TBD Meeting (5444-22)

The selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib resolved more extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) of ulcerative colitis than placebo, according to an analysis of phase 3 study findings.

The 45-mg induction dose of upadacitinib, for example, resolved more anemia, peripheral arthropathy, and axial arthropathy than placebo. The 15-mg and 30-mg maintenance doses were also associated with greater resolution of EIMs, with the higher dose producing a significantly greater reduction in comparison with placebo.

“Upadacitinib was highly effective in decreasing ulcerative colitis activity, which is triggering the extraintestinal manifestations,” lead author Jean-Frederick Colombel, MD, told this news organization.

Dr. Colombel, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York, said he was not surprised to see this, given that the oral JAK inhibitor “has also demonstrated efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, atopic dermatitis, and ankylosing spondylitis.”

He presented the study findings during an oral presentation Feb. 19 at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

In the United States, AbbVie is seeking approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for upadacitinib (RINVOQ) to treat active, moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. The company submitted regulatory applications in September 2021 for this indication.
 

About 1 in 4 report EIMs

The researchers evaluated the U-ACHIEVE and U-ACCOMPLISH 8-week induction studies, in which 660 participants were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib 45 mg and 328 patients were assigned to receive placebo. At baseline, 25% of treated patients and 27% of the placebo group had experienced at least one EIM.

The researchers also assessed outcomes of the 52-week U-ACHIEVE maintenance trial, in which 154 people with ulcerative colitis were randomly assigned to receive 30-mg upadacitinib, 148 to receive 15-mg upadacitinib, and 149 to receive placebo. Between 24% and 27% of participants in these groups reported at least one EIM at baseline.
 

Key findings

In the pooled induction studies, a higher proportion of participants in the upadacitinib group achieved resolution of any EIM at 8 weeks, compared with the placebo group (40% vs. 33%).

Regarding specific EIMs, a higher proportion of those in the upadacitinib group had achieved resolution of peripheral or axial arthropathies at 8 weeks, compared with the placebo group (55% vs. 42%), and more participants experienced resolution of anemia (38% vs. 33%).

Similar effects were observed in the maintenance study. Resolution of any EIM at 52 weeks was experienced by 66% of those in the 30-mg upadacitinib group, compared with 42% in the 15-mg upadacitinib group and 24% in the placebo group. The 30-mg results were significantly different than placebo (P < .001).

Regarding specific EIMs, a higher proportion of the 30-mg upadacitinib group experienced resolution of peripheral or axial arthropathies at week 52, compared with the 15-mg and placebo groups (67% vs. 39% vs. 22%). The difference was statistically significant between the 30-mg and placebo groups (P = .010) but not between the 15-mg and placebo groups.

More participants in the 30-mg group also experienced resolution of anemia, compared with the 15-mg group and the placebo group (71% vs. 50% vs. 36%). Once again, the difference between 30-mg group and placebo was significant (P = .019).

When asked what physicians should be most concerned about when prescribing upadacitinib, Dr. Colombel pointed to the risks of serious infections, including herpes zoster. He added that there are potential risks of cardiovascular events, deep vein thrombosis, and cancers, “but it is too early to tell.”

Dr. Colombel advised physicians to follow the prescribing information for upadacitinib following FDA approval.
 

An ‘excellent presentation’

“Upadacitinib is a promising new option for patients with ulcerative colitis,” ECCO 2022 session cochair Annemarie de Vries, MD, PhD, told this news organization.

“The excellent presentation by Prof. Colombel further supports the high expectations by providing evidence on the effect of upadacitinib on extraintestinal manifestations,” said Dr. De Vries, a gastroenterologist at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

“For further conclusions on drug positioning, we have to await real-world data and head-to-head trials versus anti-TNF agents and vedolizumab,” she added.

The study was sponsored by AbbVie. Dr. Colombel has received research support from and is a speaker and consultant for AbbVie. Dr. De Vries reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib resolved more extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) of ulcerative colitis than placebo, according to an analysis of phase 3 study findings.

The 45-mg induction dose of upadacitinib, for example, resolved more anemia, peripheral arthropathy, and axial arthropathy than placebo. The 15-mg and 30-mg maintenance doses were also associated with greater resolution of EIMs, with the higher dose producing a significantly greater reduction in comparison with placebo.

“Upadacitinib was highly effective in decreasing ulcerative colitis activity, which is triggering the extraintestinal manifestations,” lead author Jean-Frederick Colombel, MD, told this news organization.

Dr. Colombel, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York, said he was not surprised to see this, given that the oral JAK inhibitor “has also demonstrated efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, atopic dermatitis, and ankylosing spondylitis.”

He presented the study findings during an oral presentation Feb. 19 at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

In the United States, AbbVie is seeking approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for upadacitinib (RINVOQ) to treat active, moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. The company submitted regulatory applications in September 2021 for this indication.
 

About 1 in 4 report EIMs

The researchers evaluated the U-ACHIEVE and U-ACCOMPLISH 8-week induction studies, in which 660 participants were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib 45 mg and 328 patients were assigned to receive placebo. At baseline, 25% of treated patients and 27% of the placebo group had experienced at least one EIM.

The researchers also assessed outcomes of the 52-week U-ACHIEVE maintenance trial, in which 154 people with ulcerative colitis were randomly assigned to receive 30-mg upadacitinib, 148 to receive 15-mg upadacitinib, and 149 to receive placebo. Between 24% and 27% of participants in these groups reported at least one EIM at baseline.
 

Key findings

In the pooled induction studies, a higher proportion of participants in the upadacitinib group achieved resolution of any EIM at 8 weeks, compared with the placebo group (40% vs. 33%).

Regarding specific EIMs, a higher proportion of those in the upadacitinib group had achieved resolution of peripheral or axial arthropathies at 8 weeks, compared with the placebo group (55% vs. 42%), and more participants experienced resolution of anemia (38% vs. 33%).

Similar effects were observed in the maintenance study. Resolution of any EIM at 52 weeks was experienced by 66% of those in the 30-mg upadacitinib group, compared with 42% in the 15-mg upadacitinib group and 24% in the placebo group. The 30-mg results were significantly different than placebo (P < .001).

Regarding specific EIMs, a higher proportion of the 30-mg upadacitinib group experienced resolution of peripheral or axial arthropathies at week 52, compared with the 15-mg and placebo groups (67% vs. 39% vs. 22%). The difference was statistically significant between the 30-mg and placebo groups (P = .010) but not between the 15-mg and placebo groups.

More participants in the 30-mg group also experienced resolution of anemia, compared with the 15-mg group and the placebo group (71% vs. 50% vs. 36%). Once again, the difference between 30-mg group and placebo was significant (P = .019).

When asked what physicians should be most concerned about when prescribing upadacitinib, Dr. Colombel pointed to the risks of serious infections, including herpes zoster. He added that there are potential risks of cardiovascular events, deep vein thrombosis, and cancers, “but it is too early to tell.”

Dr. Colombel advised physicians to follow the prescribing information for upadacitinib following FDA approval.
 

An ‘excellent presentation’

“Upadacitinib is a promising new option for patients with ulcerative colitis,” ECCO 2022 session cochair Annemarie de Vries, MD, PhD, told this news organization.

“The excellent presentation by Prof. Colombel further supports the high expectations by providing evidence on the effect of upadacitinib on extraintestinal manifestations,” said Dr. De Vries, a gastroenterologist at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

“For further conclusions on drug positioning, we have to await real-world data and head-to-head trials versus anti-TNF agents and vedolizumab,” she added.

The study was sponsored by AbbVie. Dr. Colombel has received research support from and is a speaker and consultant for AbbVie. Dr. De Vries reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib resolved more extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) of ulcerative colitis than placebo, according to an analysis of phase 3 study findings.

The 45-mg induction dose of upadacitinib, for example, resolved more anemia, peripheral arthropathy, and axial arthropathy than placebo. The 15-mg and 30-mg maintenance doses were also associated with greater resolution of EIMs, with the higher dose producing a significantly greater reduction in comparison with placebo.

“Upadacitinib was highly effective in decreasing ulcerative colitis activity, which is triggering the extraintestinal manifestations,” lead author Jean-Frederick Colombel, MD, told this news organization.

Dr. Colombel, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York, said he was not surprised to see this, given that the oral JAK inhibitor “has also demonstrated efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, atopic dermatitis, and ankylosing spondylitis.”

He presented the study findings during an oral presentation Feb. 19 at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

In the United States, AbbVie is seeking approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for upadacitinib (RINVOQ) to treat active, moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. The company submitted regulatory applications in September 2021 for this indication.
 

About 1 in 4 report EIMs

The researchers evaluated the U-ACHIEVE and U-ACCOMPLISH 8-week induction studies, in which 660 participants were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib 45 mg and 328 patients were assigned to receive placebo. At baseline, 25% of treated patients and 27% of the placebo group had experienced at least one EIM.

The researchers also assessed outcomes of the 52-week U-ACHIEVE maintenance trial, in which 154 people with ulcerative colitis were randomly assigned to receive 30-mg upadacitinib, 148 to receive 15-mg upadacitinib, and 149 to receive placebo. Between 24% and 27% of participants in these groups reported at least one EIM at baseline.
 

Key findings

In the pooled induction studies, a higher proportion of participants in the upadacitinib group achieved resolution of any EIM at 8 weeks, compared with the placebo group (40% vs. 33%).

Regarding specific EIMs, a higher proportion of those in the upadacitinib group had achieved resolution of peripheral or axial arthropathies at 8 weeks, compared with the placebo group (55% vs. 42%), and more participants experienced resolution of anemia (38% vs. 33%).

Similar effects were observed in the maintenance study. Resolution of any EIM at 52 weeks was experienced by 66% of those in the 30-mg upadacitinib group, compared with 42% in the 15-mg upadacitinib group and 24% in the placebo group. The 30-mg results were significantly different than placebo (P < .001).

Regarding specific EIMs, a higher proportion of the 30-mg upadacitinib group experienced resolution of peripheral or axial arthropathies at week 52, compared with the 15-mg and placebo groups (67% vs. 39% vs. 22%). The difference was statistically significant between the 30-mg and placebo groups (P = .010) but not between the 15-mg and placebo groups.

More participants in the 30-mg group also experienced resolution of anemia, compared with the 15-mg group and the placebo group (71% vs. 50% vs. 36%). Once again, the difference between 30-mg group and placebo was significant (P = .019).

When asked what physicians should be most concerned about when prescribing upadacitinib, Dr. Colombel pointed to the risks of serious infections, including herpes zoster. He added that there are potential risks of cardiovascular events, deep vein thrombosis, and cancers, “but it is too early to tell.”

Dr. Colombel advised physicians to follow the prescribing information for upadacitinib following FDA approval.
 

An ‘excellent presentation’

“Upadacitinib is a promising new option for patients with ulcerative colitis,” ECCO 2022 session cochair Annemarie de Vries, MD, PhD, told this news organization.

“The excellent presentation by Prof. Colombel further supports the high expectations by providing evidence on the effect of upadacitinib on extraintestinal manifestations,” said Dr. De Vries, a gastroenterologist at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

“For further conclusions on drug positioning, we have to await real-world data and head-to-head trials versus anti-TNF agents and vedolizumab,” she added.

The study was sponsored by AbbVie. Dr. Colombel has received research support from and is a speaker and consultant for AbbVie. Dr. De Vries reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Both tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and vedolizumab (Entyvio) are effective options for people with ulcerative colitis (UC) who fail at least one antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, a real-world study in France revealed.

However, response was superior with tofacitinib among people after primary failure to biologics and multiple therapeutic failure, the researchers report, including endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing.  

Anthony Buisson, MD, presented the results Feb. 18 at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

The French comparison

Although multiple therapeutic options are available to treat ulcerative colitis after anti-TNF failure, “there are no data comparing tofacitinib to vedolizumab in the real world,” said Dr. Buisson, a gastroenterologist at Clermont Auvergne University, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

In addition, network meta-analysis data are inconclusive, he said.

This led Dr. Buisson and colleagues to study adults with symptomatic UC with prior exposure to at least one anti-TNF treatment. They assessed 126 patients in a tofacitinib group and 178 in a vedolizumab group. The groups were comparable except for higher disease activity at baseline in the tofacitinib group.

The retrospective study was conducted at nine academic centers. Patients started either tofacitinib or vedolizumab between January 2019 and June 2021.

The primary endpoint, corticosteroid-free clinical remission at 16 weeks, was achieved by 45% of the tofacitinib group and 40% of the vedolizumab group. This difference was not statistically significant.

However, endoscopic improvement at week 16 did differ significantly and was achieved by 24% of the tofacitinib group versus 7% of the vedolizumab group (P = .0036).

“Tofacitinib and vedolizumab are effective to induce corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 16 in patients with UC who failed at least one anti-TNF agent,” Dr. Buisson said.

