated at week 56. RESULTS: Similar proportions of patients receiving higher induction regimen and standard induction regimen achieved clinical remission at week 4 (44% in both; P = .939) and endoscopic response at week 12 (43% vs 39%, respectively, P = .462). Week 56 efficacy was similar between CA and TDM. Safety profiles were comparable between dosing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Higher induction regimen was not superior to standard induction regimen, and CA and TDM maintenance strategies were similarly efficacious. Adalimumab therapy was well tolerated, and no new safety concerns were identified. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02065570).

Standardizing Scoring Conventions for Crohn's Disease Endoscopy: An International RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic assessment of disease activity is integral for evaluating treatment response in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). We aimed to define appropriate items for evaluating endoscopic activity and conventions for consistent endoscopic scoring rules in CD. METHODS: A 2-round modified RAND/University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness Method study was conducted. A panel of 15 gastroenterologists used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the appropriateness of statements pertaining to the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD, Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity, and additional items relevant to endoscopy scoring in CD. Each statement was voted as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate based on the median panel rating and presence of disagreement. RESULTS: Panelists voted that it is appropriate for all ulcers to contribute to endoscopic scoring in CD, including aphthous ulcers, ulcerations at a surgical anastomosis, and anal canal ulcers (scored in the rectum). Endoscopic healing should reflect an absence of ulcers. Narrowing should be defined as a clear decrease in luminal diameter; stenosis should be defined by an impassable narrowing, and if occurring at the junction of 2 segments, scored in the distal segment. Scarring and inflammatory polyps were considered inappropriate for including in the affected area score. The optimal method for defining ulcer depth remains uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: We outlined scoring conventions for the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD and Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity, noting that both scores have limitations. Therefore, we identified priorities for future research and steps for developing and validating a more representative endoscopic index in CD.