“Vedolizumab seems to be less effective in cases of more severe UC and prior history of primary failure to any biologic,” he added.

Dr. Buisson said he and his colleagues plan to continue the study beyond 16 weeks to look at longterm outcomes.
 

The science from Spain

In another study presented at ECCO ‘22 Virtual, investigators from Spain compared vedolizumab to ustekinumab (Stelara) after at least one anti-TNF treatment failure, this time among people with Crohn’s disease.

Finding effective treatments after an anti-TNF failure is essential, Maria Jose Garcia, MD, said when presenting the results of the VERSUS-CD trial. “Over 20%-30% of Crohn’s disease patients are nonresponders or develop intolerance to anti-TNF therapies. Also, anti-TNF responders can experience a loss of response over time.”

Both vedolizumab and ustekinumab are effective for Crohn’s, she said. “But no clinical trial has compared both treatments, and limited data exist in real life.”

To remedy this situation, Dr. Garcia and colleagues studied 755 people from 30 medical centers in a national database in Spain who failed a previous anti-TNF agent, including 195 people switched to vedolizumab and 560 switched to ustekinumab. Luminal activity, perianal disease, or postoperative recurrence of Crohn’s were the indications for treatment.

The study’s main objective was to compare the short- and long-term treatment survival rate of vedolizumab and ustekinumab after anti-TNF therapy failure in clinical practice. Evaluating efficacy and safety were secondary aims.

“The treatment survival rate with ustekinumab was higher than with vedolizumab” over 5 years of follow-up, said Dr. Garcia, a gastroenterologist at Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla-IDIVAL, Santander, Spain. The difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

Just less than half (43%) of the 327 patients discontinued treatment over time, including 142 in the vedolizumab group and 185 in the ustekinumab group. The most frequent cause was primarily nonresponse.

Infection, arthralgia, and infusion reactions were the most common adverse events. The safety profile was similar between groups, Dr. Garcia said.

“In clinical practice, vedolizumab and ustekinumab are both effective after anti-TNF failure or intolerance in CD,” Dr. Garcia said, adding that, “the retention rate of ustekinumab was higher compared to vedolizumab.”

When asked if the results will change how she practices, Dr. Garcia responded, “This confirms the first choice is ustekinumab more than vedolizumab in clinical practice, because it seems the clinical remission and durability of the treatment is superior.”
 

More options means more questions

“Looking back almost 25 years ago, the struggle was how to work with just one biologic and how to make it last for patients who have already failed all the available therapies. All these years later, we have such riches that the question we most often deal with is ‘What’s my first treatment?’ for patients with inflammatory bowel disease,” Arun Swaminath, MD, said, when asked to comment on both studies.

“Increasingly, we are seeing industry do head-to-head trials of drugs, but this is a time-consuming and expensive process,” added Dr. Swaminath, chief of gastroenterology and director of the inflammatory bowel diseases program at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York.

The study from Dr. Buisson and colleagues in UC approaches the design of a head-to-head trial, Dr. Swaminath said. “In the end, their primary endpoint was a statistical dead heat between the two options.”

In the VERSUS-CD study, vedolizumab was compared with ustekinumab, “with more patients not discontinuing ustekinumab therapy compared to vedolizumab,” he said. “This study also seems to favor sicker patients being treated with ustekinumab.”

“In both cases, we are starting to see the ‘order’ of treatments take shape, even before the benefit of head-to-head trials,” Dr. Swaminath said.

Dr. Buisson reports receiving grant support from AbbVie, Celltrion, Pfizer, and Takeda, as well as personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Celltrion, Ferring, Janssen, MSD, Nexbiome, Pfizer, Roche, sanofi-aventis, Takeda, Tillots, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Garcia reports receiving financial support for traveling and educational activities from MSD, Janssen, AbbVie, Takeda, and Ferring. Dr. Swaminath reports receiving advanced IBD fellowship support from Janssen and Takeda and is on the advisory board for Boehringer Ingelheim.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Both tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and vedolizumab (Entyvio) are effective options for people with ulcerative colitis (UC) who fail at least one antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, a real-world study in France revealed.

However, response was superior with tofacitinib among people after primary failure to biologics and multiple therapeutic failure, the researchers report, including endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing.  

Anthony Buisson, MD, presented the results Feb. 18 at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

The French comparison

Although multiple therapeutic options are available to treat ulcerative colitis after anti-TNF failure, “there are no data comparing tofacitinib to vedolizumab in the real world,” said Dr. Buisson, a gastroenterologist at Clermont Auvergne University, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

In addition, network meta-analysis data are inconclusive, he said.

This led Dr. Buisson and colleagues to study adults with symptomatic UC with prior exposure to at least one anti-TNF treatment. They assessed 126 patients in a tofacitinib group and 178 in a vedolizumab group. The groups were comparable except for higher disease activity at baseline in the tofacitinib group.

The retrospective study was conducted at nine academic centers. Patients started either tofacitinib or vedolizumab between January 2019 and June 2021.

The primary endpoint, corticosteroid-free clinical remission at 16 weeks, was achieved by 45% of the tofacitinib group and 40% of the vedolizumab group. This difference was not statistically significant.

However, endoscopic improvement at week 16 did differ significantly and was achieved by 24% of the tofacitinib group versus 7% of the vedolizumab group (P = .0036).

“Tofacitinib and vedolizumab are effective to induce corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 16 in patients with UC who failed at least one anti-TNF agent,” Dr. Buisson said.

“Vedolizumab seems to be less effective in cases of more severe UC and prior history of primary failure to any biologic,” he added.

Dr. Buisson said he and his colleagues plan to continue the study beyond 16 weeks to look at longterm outcomes.
 

The science from Spain

In another study presented at ECCO ‘22 Virtual, investigators from Spain compared vedolizumab to ustekinumab (Stelara) after at least one anti-TNF treatment failure, this time among people with Crohn’s disease.

Finding effective treatments after an anti-TNF failure is essential, Maria Jose Garcia, MD, said when presenting the results of the VERSUS-CD trial. “Over 20%-30% of Crohn’s disease patients are nonresponders or develop intolerance to anti-TNF therapies. Also, anti-TNF responders can experience a loss of response over time.”

Both vedolizumab and ustekinumab are effective for Crohn’s, she said. “But no clinical trial has compared both treatments, and limited data exist in real life.”

To remedy this situation, Dr. Garcia and colleagues studied 755 people from 30 medical centers in a national database in Spain who failed a previous anti-TNF agent, including 195 people switched to vedolizumab and 560 switched to ustekinumab. Luminal activity, perianal disease, or postoperative recurrence of Crohn’s were the indications for treatment.

The study’s main objective was to compare the short- and long-term treatment survival rate of vedolizumab and ustekinumab after anti-TNF therapy failure in clinical practice. Evaluating efficacy and safety were secondary aims.

“The treatment survival rate with ustekinumab was higher than with vedolizumab” over 5 years of follow-up, said Dr. Garcia, a gastroenterologist at Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla-IDIVAL, Santander, Spain. The difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

Just less than half (43%) of the 327 patients discontinued treatment over time, including 142 in the vedolizumab group and 185 in the ustekinumab group. The most frequent cause was primarily nonresponse.

Infection, arthralgia, and infusion reactions were the most common adverse events. The safety profile was similar between groups, Dr. Garcia said.

“In clinical practice, vedolizumab and ustekinumab are both effective after anti-TNF failure or intolerance in CD,” Dr. Garcia said, adding that, “the retention rate of ustekinumab was higher compared to vedolizumab.”

When asked if the results will change how she practices, Dr. Garcia responded, “This confirms the first choice is ustekinumab more than vedolizumab in clinical practice, because it seems the clinical remission and durability of the treatment is superior.”
 

More options means more questions

“Looking back almost 25 years ago, the struggle was how to work with just one biologic and how to make it last for patients who have already failed all the available therapies. All these years later, we have such riches that the question we most often deal with is ‘What’s my first treatment?’ for patients with inflammatory bowel disease,” Arun Swaminath, MD, said, when asked to comment on both studies.

“Increasingly, we are seeing industry do head-to-head trials of drugs, but this is a time-consuming and expensive process,” added Dr. Swaminath, chief of gastroenterology and director of the inflammatory bowel diseases program at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York.

The study from Dr. Buisson and colleagues in UC approaches the design of a head-to-head trial, Dr. Swaminath said. “In the end, their primary endpoint was a statistical dead heat between the two options.”

In the VERSUS-CD study, vedolizumab was compared with ustekinumab, “with more patients not discontinuing ustekinumab therapy compared to vedolizumab,” he said. “This study also seems to favor sicker patients being treated with ustekinumab.”

“In both cases, we are starting to see the ‘order’ of treatments take shape, even before the benefit of head-to-head trials,” Dr. Swaminath said.

Dr. Buisson reports receiving grant support from AbbVie, Celltrion, Pfizer, and Takeda, as well as personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Celltrion, Ferring, Janssen, MSD, Nexbiome, Pfizer, Roche, sanofi-aventis, Takeda, Tillots, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Garcia reports receiving financial support for traveling and educational activities from MSD, Janssen, AbbVie, Takeda, and Ferring. Dr. Swaminath reports receiving advanced IBD fellowship support from Janssen and Takeda and is on the advisory board for Boehringer Ingelheim.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Both tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and vedolizumab (Entyvio) are effective options for people with ulcerative colitis (UC) who fail at least one antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, a real-world study in France revealed.

However, response was superior with tofacitinib among people after primary failure to biologics and multiple therapeutic failure, the researchers report, including endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing.  

Anthony Buisson, MD, presented the results Feb. 18 at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

The French comparison

Although multiple therapeutic options are available to treat ulcerative colitis after anti-TNF failure, “there are no data comparing tofacitinib to vedolizumab in the real world,” said Dr. Buisson, a gastroenterologist at Clermont Auvergne University, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

In addition, network meta-analysis data are inconclusive, he said.

This led Dr. Buisson and colleagues to study adults with symptomatic UC with prior exposure to at least one anti-TNF treatment. They assessed 126 patients in a tofacitinib group and 178 in a vedolizumab group. The groups were comparable except for higher disease activity at baseline in the tofacitinib group.

The retrospective study was conducted at nine academic centers. Patients started either tofacitinib or vedolizumab between January 2019 and June 2021.

The primary endpoint, corticosteroid-free clinical remission at 16 weeks, was achieved by 45% of the tofacitinib group and 40% of the vedolizumab group. This difference was not statistically significant.

However, endoscopic improvement at week 16 did differ significantly and was achieved by 24% of the tofacitinib group versus 7% of the vedolizumab group (P = .0036).

“Tofacitinib and vedolizumab are effective to induce corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 16 in patients with UC who failed at least one anti-TNF agent,” Dr. Buisson said.

“Vedolizumab seems to be less effective in cases of more severe UC and prior history of primary failure to any biologic,” he added.

Dr. Buisson said he and his colleagues plan to continue the study beyond 16 weeks to look at longterm outcomes.
 

The science from Spain

In another study presented at ECCO ‘22 Virtual, investigators from Spain compared vedolizumab to ustekinumab (Stelara) after at least one anti-TNF treatment failure, this time among people with Crohn’s disease.

Finding effective treatments after an anti-TNF failure is essential, Maria Jose Garcia, MD, said when presenting the results of the VERSUS-CD trial. “Over 20%-30% of Crohn’s disease patients are nonresponders or develop intolerance to anti-TNF therapies. Also, anti-TNF responders can experience a loss of response over time.”

Both vedolizumab and ustekinumab are effective for Crohn’s, she said. “But no clinical trial has compared both treatments, and limited data exist in real life.”

To remedy this situation, Dr. Garcia and colleagues studied 755 people from 30 medical centers in a national database in Spain who failed a previous anti-TNF agent, including 195 people switched to vedolizumab and 560 switched to ustekinumab. Luminal activity, perianal disease, or postoperative recurrence of Crohn’s were the indications for treatment.

The study’s main objective was to compare the short- and long-term treatment survival rate of vedolizumab and ustekinumab after anti-TNF therapy failure in clinical practice. Evaluating efficacy and safety were secondary aims.

“The treatment survival rate with ustekinumab was higher than with vedolizumab” over 5 years of follow-up, said Dr. Garcia, a gastroenterologist at Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla-IDIVAL, Santander, Spain. The difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

Just less than half (43%) of the 327 patients discontinued treatment over time, including 142 in the vedolizumab group and 185 in the ustekinumab group. The most frequent cause was primarily nonresponse.

Infection, arthralgia, and infusion reactions were the most common adverse events. The safety profile was similar between groups, Dr. Garcia said.

“In clinical practice, vedolizumab and ustekinumab are both effective after anti-TNF failure or intolerance in CD,” Dr. Garcia said, adding that, “the retention rate of ustekinumab was higher compared to vedolizumab.”

When asked if the results will change how she practices, Dr. Garcia responded, “This confirms the first choice is ustekinumab more than vedolizumab in clinical practice, because it seems the clinical remission and durability of the treatment is superior.”
 

More options means more questions

“Looking back almost 25 years ago, the struggle was how to work with just one biologic and how to make it last for patients who have already failed all the available therapies. All these years later, we have such riches that the question we most often deal with is ‘What’s my first treatment?’ for patients with inflammatory bowel disease,” Arun Swaminath, MD, said, when asked to comment on both studies.

“Increasingly, we are seeing industry do head-to-head trials of drugs, but this is a time-consuming and expensive process,” added Dr. Swaminath, chief of gastroenterology and director of the inflammatory bowel diseases program at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York.

The study from Dr. Buisson and colleagues in UC approaches the design of a head-to-head trial, Dr. Swaminath said. “In the end, their primary endpoint was a statistical dead heat between the two options.”

In the VERSUS-CD study, vedolizumab was compared with ustekinumab, “with more patients not discontinuing ustekinumab therapy compared to vedolizumab,” he said. “This study also seems to favor sicker patients being treated with ustekinumab.”

“In both cases, we are starting to see the ‘order’ of treatments take shape, even before the benefit of head-to-head trials,” Dr. Swaminath said.

Dr. Buisson reports receiving grant support from AbbVie, Celltrion, Pfizer, and Takeda, as well as personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Celltrion, Ferring, Janssen, MSD, Nexbiome, Pfizer, Roche, sanofi-aventis, Takeda, Tillots, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Garcia reports receiving financial support for traveling and educational activities from MSD, Janssen, AbbVie, Takeda, and Ferring. Dr. Swaminath reports receiving advanced IBD fellowship support from Janssen and Takeda and is on the advisory board for Boehringer Ingelheim.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Not only are artificial intelligence (AI) systems potentially highly accurate for assessment of disease activity and remission of ulcerative colitis (UC), but they can mitigate some limits of human assessment, according to presentations at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

Importantly, AI systems have the potential to supplement the services of expert histopathologists and endoscopists rather than replace them, several experts asserted at the meeting.

“We will always need pathologists,” reassured inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) specialist Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, MD, PhD, of Nancy (France) University Hospital, who presented about the use of an AI-driven scoring system to measure histological disease activity in UC.

Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet, who is the president of ECCO and acts as the scientific secretary of the International Organization for the Study of IBD, added that the use of AI systems could mean that pathologists have more time to do other tasks. Not only that, but it’s also not always possible to have IBD pathologist in every center, everywhere in the world.

“If we can get something that will automatically evaluate the disease activity, I think it will be something fantastic,” Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet said, “and it’s the reason why we were thinking that there is a need for an automated method to measure histological activity in UC.”
 

Old concept enhancing current practice

The idea of using AI systems to aid diagnostics is not new but now makes even more sense in the post–COVID-19 era, suggested Aaron F. Pollett, MD, MSc, FRCPC, codirector of the division of diagnostic medical genetics at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto and a pathologist with a specialty interest in gastrointestinal pathology.

“When we talk about artificial intelligence and histology, there’s actually a very long history, it goes back over 30 years,” Dr. Pollett said, from assessing cervical samples to its use in breast screening.

What seems to be sudden flurry of activity in the world of AI and pathology in recent years comes down to having a higher capacity for looking at large images, having access to large data sets, and having a high amount of computing power, Dr. Pollet inferred. Moreover, “the capacity and the need for whole slide imaging has really grown especially in the last few years as the pandemic has forced centers to adopt.” The need to work remotely and flexibly across centers and the number of available pathologists have also played a role.

AI systems that use image-based retrieval systems are making good headway in IBD, particularly in the diagnosis of UC where “some of the initial research is showing it can be quite good,” said Dr. Pollett. The “patchiness that Crohn’s can have in comparison to UC” means that it’s still an emerging area, but can perhaps be useful for more questionable cases in which “having that degree of certainty can certainly help because there is a discrepancy between specialist and nonspecialist pathologists in the likelihood that what they predict on the biopsy will be the underlying disease.”
 

AI systems in IBD – do they work?

Histopathology is becoming increasingly integrated into IBD clinical trial design at the behest of the Food and Drug Administration and European associations such as ECCO. This can be a tedious procedure that can be prone to error and disagreement between scorers.

The AI-driven scoring system that Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet and associates have been working on aims to fix all that by using machine learning and image processing to set up a reproducible system. Their system, which is based on the Nancy histological index for UC, shows high correlation (87%) with histopathologists’ assessment and was 100% accurate in identifying images with high (grade 4) or no (grade 0) inflammatory activity. The accuracy decreased, however, when trying to distinguish between more moderate activity, with a 75% accuracy for identifying grade 3 and 82% accuracy for grades 1 or 2.

“I’m actually very fascinated to see how we can be supported by the AI work in our practice,” observed Francesca Rosini, a histopathologist working at S. Orsola–Malpighi University Hospital in Bologna, Italy.

Dr. Rosini, who chaired the digital oral presentation session in which Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet had presented also noted that “obviously for us as well [as AI systems] no activity or severe activity is the easiest part but when it’s in between that’s where the problems come.”
 

Simplifying histological scoring

Simplifying scoring for use in AI systems could be the key to their future success, as Tommaso Lorenzo Parigi, MD, from Humanitas University in Milan, and a research fellow at the University of Birmingham (England), suggested.

“Histology is particularly important to distinguish between mild activity and remission,” Dr. Parigi said. “More than 30 histological scores that have been proposed, but their adoption in clinical practice remains limited.”

Dr. Parigi has been part of an international team that has developed a simplified histological score based on “the presence of absence of neutrophils, regardless of their number,” since these are “key determinants of disease activity”.

The score, known as the Paddington International Virtual Chromoendoscopy Scre (PICaSSO) Histologic Remission Index (PHRI), has been shown to correlate well with endoscopic outcomes and thus a good measure to include in AI systems. The results of this work were published online in Gut to coincide with the ECCO congress.

“We are getting close to a world where we could screen biopsies with this kind of systems and consider skipping the pathologists result if AI detected activity,” Dr. Parigi provocatively suggested. “Of course, we need to increase and improve our sensitivity, and we are currently working on that to reduce false negatives, as well as training our model to use and apply other histological scores.”
 

Assessing the gut in real time

Perhaps one of the most exciting developments it to be able to use these AI technologies to examine the gut in real time.

“Virtual chromoendoscopy will give you the opportunity to distinguish very carefully all the details of mucosal vascular pattern,” said Marietta Iacucci MD, PhD, FASGE, AGAF, an associate professor and gastroenterology consultant at the Birmingham (England) University Hospitals.

“So AI can give you, in real time, the score but at the same time it can help to target, to do biopsies for healing,” Dr. Iacucci added when reporting the results of a study evaluating the performance of the first virtual chromoendoscopy AI system to detect endoscopic and histologic remission in UC.

The system was proven to predict endoscopic remission very accurately (94% using PICaSSO and 87% using the UC endoscopic index of severity) when compared with a human endoscopist. Rates of predicting histological remission were also high, at around 83%-85%, depending on the score used.

“For the future, this AI tool can expediate, support, and standardize the endoscopic evaluation of UC mucosal healing in clinical practice and in clinical trials,” Dr. Iacucci said.

The next steps are to combine virtual chromoendoscopy with the PHRI and to validate the tool in a multicenter, international PICaSSO-AI study.

The AI-driven scoring system presented by Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet was supported by Takeda. Dr. Peryin-Biroulet acknowledged the receipt of personal fees and grants from Takeda along with multiple other Pharma companies and owning stock options from CTMA. Dr. Iacucci has received research grants from Pentax, AbbVie, Olympus, and Fujifilm and personal fees from Pentax, AbbVie and Janssen. Dr. Pollett, Dr. Rosini, and Dr. Parigi had no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

Not only are artificial intelligence (AI) systems potentially highly accurate for assessment of disease activity and remission of ulcerative colitis (UC), but they can mitigate some limits of human assessment, according to presentations at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

Importantly, AI systems have the potential to supplement the services of expert histopathologists and endoscopists rather than replace them, several experts asserted at the meeting.

“We will always need pathologists,” reassured inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) specialist Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, MD, PhD, of Nancy (France) University Hospital, who presented about the use of an AI-driven scoring system to measure histological disease activity in UC.

Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet, who is the president of ECCO and acts as the scientific secretary of the International Organization for the Study of IBD, added that the use of AI systems could mean that pathologists have more time to do other tasks. Not only that, but it’s also not always possible to have IBD pathologist in every center, everywhere in the world.

“If we can get something that will automatically evaluate the disease activity, I think it will be something fantastic,” Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet said, “and it’s the reason why we were thinking that there is a need for an automated method to measure histological activity in UC.”
 

Old concept enhancing current practice

The idea of using AI systems to aid diagnostics is not new but now makes even more sense in the post–COVID-19 era, suggested Aaron F. Pollett, MD, MSc, FRCPC, codirector of the division of diagnostic medical genetics at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto and a pathologist with a specialty interest in gastrointestinal pathology.

“When we talk about artificial intelligence and histology, there’s actually a very long history, it goes back over 30 years,” Dr. Pollett said, from assessing cervical samples to its use in breast screening.

What seems to be sudden flurry of activity in the world of AI and pathology in recent years comes down to having a higher capacity for looking at large images, having access to large data sets, and having a high amount of computing power, Dr. Pollet inferred. Moreover, “the capacity and the need for whole slide imaging has really grown especially in the last few years as the pandemic has forced centers to adopt.” The need to work remotely and flexibly across centers and the number of available pathologists have also played a role.

AI systems that use image-based retrieval systems are making good headway in IBD, particularly in the diagnosis of UC where “some of the initial research is showing it can be quite good,” said Dr. Pollett. The “patchiness that Crohn’s can have in comparison to UC” means that it’s still an emerging area, but can perhaps be useful for more questionable cases in which “having that degree of certainty can certainly help because there is a discrepancy between specialist and nonspecialist pathologists in the likelihood that what they predict on the biopsy will be the underlying disease.”
 

AI systems in IBD – do they work?

Histopathology is becoming increasingly integrated into IBD clinical trial design at the behest of the Food and Drug Administration and European associations such as ECCO. This can be a tedious procedure that can be prone to error and disagreement between scorers.

The AI-driven scoring system that Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet and associates have been working on aims to fix all that by using machine learning and image processing to set up a reproducible system. Their system, which is based on the Nancy histological index for UC, shows high correlation (87%) with histopathologists’ assessment and was 100% accurate in identifying images with high (grade 4) or no (grade 0) inflammatory activity. The accuracy decreased, however, when trying to distinguish between more moderate activity, with a 75% accuracy for identifying grade 3 and 82% accuracy for grades 1 or 2.

“I’m actually very fascinated to see how we can be supported by the AI work in our practice,” observed Francesca Rosini, a histopathologist working at S. Orsola–Malpighi University Hospital in Bologna, Italy.

Dr. Rosini, who chaired the digital oral presentation session in which Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet had presented also noted that “obviously for us as well [as AI systems] no activity or severe activity is the easiest part but when it’s in between that’s where the problems come.”
 

Simplifying histological scoring

Simplifying scoring for use in AI systems could be the key to their future success, as Tommaso Lorenzo Parigi, MD, from Humanitas University in Milan, and a research fellow at the University of Birmingham (England), suggested.

“Histology is particularly important to distinguish between mild activity and remission,” Dr. Parigi said. “More than 30 histological scores that have been proposed, but their adoption in clinical practice remains limited.”

Dr. Parigi has been part of an international team that has developed a simplified histological score based on “the presence of absence of neutrophils, regardless of their number,” since these are “key determinants of disease activity”.

The score, known as the Paddington International Virtual Chromoendoscopy Scre (PICaSSO) Histologic Remission Index (PHRI), has been shown to correlate well with endoscopic outcomes and thus a good measure to include in AI systems. The results of this work were published online in Gut to coincide with the ECCO congress.

“We are getting close to a world where we could screen biopsies with this kind of systems and consider skipping the pathologists result if AI detected activity,” Dr. Parigi provocatively suggested. “Of course, we need to increase and improve our sensitivity, and we are currently working on that to reduce false negatives, as well as training our model to use and apply other histological scores.”
 

Assessing the gut in real time

Perhaps one of the most exciting developments it to be able to use these AI technologies to examine the gut in real time.

“Virtual chromoendoscopy will give you the opportunity to distinguish very carefully all the details of mucosal vascular pattern,” said Marietta Iacucci MD, PhD, FASGE, AGAF, an associate professor and gastroenterology consultant at the Birmingham (England) University Hospitals.

“So AI can give you, in real time, the score but at the same time it can help to target, to do biopsies for healing,” Dr. Iacucci added when reporting the results of a study evaluating the performance of the first virtual chromoendoscopy AI system to detect endoscopic and histologic remission in UC.

The system was proven to predict endoscopic remission very accurately (94% using PICaSSO and 87% using the UC endoscopic index of severity) when compared with a human endoscopist. Rates of predicting histological remission were also high, at around 83%-85%, depending on the score used.

“For the future, this AI tool can expediate, support, and standardize the endoscopic evaluation of UC mucosal healing in clinical practice and in clinical trials,” Dr. Iacucci said.

The next steps are to combine virtual chromoendoscopy with the PHRI and to validate the tool in a multicenter, international PICaSSO-AI study.

The AI-driven scoring system presented by Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet was supported by Takeda. Dr. Peryin-Biroulet acknowledged the receipt of personal fees and grants from Takeda along with multiple other Pharma companies and owning stock options from CTMA. Dr. Iacucci has received research grants from Pentax, AbbVie, Olympus, and Fujifilm and personal fees from Pentax, AbbVie and Janssen. Dr. Pollett, Dr. Rosini, and Dr. Parigi had no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

Not only are artificial intelligence (AI) systems potentially highly accurate for assessment of disease activity and remission of ulcerative colitis (UC), but they can mitigate some limits of human assessment, according to presentations at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

Importantly, AI systems have the potential to supplement the services of expert histopathologists and endoscopists rather than replace them, several experts asserted at the meeting.

“We will always need pathologists,” reassured inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) specialist Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, MD, PhD, of Nancy (France) University Hospital, who presented about the use of an AI-driven scoring system to measure histological disease activity in UC.

Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet, who is the president of ECCO and acts as the scientific secretary of the International Organization for the Study of IBD, added that the use of AI systems could mean that pathologists have more time to do other tasks. Not only that, but it’s also not always possible to have IBD pathologist in every center, everywhere in the world.

“If we can get something that will automatically evaluate the disease activity, I think it will be something fantastic,” Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet said, “and it’s the reason why we were thinking that there is a need for an automated method to measure histological activity in UC.”
 

Old concept enhancing current practice

The idea of using AI systems to aid diagnostics is not new but now makes even more sense in the post–COVID-19 era, suggested Aaron F. Pollett, MD, MSc, FRCPC, codirector of the division of diagnostic medical genetics at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto and a pathologist with a specialty interest in gastrointestinal pathology.

“When we talk about artificial intelligence and histology, there’s actually a very long history, it goes back over 30 years,” Dr. Pollett said, from assessing cervical samples to its use in breast screening.

What seems to be sudden flurry of activity in the world of AI and pathology in recent years comes down to having a higher capacity for looking at large images, having access to large data sets, and having a high amount of computing power, Dr. Pollet inferred. Moreover, “the capacity and the need for whole slide imaging has really grown especially in the last few years as the pandemic has forced centers to adopt.” The need to work remotely and flexibly across centers and the number of available pathologists have also played a role.

AI systems that use image-based retrieval systems are making good headway in IBD, particularly in the diagnosis of UC where “some of the initial research is showing it can be quite good,” said Dr. Pollett. The “patchiness that Crohn’s can have in comparison to UC” means that it’s still an emerging area, but can perhaps be useful for more questionable cases in which “having that degree of certainty can certainly help because there is a discrepancy between specialist and nonspecialist pathologists in the likelihood that what they predict on the biopsy will be the underlying disease.”
 

AI systems in IBD – do they work?

Histopathology is becoming increasingly integrated into IBD clinical trial design at the behest of the Food and Drug Administration and European associations such as ECCO. This can be a tedious procedure that can be prone to error and disagreement between scorers.

The AI-driven scoring system that Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet and associates have been working on aims to fix all that by using machine learning and image processing to set up a reproducible system. Their system, which is based on the Nancy histological index for UC, shows high correlation (87%) with histopathologists’ assessment and was 100% accurate in identifying images with high (grade 4) or no (grade 0) inflammatory activity. The accuracy decreased, however, when trying to distinguish between more moderate activity, with a 75% accuracy for identifying grade 3 and 82% accuracy for grades 1 or 2.

“I’m actually very fascinated to see how we can be supported by the AI work in our practice,” observed Francesca Rosini, a histopathologist working at S. Orsola–Malpighi University Hospital in Bologna, Italy.

Dr. Rosini, who chaired the digital oral presentation session in which Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet had presented also noted that “obviously for us as well [as AI systems] no activity or severe activity is the easiest part but when it’s in between that’s where the problems come.”
 

Simplifying histological scoring

Simplifying scoring for use in AI systems could be the key to their future success, as Tommaso Lorenzo Parigi, MD, from Humanitas University in Milan, and a research fellow at the University of Birmingham (England), suggested.

“Histology is particularly important to distinguish between mild activity and remission,” Dr. Parigi said. “More than 30 histological scores that have been proposed, but their adoption in clinical practice remains limited.”

Dr. Parigi has been part of an international team that has developed a simplified histological score based on “the presence of absence of neutrophils, regardless of their number,” since these are “key determinants of disease activity”.

The score, known as the Paddington International Virtual Chromoendoscopy Scre (PICaSSO) Histologic Remission Index (PHRI), has been shown to correlate well with endoscopic outcomes and thus a good measure to include in AI systems. The results of this work were published online in Gut to coincide with the ECCO congress.

“We are getting close to a world where we could screen biopsies with this kind of systems and consider skipping the pathologists result if AI detected activity,” Dr. Parigi provocatively suggested. “Of course, we need to increase and improve our sensitivity, and we are currently working on that to reduce false negatives, as well as training our model to use and apply other histological scores.”
 

Assessing the gut in real time

Perhaps one of the most exciting developments it to be able to use these AI technologies to examine the gut in real time.

“Virtual chromoendoscopy will give you the opportunity to distinguish very carefully all the details of mucosal vascular pattern,” said Marietta Iacucci MD, PhD, FASGE, AGAF, an associate professor and gastroenterology consultant at the Birmingham (England) University Hospitals.

“So AI can give you, in real time, the score but at the same time it can help to target, to do biopsies for healing,” Dr. Iacucci added when reporting the results of a study evaluating the performance of the first virtual chromoendoscopy AI system to detect endoscopic and histologic remission in UC.

The system was proven to predict endoscopic remission very accurately (94% using PICaSSO and 87% using the UC endoscopic index of severity) when compared with a human endoscopist. Rates of predicting histological remission were also high, at around 83%-85%, depending on the score used.

“For the future, this AI tool can expediate, support, and standardize the endoscopic evaluation of UC mucosal healing in clinical practice and in clinical trials,” Dr. Iacucci said.

The next steps are to combine virtual chromoendoscopy with the PHRI and to validate the tool in a multicenter, international PICaSSO-AI study.

The AI-driven scoring system presented by Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet was supported by Takeda. Dr. Peryin-Biroulet acknowledged the receipt of personal fees and grants from Takeda along with multiple other Pharma companies and owning stock options from CTMA. Dr. Iacucci has received research grants from Pentax, AbbVie, Olympus, and Fujifilm and personal fees from Pentax, AbbVie and Janssen. Dr. Pollett, Dr. Rosini, and Dr. Parigi had no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

Greater endoscopic healing at 1 year might be achieved in people with Crohn’s disease if they are treated with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs than if they are treated with certain other biologics it appears.

In a pooled analysis of data from four different clinical trial programs, which altogether included 344 patients with Crohn’s disease, both an infliximab biosimilar and adalimumab were associated with better endoscopic healing rates of both the ileum and colon than were either vedolizumab or ustekinumab.

The difference disappeared for ileal not colonic involvement, however, if patients had been biologic naive before receiving any of the four drugs that were compared.

“Recent studies have suggested that the ileum and colon differ with regards to their ability to achieve healing in Crohn’s disease,” Neeraj Narula, MD, said in reporting the analysis at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

“Our group has shown that larger ulcers in the ileum and rectum in particular do not heal as well as other areas of the colon when using infliximab therapies,” added Dr. Narula, who is an assistant professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and the director of the IBD clinic and staff gastroenterologist at Hamilton Health Sciences.

Whether there are differences in how the ileal and colonic regions heal in response to biologic therapy is not known, which is why Dr. Narula and colleagues carried out their analysis.
 

Pooling pivotal trial program data

“Our primary aim was to evaluate the efficacy of four approved biologic therapies for Crohn’s disease with regards to their ability to achieve endoscopic healing after continuous use for 1 year,” he noted.

For their analysis, original data from the EXTEND, UNITI, VERSIFY, and infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 clinical trial programs were obtained and pooled.

The extent of mucosal inflammation and thereby healing were determined using a modified version of the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease (SES-CD), which is a measure often used in clinical trials.

At inclusion, patients had to have had an SES-CD score of 3 or more in at least one segment of the ileum or colon and confirmed ulceration. The primary endpoint was endoscopic healing defined as an SES-CD score of 0 after 1 year’s continuous treatment.

Multivariate logistic regression was used, and adjustments were made for potential confounding factors, such as how long people had had Crohn’s disease, the use of steroids, and if there had been prior anti-TNF failure.
 

Main results

Overall, 299 patients were in the final analysis; most (n = 141) had been treated with the infliximab biosimilar, with 61 treated with adalimumab, 56 vedolizumab, and 41 ustekinumab.

The highest rate of endoscopic healing at 1 year for ileal involvement was seen with the infliximab biosimilar (36.7% of patients) and the lowest rate with vedolizumab (18.6%), with rates of 30% and 22.7% for adalimumab and ustekinumab, respectively. Only the comparison between the infliximab biosimilar and vedolizumab was statistically significant (P = .038).

As for ileal ulcers, there were fewer seen with both anti-TNF treatments than with either ustekinumab or vedolizumab, at 40.8% for the infliximab biosimilar, 30% for adalimumab, 17.7% for ustekinumab, and 8.7% for vedolizumab. Rates of ileal ulcer absence in biologic-naive patients were a respective 36.7%, 37.5%, 40%, and 21.9%.

In terms of colonic involvement, the lowest rate of endoscopic healing occurred in patients treated with ustekinumab, at 29%, and the highest for adalimumab (62.5%), followed by the infliximab biosimilar (52.4%) and then vedolizumab (31.3%).

Absence of colonic ulcers was similarly low for ustekinumab (29.6%) and higher for the other three groups (64.9%, 70.5%, and 41.2%, respectively). When considering biologic-naive patients, there was a significant difference in the absence of colonic ulcers comparing adalimumab (66.7; P = .004) and the infliximab biosimilar (52.4%; P = .022), but not vedolizumab (37.1%) versus ustekinumab (29.4%).
 

Lots of questions and limitations

Dr. Narula’s presentation garnered a lot of questions, with viewers noting that the number of patients was too small or methodologically too flawed to be able to draw any sound conclusions.

“We acknowledge that our study cannot substitute for head-to-head trials of biologics in Crohn’s disease since we cannot account for all confounding variables,” said Dr. Narula.

“We did try to account for this limitation by performing some subgroup analyses to account for biologic-naive patients only,” he added, alongside the multivariate analyses.

Also, there might be a difference in the duration of treatment needed before endoscopic healing is seen, as the biologics studied all have a different duration of onset. The dosages used may also be important, and Dr. Narula conceded that their analyses were done assuming standard doses, which may not have been optimized.

There were several demographic differences between the infliximab arm and the other treatments. Of note, 76% of patients had been given immunomodulators at the same time, which is known to enhance the effects of infliximab.

Dr. Narula pointed out, however, that baseline characteristic were pretty similar in the other three study arms, and adalimumab still showed superiority in the analyses that were performed.
 

So are anti-TNFs the best choice?

“Ultimately, we always factor in the therapeutic index of therapy, trying to weigh benefit versus risk,” Dr. Narula said in answering a question from the chair of the session on the risks associated with anti-TNFs.

“We didn’t compare risk within this clinical trial, but certainly risk can be compared, and there’s things like number needed to treat versus number needed to harm to ultimately come at a best answer for the patient,” he added.

Dr. Narula disclosed receiving grants from Takeda and Pfizer; personal fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, and Sandoz; and nonfinancial support from AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Ferring, and Lupin. The data used in the analysis were obtained through YODA Project #2021-4778 which has an agreement with Janssen Research & Developmen and via Vivli, which has access to data from AbbVie and Takeda. Data were also obtained with permission from Celltrion.

Greater endoscopic healing at 1 year might be achieved in people with Crohn’s disease if they are treated with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs than if they are treated with certain other biologics it appears.

In a pooled analysis of data from four different clinical trial programs, which altogether included 344 patients with Crohn’s disease, both an infliximab biosimilar and adalimumab were associated with better endoscopic healing rates of both the ileum and colon than were either vedolizumab or ustekinumab.

The difference disappeared for ileal not colonic involvement, however, if patients had been biologic naive before receiving any of the four drugs that were compared.

“Recent studies have suggested that the ileum and colon differ with regards to their ability to achieve healing in Crohn’s disease,” Neeraj Narula, MD, said in reporting the analysis at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

“Our group has shown that larger ulcers in the ileum and rectum in particular do not heal as well as other areas of the colon when using infliximab therapies,” added Dr. Narula, who is an assistant professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and the director of the IBD clinic and staff gastroenterologist at Hamilton Health Sciences.

Whether there are differences in how the ileal and colonic regions heal in response to biologic therapy is not known, which is why Dr. Narula and colleagues carried out their analysis.
 

Pooling pivotal trial program data

“Our primary aim was to evaluate the efficacy of four approved biologic therapies for Crohn’s disease with regards to their ability to achieve endoscopic healing after continuous use for 1 year,” he noted.

For their analysis, original data from the EXTEND, UNITI, VERSIFY, and infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 clinical trial programs were obtained and pooled.

The extent of mucosal inflammation and thereby healing were determined using a modified version of the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease (SES-CD), which is a measure often used in clinical trials.

At inclusion, patients had to have had an SES-CD score of 3 or more in at least one segment of the ileum or colon and confirmed ulceration. The primary endpoint was endoscopic healing defined as an SES-CD score of 0 after 1 year’s continuous treatment.

Multivariate logistic regression was used, and adjustments were made for potential confounding factors, such as how long people had had Crohn’s disease, the use of steroids, and if there had been prior anti-TNF failure.
 

Main results

Overall, 299 patients were in the final analysis; most (n = 141) had been treated with the infliximab biosimilar, with 61 treated with adalimumab, 56 vedolizumab, and 41 ustekinumab.

The highest rate of endoscopic healing at 1 year for ileal involvement was seen with the infliximab biosimilar (36.7% of patients) and the lowest rate with vedolizumab (18.6%), with rates of 30% and 22.7% for adalimumab and ustekinumab, respectively. Only the comparison between the infliximab biosimilar and vedolizumab was statistically significant (P = .038).

As for ileal ulcers, there were fewer seen with both anti-TNF treatments than with either ustekinumab or vedolizumab, at 40.8% for the infliximab biosimilar, 30% for adalimumab, 17.7% for ustekinumab, and 8.7% for vedolizumab. Rates of ileal ulcer absence in biologic-naive patients were a respective 36.7%, 37.5%, 40%, and 21.9%.

In terms of colonic involvement, the lowest rate of endoscopic healing occurred in patients treated with ustekinumab, at 29%, and the highest for adalimumab (62.5%), followed by the infliximab biosimilar (52.4%) and then vedolizumab (31.3%).

Absence of colonic ulcers was similarly low for ustekinumab (29.6%) and higher for the other three groups (64.9%, 70.5%, and 41.2%, respectively). When considering biologic-naive patients, there was a significant difference in the absence of colonic ulcers comparing adalimumab (66.7; P = .004) and the infliximab biosimilar (52.4%; P = .022), but not vedolizumab (37.1%) versus ustekinumab (29.4%).
 

Lots of questions and limitations

Dr. Narula’s presentation garnered a lot of questions, with viewers noting that the number of patients was too small or methodologically too flawed to be able to draw any sound conclusions.

“We acknowledge that our study cannot substitute for head-to-head trials of biologics in Crohn’s disease since we cannot account for all confounding variables,” said Dr. Narula.

“We did try to account for this limitation by performing some subgroup analyses to account for biologic-naive patients only,” he added, alongside the multivariate analyses.

Also, there might be a difference in the duration of treatment needed before endoscopic healing is seen, as the biologics studied all have a different duration of onset. The dosages used may also be important, and Dr. Narula conceded that their analyses were done assuming standard doses, which may not have been optimized.

There were several demographic differences between the infliximab arm and the other treatments. Of note, 76% of patients had been given immunomodulators at the same time, which is known to enhance the effects of infliximab.

Dr. Narula pointed out, however, that baseline characteristic were pretty similar in the other three study arms, and adalimumab still showed superiority in the analyses that were performed.
 

So are anti-TNFs the best choice?

“Ultimately, we always factor in the therapeutic index of therapy, trying to weigh benefit versus risk,” Dr. Narula said in answering a question from the chair of the session on the risks associated with anti-TNFs.

“We didn’t compare risk within this clinical trial, but certainly risk can be compared, and there’s things like number needed to treat versus number needed to harm to ultimately come at a best answer for the patient,” he added.

Dr. Narula disclosed receiving grants from Takeda and Pfizer; personal fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, and Sandoz; and nonfinancial support from AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Ferring, and Lupin. The data used in the analysis were obtained through YODA Project #2021-4778 which has an agreement with Janssen Research & Developmen and via Vivli, which has access to data from AbbVie and Takeda. Data were also obtained with permission from Celltrion.

Greater endoscopic healing at 1 year might be achieved in people with Crohn’s disease if they are treated with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs than if they are treated with certain other biologics it appears.

In a pooled analysis of data from four different clinical trial programs, which altogether included 344 patients with Crohn’s disease, both an infliximab biosimilar and adalimumab were associated with better endoscopic healing rates of both the ileum and colon than were either vedolizumab or ustekinumab.

The difference disappeared for ileal not colonic involvement, however, if patients had been biologic naive before receiving any of the four drugs that were compared.

“Recent studies have suggested that the ileum and colon differ with regards to their ability to achieve healing in Crohn’s disease,” Neeraj Narula, MD, said in reporting the analysis at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

“Our group has shown that larger ulcers in the ileum and rectum in particular do not heal as well as other areas of the colon when using infliximab therapies,” added Dr. Narula, who is an assistant professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and the director of the IBD clinic and staff gastroenterologist at Hamilton Health Sciences.

Whether there are differences in how the ileal and colonic regions heal in response to biologic therapy is not known, which is why Dr. Narula and colleagues carried out their analysis.
 

Pooling pivotal trial program data

“Our primary aim was to evaluate the efficacy of four approved biologic therapies for Crohn’s disease with regards to their ability to achieve endoscopic healing after continuous use for 1 year,” he noted.

For their analysis, original data from the EXTEND, UNITI, VERSIFY, and infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 clinical trial programs were obtained and pooled.

The extent of mucosal inflammation and thereby healing were determined using a modified version of the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease (SES-CD), which is a measure often used in clinical trials.

At inclusion, patients had to have had an SES-CD score of 3 or more in at least one segment of the ileum or colon and confirmed ulceration. The primary endpoint was endoscopic healing defined as an SES-CD score of 0 after 1 year’s continuous treatment.

Multivariate logistic regression was used, and adjustments were made for potential confounding factors, such as how long people had had Crohn’s disease, the use of steroids, and if there had been prior anti-TNF failure.
 

Main results

Overall, 299 patients were in the final analysis; most (n = 141) had been treated with the infliximab biosimilar, with 61 treated with adalimumab, 56 vedolizumab, and 41 ustekinumab.

The highest rate of endoscopic healing at 1 year for ileal involvement was seen with the infliximab biosimilar (36.7% of patients) and the lowest rate with vedolizumab (18.6%), with rates of 30% and 22.7% for adalimumab and ustekinumab, respectively. Only the comparison between the infliximab biosimilar and vedolizumab was statistically significant (P = .038).

As for ileal ulcers, there were fewer seen with both anti-TNF treatments than with either ustekinumab or vedolizumab, at 40.8% for the infliximab biosimilar, 30% for adalimumab, 17.7% for ustekinumab, and 8.7% for vedolizumab. Rates of ileal ulcer absence in biologic-naive patients were a respective 36.7%, 37.5%, 40%, and 21.9%.

In terms of colonic involvement, the lowest rate of endoscopic healing occurred in patients treated with ustekinumab, at 29%, and the highest for adalimumab (62.5%), followed by the infliximab biosimilar (52.4%) and then vedolizumab (31.3%).

Absence of colonic ulcers was similarly low for ustekinumab (29.6%) and higher for the other three groups (64.9%, 70.5%, and 41.2%, respectively). When considering biologic-naive patients, there was a significant difference in the absence of colonic ulcers comparing adalimumab (66.7; P = .004) and the infliximab biosimilar (52.4%; P = .022), but not vedolizumab (37.1%) versus ustekinumab (29.4%).
 

Lots of questions and limitations

Dr. Narula’s presentation garnered a lot of questions, with viewers noting that the number of patients was too small or methodologically too flawed to be able to draw any sound conclusions.

“We acknowledge that our study cannot substitute for head-to-head trials of biologics in Crohn’s disease since we cannot account for all confounding variables,” said Dr. Narula.

“We did try to account for this limitation by performing some subgroup analyses to account for biologic-naive patients only,” he added, alongside the multivariate analyses.

Also, there might be a difference in the duration of treatment needed before endoscopic healing is seen, as the biologics studied all have a different duration of onset. The dosages used may also be important, and Dr. Narula conceded that their analyses were done assuming standard doses, which may not have been optimized.

There were several demographic differences between the infliximab arm and the other treatments. Of note, 76% of patients had been given immunomodulators at the same time, which is known to enhance the effects of infliximab.

Dr. Narula pointed out, however, that baseline characteristic were pretty similar in the other three study arms, and adalimumab still showed superiority in the analyses that were performed.
 

So are anti-TNFs the best choice?

“Ultimately, we always factor in the therapeutic index of therapy, trying to weigh benefit versus risk,” Dr. Narula said in answering a question from the chair of the session on the risks associated with anti-TNFs.

“We didn’t compare risk within this clinical trial, but certainly risk can be compared, and there’s things like number needed to treat versus number needed to harm to ultimately come at a best answer for the patient,” he added.

Dr. Narula disclosed receiving grants from Takeda and Pfizer; personal fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, and Sandoz; and nonfinancial support from AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Ferring, and Lupin. The data used in the analysis were obtained through YODA Project #2021-4778 which has an agreement with Janssen Research & Developmen and via Vivli, which has access to data from AbbVie and Takeda. Data were also obtained with permission from Celltrion.

Many people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can mount a strong antibody response to a booster shot of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, including those who were unable to respond fully to an initial two-dose vaccine series, new evidence suggests.

Of the study participants, 93% had detectable antibodies after their initial vaccination series, which increased to 99.5% following an additional dose.

“Most IBD patients, including those who are immune suppressed and/or did not have detectable humoral immune responses following the initial mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series, demonstrate strong immune responses to additional doses of mRNA vaccines,” Michael D. Kappelman, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

“These data support an additional vaccine dose of mRNA vaccine in patients at risk for an inadequate response to the initial series,” he said.

Dr. Kappelman presented these findings on behalf of the PREVENT-COVID Study Group as an e-poster at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

A study design to measure boosters’ benefits

For people with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who are taking immunosuppressants, boosters are generally recommended, Dr. Kappelman and colleagues noted. However, “real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of additional vaccine doses are lacking.”

They studied 659 people with IBD (mean age, 45 years; 72% female), of whom 72% had Crohn’s disease and 27% had ulcerative colitis/unclassified IBD.

Of these participants, 63% received Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 37% received the Moderna vaccine. Five participants received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In 98% of cases, people who received an mRNA vaccine initially also received the same type for the additional dose.

Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Their blood work was obtained and evaluated 8 weeks after completion of the initial vaccine series and 6 weeks after a booster to measure anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibody levels specific to SARS-CoV-2.

Mean increase in antibody levels was 61 µg/mL in the Pfizer vaccine group and 78 µg/mL in the Moderna vaccine group following the booster shot.

Of the 47 patients without initial antibody response, 45 (96%) had detectable antibodies following an additional dose.

Serious adverse events (AEs) associated with the booster were rare, Dr. Kappelman said. Among participants, 44% reported no AEs, 24% mild AEs, 25% moderate AEs, and 6% reported serious AEs.

“These data can be used to inform vaccine decisions in patients with a broad array of immune-medicated conditions frequently managed by immunosuppression,” the investigators note.
 

A ‘reassuring’ finding

“This abstract [gives us] an important understanding about how patients with inflammatory bowel disease respond to COVID-19 vaccination. There have been mixed reports in the prior studies regarding how well patients with IBD respond to vaccination,” Jason Ken Hou, MD, said when asked to comment on the research.

The main findings that 99.5% of patients had detectable antibodies after an additional dose “is reassuring, as prior studies have suggested some patients did not develop antibodies after the [initial series],” added Dr. Hou, associate professor of medicine-gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

The researchers conducted the study within a previously established, well-known Internet-based cohort of IBD patients, Dr. Hou said. Although the researchers collected information on the IBD medications that patients were taking at the time of vaccination, the analyses that were presented did not compare antibody response rates based on medication.

“Further study is still required, as there is more to vaccination response than detectable antibody alone,” he added.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can mount a strong antibody response to a booster shot of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, including those who were unable to respond fully to an initial two-dose vaccine series, new evidence suggests.

Of the study participants, 93% had detectable antibodies after their initial vaccination series, which increased to 99.5% following an additional dose.

“Most IBD patients, including those who are immune suppressed and/or did not have detectable humoral immune responses following the initial mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series, demonstrate strong immune responses to additional doses of mRNA vaccines,” Michael D. Kappelman, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

“These data support an additional vaccine dose of mRNA vaccine in patients at risk for an inadequate response to the initial series,” he said.

Dr. Kappelman presented these findings on behalf of the PREVENT-COVID Study Group as an e-poster at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

A study design to measure boosters’ benefits

For people with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who are taking immunosuppressants, boosters are generally recommended, Dr. Kappelman and colleagues noted. However, “real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of additional vaccine doses are lacking.”

They studied 659 people with IBD (mean age, 45 years; 72% female), of whom 72% had Crohn’s disease and 27% had ulcerative colitis/unclassified IBD.

Of these participants, 63% received Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 37% received the Moderna vaccine. Five participants received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In 98% of cases, people who received an mRNA vaccine initially also received the same type for the additional dose.

Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Their blood work was obtained and evaluated 8 weeks after completion of the initial vaccine series and 6 weeks after a booster to measure anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibody levels specific to SARS-CoV-2.

Mean increase in antibody levels was 61 µg/mL in the Pfizer vaccine group and 78 µg/mL in the Moderna vaccine group following the booster shot.

Of the 47 patients without initial antibody response, 45 (96%) had detectable antibodies following an additional dose.

Serious adverse events (AEs) associated with the booster were rare, Dr. Kappelman said. Among participants, 44% reported no AEs, 24% mild AEs, 25% moderate AEs, and 6% reported serious AEs.

“These data can be used to inform vaccine decisions in patients with a broad array of immune-medicated conditions frequently managed by immunosuppression,” the investigators note.
 

A ‘reassuring’ finding

“This abstract [gives us] an important understanding about how patients with inflammatory bowel disease respond to COVID-19 vaccination. There have been mixed reports in the prior studies regarding how well patients with IBD respond to vaccination,” Jason Ken Hou, MD, said when asked to comment on the research.

The main findings that 99.5% of patients had detectable antibodies after an additional dose “is reassuring, as prior studies have suggested some patients did not develop antibodies after the [initial series],” added Dr. Hou, associate professor of medicine-gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

The researchers conducted the study within a previously established, well-known Internet-based cohort of IBD patients, Dr. Hou said. Although the researchers collected information on the IBD medications that patients were taking at the time of vaccination, the analyses that were presented did not compare antibody response rates based on medication.

“Further study is still required, as there is more to vaccination response than detectable antibody alone,” he added.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can mount a strong antibody response to a booster shot of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, including those who were unable to respond fully to an initial two-dose vaccine series, new evidence suggests.

Of the study participants, 93% had detectable antibodies after their initial vaccination series, which increased to 99.5% following an additional dose.

“Most IBD patients, including those who are immune suppressed and/or did not have detectable humoral immune responses following the initial mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series, demonstrate strong immune responses to additional doses of mRNA vaccines,” Michael D. Kappelman, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

“These data support an additional vaccine dose of mRNA vaccine in patients at risk for an inadequate response to the initial series,” he said.

Dr. Kappelman presented these findings on behalf of the PREVENT-COVID Study Group as an e-poster at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

A study design to measure boosters’ benefits

For people with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who are taking immunosuppressants, boosters are generally recommended, Dr. Kappelman and colleagues noted. However, “real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of additional vaccine doses are lacking.”

They studied 659 people with IBD (mean age, 45 years; 72% female), of whom 72% had Crohn’s disease and 27% had ulcerative colitis/unclassified IBD.

Of these participants, 63% received Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 37% received the Moderna vaccine. Five participants received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In 98% of cases, people who received an mRNA vaccine initially also received the same type for the additional dose.

Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Their blood work was obtained and evaluated 8 weeks after completion of the initial vaccine series and 6 weeks after a booster to measure anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibody levels specific to SARS-CoV-2.

Mean increase in antibody levels was 61 µg/mL in the Pfizer vaccine group and 78 µg/mL in the Moderna vaccine group following the booster shot.

Of the 47 patients without initial antibody response, 45 (96%) had detectable antibodies following an additional dose.

Serious adverse events (AEs) associated with the booster were rare, Dr. Kappelman said. Among participants, 44% reported no AEs, 24% mild AEs, 25% moderate AEs, and 6% reported serious AEs.

“These data can be used to inform vaccine decisions in patients with a broad array of immune-medicated conditions frequently managed by immunosuppression,” the investigators note.
 

A ‘reassuring’ finding

“This abstract [gives us] an important understanding about how patients with inflammatory bowel disease respond to COVID-19 vaccination. There have been mixed reports in the prior studies regarding how well patients with IBD respond to vaccination,” Jason Ken Hou, MD, said when asked to comment on the research.

The main findings that 99.5% of patients had detectable antibodies after an additional dose “is reassuring, as prior studies have suggested some patients did not develop antibodies after the [initial series],” added Dr. Hou, associate professor of medicine-gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

The researchers conducted the study within a previously established, well-known Internet-based cohort of IBD patients, Dr. Hou said. Although the researchers collected information on the IBD medications that patients were taking at the time of vaccination, the analyses that were presented did not compare antibody response rates based on medication.

“Further study is still required, as there is more to vaccination response than detectable antibody alone,” he added.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The chances of developing a blood clot after hospital admission for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may persist for several months after being discharged, but a new simple score might help clinicians identify patients who are at greatest risk.

The score – which takes eight, easily captured factors into consideration – had a reasonable ability to distinguish between people who did and did not develop venous thromboembolism (VTE), with an area under the curve of 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.72).

“There is clearly an excess of risk for VTE in patients admitted for IBD in the 90 days following their hospital discharge,” said Philip Harvey, MD, a consultant gastroenterologist with the Royal Wolverhampton (England) NHS Trust at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

“Advancing age, male gender, emergency admission, longer admissions, and ulcerative colitis are particularly important risk factors,” he noted.

“We have proposed a risk-scoring system that will be generalizable to patients under the age of 60 using readily identifiable clinical data so that clinicians can identify patients who are at the greatest risk,” Dr. Harvey added when presenting the work.

“This research provides much needed evidence to guide posthospitalization anticoagulation in patients hospitalized for IBD flares,” Bharati Kochar, MD, MS, independently commented.

“Surgeons are already discharging select patients on anticoagulation for DVT [deep vein thrombosis] prophylaxis [but] we need to consider this more systematically after medical IBD admissions,” suggested Dr. Kochar, who is a gastroenterologist and IBD specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“This research should spur prospective investigation into type of anticoagulation upon discharge, dose, duration and whether the intervention makes a difference in postdischarge clotting events in patients hospitalized for a flare of IBD,” she added.
 

VTE risk in IBD patients

The risk and prevention of VTE and arterial thrombosis in IBD patients was the focus of a recent international consensus project in which 14 international IBD experts and three thrombosis experts from 12 countries came together to develop evidence-based guidance. Nineteen statements and 10 core recommendations were made, notably that “patients with IBD should be screened for VTE risk factors” and that “thromboprophylaxis should be given to patients with IBD during hospitalization of any cause and maintained during the inpatient period.”

Although met with a high level of agreement among the expert panel, these recommendations were supported by a low (grade C/D) level of evidence.

The expert panel observed in their conclusions that “development of specific risk-assessment tools for thrombotic complications in patients with IBD are needed, as they might influence management in some clinical scenarios (such as thromboprophylaxis during ambulatory flares).”
 

Large hospitalized IBD population considered

Dr. Harvey and fellow investigators’ IBD-VTE risk score was created using data from almost 102,000 patients (49,385 of whom were men) with just greater than 201,000 hospital admissions between 2006 and 2019. These data were taken from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), a “data warehouse” that collects details of all emergency, routine, and outpatient hospital attendances at NHS hospitals in England.

“The HES database is advantageous due to its size because VTE events are relatively uncommon in this group, and therefore it’s important to capture as many patients as possible,” Dr. Harvey explained.

All admissions, from emergencies without surgery to those involving surgery, and those for more routine cases of elective surgery were considered, with the most common (79.3%) admission type being nonsurgical emergencies.

A multilevel logistic regression model was used to identify patient and admission factors that might influence the risk for VTE.

With regard to the number of VTE events seen, Dr. Harvey noted: “There was an enormous excess of events and risk in that 0-90 day period, compared to 180-270 days later. This was true across all admission types.”

Indeed, VTE rates per 100,000 people in the 0-90 day postoperative period were 36.9 for emergency surgical admissions, and 15.6 for both nonsurgical emergencies and elective surgeries. Rates in the later period were a respective 0.84, 1.59, and 1.70.

Key risk factors for VTE were male gender, older age, emergency admission with or without surgery, longer hospital stays, and having ulcerative colitis which were included in the scoring system together with number of prior IBD hospital admissions in the past 3 months, ethnicity, and number of comorbidities.
 

Ideal thromboprophylaxis duration under investigation

“A higher risk of DVT is known in these patients and all should be considered for postoperative VTE prevention,” said Robert Neil Goldstone, MD, who is assistant professor of surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“Many scores can be used, including the Caprini score, which also adds a point for patient history of IBD,” he observed.

The flip-side of VTE is of course the risk for postsurgical bleeding. While this is something clinicians need to be cognizant of there is “not generally increased risk” with some of the more commonly used anticoagulants, Dr. Goldstone noted. In his practice, “high-risk” IBD patients who have undergone bowel surgery will commonly be discharged on a low-molecular-weight heparin treatment for at least 3-4 weeks.

“The bigger question that remains is whether prolonged postoperative thromboprophylaxis is required,” Dr. Goldstone said. This is something that needs examining in a large randomized controlled trial.

Dr. Harvey and coinvestigators had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Kochar is on the Board of Editors for GI & Hepatology News but had no other conflicts of interest. Dr. Goldstone was also not involved in the study and had nothing to disclose.
 

The chances of developing a blood clot after hospital admission for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may persist for several months after being discharged, but a new simple score might help clinicians identify patients who are at greatest risk.

The score – which takes eight, easily captured factors into consideration – had a reasonable ability to distinguish between people who did and did not develop venous thromboembolism (VTE), with an area under the curve of 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.72).

“There is clearly an excess of risk for VTE in patients admitted for IBD in the 90 days following their hospital discharge,” said Philip Harvey, MD, a consultant gastroenterologist with the Royal Wolverhampton (England) NHS Trust at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

“Advancing age, male gender, emergency admission, longer admissions, and ulcerative colitis are particularly important risk factors,” he noted.

“We have proposed a risk-scoring system that will be generalizable to patients under the age of 60 using readily identifiable clinical data so that clinicians can identify patients who are at the greatest risk,” Dr. Harvey added when presenting the work.

“This research provides much needed evidence to guide posthospitalization anticoagulation in patients hospitalized for IBD flares,” Bharati Kochar, MD, MS, independently commented.

“Surgeons are already discharging select patients on anticoagulation for DVT [deep vein thrombosis] prophylaxis [but] we need to consider this more systematically after medical IBD admissions,” suggested Dr. Kochar, who is a gastroenterologist and IBD specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“This research should spur prospective investigation into type of anticoagulation upon discharge, dose, duration and whether the intervention makes a difference in postdischarge clotting events in patients hospitalized for a flare of IBD,” she added.
 

VTE risk in IBD patients

The risk and prevention of VTE and arterial thrombosis in IBD patients was the focus of a recent international consensus project in which 14 international IBD experts and three thrombosis experts from 12 countries came together to develop evidence-based guidance. Nineteen statements and 10 core recommendations were made, notably that “patients with IBD should be screened for VTE risk factors” and that “thromboprophylaxis should be given to patients with IBD during hospitalization of any cause and maintained during the inpatient period.”

Although met with a high level of agreement among the expert panel, these recommendations were supported by a low (grade C/D) level of evidence.

The expert panel observed in their conclusions that “development of specific risk-assessment tools for thrombotic complications in patients with IBD are needed, as they might influence management in some clinical scenarios (such as thromboprophylaxis during ambulatory flares).”
 

Large hospitalized IBD population considered

Dr. Harvey and fellow investigators’ IBD-VTE risk score was created using data from almost 102,000 patients (49,385 of whom were men) with just greater than 201,000 hospital admissions between 2006 and 2019. These data were taken from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), a “data warehouse” that collects details of all emergency, routine, and outpatient hospital attendances at NHS hospitals in England.

“The HES database is advantageous due to its size because VTE events are relatively uncommon in this group, and therefore it’s important to capture as many patients as possible,” Dr. Harvey explained.

All admissions, from emergencies without surgery to those involving surgery, and those for more routine cases of elective surgery were considered, with the most common (79.3%) admission type being nonsurgical emergencies.

A multilevel logistic regression model was used to identify patient and admission factors that might influence the risk for VTE.

With regard to the number of VTE events seen, Dr. Harvey noted: “There was an enormous excess of events and risk in that 0-90 day period, compared to 180-270 days later. This was true across all admission types.”

Indeed, VTE rates per 100,000 people in the 0-90 day postoperative period were 36.9 for emergency surgical admissions, and 15.6 for both nonsurgical emergencies and elective surgeries. Rates in the later period were a respective 0.84, 1.59, and 1.70.

Key risk factors for VTE were male gender, older age, emergency admission with or without surgery, longer hospital stays, and having ulcerative colitis which were included in the scoring system together with number of prior IBD hospital admissions in the past 3 months, ethnicity, and number of comorbidities.
 

Ideal thromboprophylaxis duration under investigation

“A higher risk of DVT is known in these patients and all should be considered for postoperative VTE prevention,” said Robert Neil Goldstone, MD, who is assistant professor of surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“Many scores can be used, including the Caprini score, which also adds a point for patient history of IBD,” he observed.

The flip-side of VTE is of course the risk for postsurgical bleeding. While this is something clinicians need to be cognizant of there is “not generally increased risk” with some of the more commonly used anticoagulants, Dr. Goldstone noted. In his practice, “high-risk” IBD patients who have undergone bowel surgery will commonly be discharged on a low-molecular-weight heparin treatment for at least 3-4 weeks.

“The bigger question that remains is whether prolonged postoperative thromboprophylaxis is required,” Dr. Goldstone said. This is something that needs examining in a large randomized controlled trial.

Dr. Harvey and coinvestigators had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Kochar is on the Board of Editors for GI & Hepatology News but had no other conflicts of interest. Dr. Goldstone was also not involved in the study and had nothing to disclose.
 

The chances of developing a blood clot after hospital admission for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may persist for several months after being discharged, but a new simple score might help clinicians identify patients who are at greatest risk.

The score – which takes eight, easily captured factors into consideration – had a reasonable ability to distinguish between people who did and did not develop venous thromboembolism (VTE), with an area under the curve of 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.72).

“There is clearly an excess of risk for VTE in patients admitted for IBD in the 90 days following their hospital discharge,” said Philip Harvey, MD, a consultant gastroenterologist with the Royal Wolverhampton (England) NHS Trust at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

“Advancing age, male gender, emergency admission, longer admissions, and ulcerative colitis are particularly important risk factors,” he noted.

“We have proposed a risk-scoring system that will be generalizable to patients under the age of 60 using readily identifiable clinical data so that clinicians can identify patients who are at the greatest risk,” Dr. Harvey added when presenting the work.

“This research provides much needed evidence to guide posthospitalization anticoagulation in patients hospitalized for IBD flares,” Bharati Kochar, MD, MS, independently commented.

“Surgeons are already discharging select patients on anticoagulation for DVT [deep vein thrombosis] prophylaxis [but] we need to consider this more systematically after medical IBD admissions,” suggested Dr. Kochar, who is a gastroenterologist and IBD specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“This research should spur prospective investigation into type of anticoagulation upon discharge, dose, duration and whether the intervention makes a difference in postdischarge clotting events in patients hospitalized for a flare of IBD,” she added.
 

VTE risk in IBD patients

The risk and prevention of VTE and arterial thrombosis in IBD patients was the focus of a recent international consensus project in which 14 international IBD experts and three thrombosis experts from 12 countries came together to develop evidence-based guidance. Nineteen statements and 10 core recommendations were made, notably that “patients with IBD should be screened for VTE risk factors” and that “thromboprophylaxis should be given to patients with IBD during hospitalization of any cause and maintained during the inpatient period.”

Although met with a high level of agreement among the expert panel, these recommendations were supported by a low (grade C/D) level of evidence.

The expert panel observed in their conclusions that “development of specific risk-assessment tools for thrombotic complications in patients with IBD are needed, as they might influence management in some clinical scenarios (such as thromboprophylaxis during ambulatory flares).”
 

Large hospitalized IBD population considered

Dr. Harvey and fellow investigators’ IBD-VTE risk score was created using data from almost 102,000 patients (49,385 of whom were men) with just greater than 201,000 hospital admissions between 2006 and 2019. These data were taken from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), a “data warehouse” that collects details of all emergency, routine, and outpatient hospital attendances at NHS hospitals in England.

“The HES database is advantageous due to its size because VTE events are relatively uncommon in this group, and therefore it’s important to capture as many patients as possible,” Dr. Harvey explained.

All admissions, from emergencies without surgery to those involving surgery, and those for more routine cases of elective surgery were considered, with the most common (79.3%) admission type being nonsurgical emergencies.

A multilevel logistic regression model was used to identify patient and admission factors that might influence the risk for VTE.

With regard to the number of VTE events seen, Dr. Harvey noted: “There was an enormous excess of events and risk in that 0-90 day period, compared to 180-270 days later. This was true across all admission types.”

Indeed, VTE rates per 100,000 people in the 0-90 day postoperative period were 36.9 for emergency surgical admissions, and 15.6 for both nonsurgical emergencies and elective surgeries. Rates in the later period were a respective 0.84, 1.59, and 1.70.

Key risk factors for VTE were male gender, older age, emergency admission with or without surgery, longer hospital stays, and having ulcerative colitis which were included in the scoring system together with number of prior IBD hospital admissions in the past 3 months, ethnicity, and number of comorbidities.
 

Ideal thromboprophylaxis duration under investigation

“A higher risk of DVT is known in these patients and all should be considered for postoperative VTE prevention,” said Robert Neil Goldstone, MD, who is assistant professor of surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“Many scores can be used, including the Caprini score, which also adds a point for patient history of IBD,” he observed.

The flip-side of VTE is of course the risk for postsurgical bleeding. While this is something clinicians need to be cognizant of there is “not generally increased risk” with some of the more commonly used anticoagulants, Dr. Goldstone noted. In his practice, “high-risk” IBD patients who have undergone bowel surgery will commonly be discharged on a low-molecular-weight heparin treatment for at least 3-4 weeks.

“The bigger question that remains is whether prolonged postoperative thromboprophylaxis is required,” Dr. Goldstone said. This is something that needs examining in a large randomized controlled trial.

Dr. Harvey and coinvestigators had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Kochar is on the Board of Editors for GI & Hepatology News but had no other conflicts of interest. Dr. Goldstone was also not involved in the study and had nothing to disclose.
 

Mirikizumab is the first interleukin (IL) 23p19 to report positive phase 3 results for induction therapy in patients who have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) and have already been treated with at least one prior therapy.

Compared to placebo, almost a quarter (24.2%) of patients treated with mirikizumab versus 13% of those treated with placebo were in clinical remission at the end of the 12-week LUCENT-1 study. This was the study’s primary endpoint and it was a significant result (P = .00006), study investigator Geert D’Haens, MD, PhD, reported at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

Moreover, mirikizumab met all its secondary endpoints in the trial. At the end of the study almost two-thirds (63.5%) of patients achieved a clinical response (vs. 42.2% in the placebo arm); over one-third (36.3%) exhibited endoscopic remission (vs. 21.1%), and just over a quarter (27.1% vs. 13.9%) showed histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement, according to a press release. The P values for all comparisons were less than .00001.

Perhaps more importantly from the patient perspective, there was greater symptomatic improvement and less bowel urgency in those treated with mirikizumab versus those randomized to placebo.

“The results confirmed [the] efficacy and safety noted in the phase 2 induction [trials], and supports mirikizumab’s potential as treatment for ulcerative colitis,” said Dr. D’Haens, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at Amsterdam University Medical Centers.

Dominik Bettenworth, MD, who was not involved in the study, said that “the positive results from the LUCENT-1 trial are an important step towards selective IL-23 inhibition as a new mode of action for the treatment of patients with UC.

“This treatment approach has been shown efficacious and launched in other immune-mediated diseases such as psoriasis,” said Dr. Bettenworth, a specialist in internal medicine and gastroenterology in Münster, Germany.

“Noteworthy, for the first time in a phase 3 trial in IBD, [bowel] urgency has been assessed as a secondary endpoint – a clinical symptom of particular importance for patients with UC,” he added, noting that regarding safety, “the LUCENT-1 trial further confirms the previously observed overall good safety profile of IL-23 inhibitors.”
 

About mirikizumab and LUCENT-1

Mirikizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the p19 subunit of IL-23 and is one of several IL23p19 antibodies currently under investigation for the treatment of IBD.

LUCENT-1 was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled induction study in just over 1,200 patients aged 18-80 years. For inclusion, patients had to have moderately to severely active UC and had to have received at least one prior therapy, but had an inadequate or loss of response to it or been intolerant of it. Baseline data showed that 40% of patients included had been treated with corticosteroids and 24% with immunomodulators, and any current treatment remained unchanged during the study. Biologic treatment had failed in about 40% of patients and any patient taking such therapy had to discontinue it before participating in the trial.

Patients were randomized to receive 300 mg of mirikizumab or matching placebo, given intravenously at weeks 0, 4, and 8. Dr. D’Haens noted that randomization had been in a 3:1 ratio and had been stratified according to various factors such as biologic failure status, corticosteroid use, baseline disease activity, and region of the world where the patient was recruited.
 

Better results if biologic naive

Clinical remission was stringently defined as: Mayo stool frequency subscore of zero or one, with a reduction of one point or greater from baseline; no rectal bleeding; and a Mayo endoscopic subscore of zero to one. When looking at this primary endpoint in terms of whether patients had received prior biologic treatment, there was a higher remission rate at week 12 if patients had not previously been given any biologic therapy than if they had, but rates were still higher than placebo (30.9% vs. 15.8% and 15.2% vs. 8.5%, respectively), according to the press release. The P value was less than .001 for both comparisons although the study was not powered to look at these subgroups of patients.

Similarly, for clinical response – which was a decrease in the modified Mayo score of 2 or more points and at least a 30% decrease from initial values, as well as a decrease in rectal bleeding – there were differences between patients who had (54.6% for mirikizumab vs. 29.7% for placebo) and had not (70.1% vs. 50.3%) received a biologic previously (again, P less than .001 for both comparisons).

“Control of bowel function is one of the most debilitating, or one of the most important features for patients with ulcerative colitis,” Dr. D’Haens said when presenting the data on bowel urgency. In the trial there was an improvement in urgency – which was rated by patients – starting as early as week 2, with further improvement seen as the induction period went on.
 

Mirikizumab safety consistent with other trials

Dr. D’Haens noted that the safety profile of IL23 antibodies was “extremely clean.” As with other trials of mirikizumab, he said, there were similar or lower rates to placebo for many adverse events including any infection (15.1% vs. 14%) and cerebrocardiovascular events (0.6% vs. 0.1%). The overall rate of treatment emergent adverse events was 44.5% vs. 46.1% for mirikizumab and placebo. Notably, there were fewer serious adverse events (2.8% vs. 5.3%.) and discontinuations because of side effects (1.6% vs. 7.2%) in the mirikizumab group.

Are gastroenterologists now spoiled for choice?

Lots of questions followed Dr. D’Haens presentation, many picking up on the high placebo response and remission rates.

“We’ve seen it in a number of trials now,” Dr. D’Haens said. “One of the reasons is that patients are allowed to start corticosteroids as late as 2 weeks before randomization,” he observed. In LUCENT-1, half of the patients that were using steroids were receiving a dose of 20 mg of prednisone.

“Now when you start 20 mg of prednisone 2 weeks before randomization that might have an impact on your placebo readout. So I think that’s a lesson for many more trials in the future,” Dr. D’Haens said,”

A high placebo response rate was not expected and another hypothesis is that maybe additional clinical support for fatigue that was received may have played a role.

Several delegates asked for guidance on where mirikizumab and other IL-23p19 blockers might now fit in the grand scheme of patient treatment.

“It is really nice to have expanding therapeutic options but how will we choose?” said one in the online Q&A. “Which IL23 antagonist should we be using now?” and “Is ustekinumab obsolete in UC?” asked others.

“I think it’s early days to decide where the field is going,” Dr. D’Haens said after his presentation. “We don’t have head-to-head data. In GALAXI, ustekinumab was a reference arm.”

There will be further subanalyses of LUCENT-1 to come, including results from endoscopy and histology investigations, and the maintenance trial LUCENT-2 will also report soon.

“The feeling is that IL23 blockade is more specific, [more] beneficial in inflammatory bowel disease than blocking both IL12 and IL23,” Dr. D’Haens said.

Dr. D’Haens was an investigator in the LUCENT-1 trial and has acted as an adviser to the study’s sponsor, Eli Lilly, among many other big pharma companies. Dr. Bettenworth is on the advisory board or is a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Atheneum, BNG Service GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb, CED-Service GmbH, Celltrion, Else Kröner-Fresenius-Foundation, Galapagos, Guidepoint, Impulze, Falk Foundation, Ferring, Janssen Cilag, Medical Tribune, MedTriX, MSD, Mylan, Onkowissen, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, Tetrameros, Thieme, Tillotts Pharma, and Vifor Pharma.

Mirikizumab is the first interleukin (IL) 23p19 to report positive phase 3 results for induction therapy in patients who have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) and have already been treated with at least one prior therapy.

Compared to placebo, almost a quarter (24.2%) of patients treated with mirikizumab versus 13% of those treated with placebo were in clinical remission at the end of the 12-week LUCENT-1 study. This was the study’s primary endpoint and it was a significant result (P = .00006), study investigator Geert D’Haens, MD, PhD, reported at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

Moreover, mirikizumab met all its secondary endpoints in the trial. At the end of the study almost two-thirds (63.5%) of patients achieved a clinical response (vs. 42.2% in the placebo arm); over one-third (36.3%) exhibited endoscopic remission (vs. 21.1%), and just over a quarter (27.1% vs. 13.9%) showed histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement, according to a press release. The P values for all comparisons were less than .00001.

Perhaps more importantly from the patient perspective, there was greater symptomatic improvement and less bowel urgency in those treated with mirikizumab versus those randomized to placebo.

“The results confirmed [the] efficacy and safety noted in the phase 2 induction [trials], and supports mirikizumab’s potential as treatment for ulcerative colitis,” said Dr. D’Haens, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at Amsterdam University Medical Centers.

Dominik Bettenworth, MD, who was not involved in the study, said that “the positive results from the LUCENT-1 trial are an important step towards selective IL-23 inhibition as a new mode of action for the treatment of patients with UC.

“This treatment approach has been shown efficacious and launched in other immune-mediated diseases such as psoriasis,” said Dr. Bettenworth, a specialist in internal medicine and gastroenterology in Münster, Germany.

“Noteworthy, for the first time in a phase 3 trial in IBD, [bowel] urgency has been assessed as a secondary endpoint – a clinical symptom of particular importance for patients with UC,” he added, noting that regarding safety, “the LUCENT-1 trial further confirms the previously observed overall good safety profile of IL-23 inhibitors.”
 

About mirikizumab and LUCENT-1

Mirikizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the p19 subunit of IL-23 and is one of several IL23p19 antibodies currently under investigation for the treatment of IBD.

LUCENT-1 was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled induction study in just over 1,200 patients aged 18-80 years. For inclusion, patients had to have moderately to severely active UC and had to have received at least one prior therapy, but had an inadequate or loss of response to it or been intolerant of it. Baseline data showed that 40% of patients included had been treated with corticosteroids and 24% with immunomodulators, and any current treatment remained unchanged during the study. Biologic treatment had failed in about 40% of patients and any patient taking such therapy had to discontinue it before participating in the trial.

Patients were randomized to receive 300 mg of mirikizumab or matching placebo, given intravenously at weeks 0, 4, and 8. Dr. D’Haens noted that randomization had been in a 3:1 ratio and had been stratified according to various factors such as biologic failure status, corticosteroid use, baseline disease activity, and region of the world where the patient was recruited.
 

Better results if biologic naive

Clinical remission was stringently defined as: Mayo stool frequency subscore of zero or one, with a reduction of one point or greater from baseline; no rectal bleeding; and a Mayo endoscopic subscore of zero to one. When looking at this primary endpoint in terms of whether patients had received prior biologic treatment, there was a higher remission rate at week 12 if patients had not previously been given any biologic therapy than if they had, but rates were still higher than placebo (30.9% vs. 15.8% and 15.2% vs. 8.5%, respectively), according to the press release. The P value was less than .001 for both comparisons although the study was not powered to look at these subgroups of patients.

Similarly, for clinical response – which was a decrease in the modified Mayo score of 2 or more points and at least a 30% decrease from initial values, as well as a decrease in rectal bleeding – there were differences between patients who had (54.6% for mirikizumab vs. 29.7% for placebo) and had not (70.1% vs. 50.3%) received a biologic previously (again, P less than .001 for both comparisons).

“Control of bowel function is one of the most debilitating, or one of the most important features for patients with ulcerative colitis,” Dr. D’Haens said when presenting the data on bowel urgency. In the trial there was an improvement in urgency – which was rated by patients – starting as early as week 2, with further improvement seen as the induction period went on.
 

Mirikizumab safety consistent with other trials

Dr. D’Haens noted that the safety profile of IL23 antibodies was “extremely clean.” As with other trials of mirikizumab, he said, there were similar or lower rates to placebo for many adverse events including any infection (15.1% vs. 14%) and cerebrocardiovascular events (0.6% vs. 0.1%). The overall rate of treatment emergent adverse events was 44.5% vs. 46.1% for mirikizumab and placebo. Notably, there were fewer serious adverse events (2.8% vs. 5.3%.) and discontinuations because of side effects (1.6% vs. 7.2%) in the mirikizumab group.

Are gastroenterologists now spoiled for choice?

Lots of questions followed Dr. D’Haens presentation, many picking up on the high placebo response and remission rates.

“We’ve seen it in a number of trials now,” Dr. D’Haens said. “One of the reasons is that patients are allowed to start corticosteroids as late as 2 weeks before randomization,” he observed. In LUCENT-1, half of the patients that were using steroids were receiving a dose of 20 mg of prednisone.

“Now when you start 20 mg of prednisone 2 weeks before randomization that might have an impact on your placebo readout. So I think that’s a lesson for many more trials in the future,” Dr. D’Haens said,”

A high placebo response rate was not expected and another hypothesis is that maybe additional clinical support for fatigue that was received may have played a role.

Several delegates asked for guidance on where mirikizumab and other IL-23p19 blockers might now fit in the grand scheme of patient treatment.

“It is really nice to have expanding therapeutic options but how will we choose?” said one in the online Q&A. “Which IL23 antagonist should we be using now?” and “Is ustekinumab obsolete in UC?” asked others.

“I think it’s early days to decide where the field is going,” Dr. D’Haens said after his presentation. “We don’t have head-to-head data. In GALAXI, ustekinumab was a reference arm.”

There will be further subanalyses of LUCENT-1 to come, including results from endoscopy and histology investigations, and the maintenance trial LUCENT-2 will also report soon.

“The feeling is that IL23 blockade is more specific, [more] beneficial in inflammatory bowel disease than blocking both IL12 and IL23,” Dr. D’Haens said.

Dr. D’Haens was an investigator in the LUCENT-1 trial and has acted as an adviser to the study’s sponsor, Eli Lilly, among many other big pharma companies. Dr. Bettenworth is on the advisory board or is a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Atheneum, BNG Service GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb, CED-Service GmbH, Celltrion, Else Kröner-Fresenius-Foundation, Galapagos, Guidepoint, Impulze, Falk Foundation, Ferring, Janssen Cilag, Medical Tribune, MedTriX, MSD, Mylan, Onkowissen, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, Tetrameros, Thieme, Tillotts Pharma, and Vifor Pharma.

Mirikizumab is the first interleukin (IL) 23p19 to report positive phase 3 results for induction therapy in patients who have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) and have already been treated with at least one prior therapy.

Compared to placebo, almost a quarter (24.2%) of patients treated with mirikizumab versus 13% of those treated with placebo were in clinical remission at the end of the 12-week LUCENT-1 study. This was the study’s primary endpoint and it was a significant result (P = .00006), study investigator Geert D’Haens, MD, PhD, reported at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

Moreover, mirikizumab met all its secondary endpoints in the trial. At the end of the study almost two-thirds (63.5%) of patients achieved a clinical response (vs. 42.2% in the placebo arm); over one-third (36.3%) exhibited endoscopic remission (vs. 21.1%), and just over a quarter (27.1% vs. 13.9%) showed histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement, according to a press release. The P values for all comparisons were less than .00001.

Perhaps more importantly from the patient perspective, there was greater symptomatic improvement and less bowel urgency in those treated with mirikizumab versus those randomized to placebo.

“The results confirmed [the] efficacy and safety noted in the phase 2 induction [trials], and supports mirikizumab’s potential as treatment for ulcerative colitis,” said Dr. D’Haens, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at Amsterdam University Medical Centers.

Dominik Bettenworth, MD, who was not involved in the study, said that “the positive results from the LUCENT-1 trial are an important step towards selective IL-23 inhibition as a new mode of action for the treatment of patients with UC.

“This treatment approach has been shown efficacious and launched in other immune-mediated diseases such as psoriasis,” said Dr. Bettenworth, a specialist in internal medicine and gastroenterology in Münster, Germany.

“Noteworthy, for the first time in a phase 3 trial in IBD, [bowel] urgency has been assessed as a secondary endpoint – a clinical symptom of particular importance for patients with UC,” he added, noting that regarding safety, “the LUCENT-1 trial further confirms the previously observed overall good safety profile of IL-23 inhibitors.”
 

About mirikizumab and LUCENT-1

Mirikizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the p19 subunit of IL-23 and is one of several IL23p19 antibodies currently under investigation for the treatment of IBD.

LUCENT-1 was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled induction study in just over 1,200 patients aged 18-80 years. For inclusion, patients had to have moderately to severely active UC and had to have received at least one prior therapy, but had an inadequate or loss of response to it or been intolerant of it. Baseline data showed that 40% of patients included had been treated with corticosteroids and 24% with immunomodulators, and any current treatment remained unchanged during the study. Biologic treatment had failed in about 40% of patients and any patient taking such therapy had to discontinue it before participating in the trial.

Patients were randomized to receive 300 mg of mirikizumab or matching placebo, given intravenously at weeks 0, 4, and 8. Dr. D’Haens noted that randomization had been in a 3:1 ratio and had been stratified according to various factors such as biologic failure status, corticosteroid use, baseline disease activity, and region of the world where the patient was recruited.
 

Better results if biologic naive

Clinical remission was stringently defined as: Mayo stool frequency subscore of zero or one, with a reduction of one point or greater from baseline; no rectal bleeding; and a Mayo endoscopic subscore of zero to one. When looking at this primary endpoint in terms of whether patients had received prior biologic treatment, there was a higher remission rate at week 12 if patients had not previously been given any biologic therapy than if they had, but rates were still higher than placebo (30.9% vs. 15.8% and 15.2% vs. 8.5%, respectively), according to the press release. The P value was less than .001 for both comparisons although the study was not powered to look at these subgroups of patients.

Similarly, for clinical response – which was a decrease in the modified Mayo score of 2 or more points and at least a 30% decrease from initial values, as well as a decrease in rectal bleeding – there were differences between patients who had (54.6% for mirikizumab vs. 29.7% for placebo) and had not (70.1% vs. 50.3%) received a biologic previously (again, P less than .001 for both comparisons).

“Control of bowel function is one of the most debilitating, or one of the most important features for patients with ulcerative colitis,” Dr. D’Haens said when presenting the data on bowel urgency. In the trial there was an improvement in urgency – which was rated by patients – starting as early as week 2, with further improvement seen as the induction period went on.
 

Mirikizumab safety consistent with other trials

Dr. D’Haens noted that the safety profile of IL23 antibodies was “extremely clean.” As with other trials of mirikizumab, he said, there were similar or lower rates to placebo for many adverse events including any infection (15.1% vs. 14%) and cerebrocardiovascular events (0.6% vs. 0.1%). The overall rate of treatment emergent adverse events was 44.5% vs. 46.1% for mirikizumab and placebo. Notably, there were fewer serious adverse events (2.8% vs. 5.3%.) and discontinuations because of side effects (1.6% vs. 7.2%) in the mirikizumab group.

Are gastroenterologists now spoiled for choice?

Lots of questions followed Dr. D’Haens presentation, many picking up on the high placebo response and remission rates.

“We’ve seen it in a number of trials now,” Dr. D’Haens said. “One of the reasons is that patients are allowed to start corticosteroids as late as 2 weeks before randomization,” he observed. In LUCENT-1, half of the patients that were using steroids were receiving a dose of 20 mg of prednisone.

“Now when you start 20 mg of prednisone 2 weeks before randomization that might have an impact on your placebo readout. So I think that’s a lesson for many more trials in the future,” Dr. D’Haens said,”

A high placebo response rate was not expected and another hypothesis is that maybe additional clinical support for fatigue that was received may have played a role.

Several delegates asked for guidance on where mirikizumab and other IL-23p19 blockers might now fit in the grand scheme of patient treatment.

“It is really nice to have expanding therapeutic options but how will we choose?” said one in the online Q&A. “Which IL23 antagonist should we be using now?” and “Is ustekinumab obsolete in UC?” asked others.

“I think it’s early days to decide where the field is going,” Dr. D’Haens said after his presentation. “We don’t have head-to-head data. In GALAXI, ustekinumab was a reference arm.”

There will be further subanalyses of LUCENT-1 to come, including results from endoscopy and histology investigations, and the maintenance trial LUCENT-2 will also report soon.

“The feeling is that IL23 blockade is more specific, [more] beneficial in inflammatory bowel disease than blocking both IL12 and IL23,” Dr. D’Haens said.

Dr. D’Haens was an investigator in the LUCENT-1 trial and has acted as an adviser to the study’s sponsor, Eli Lilly, among many other big pharma companies. Dr. Bettenworth is on the advisory board or is a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Atheneum, BNG Service GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb, CED-Service GmbH, Celltrion, Else Kröner-Fresenius-Foundation, Galapagos, Guidepoint, Impulze, Falk Foundation, Ferring, Janssen Cilag, Medical Tribune, MedTriX, MSD, Mylan, Onkowissen, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, Tetrameros, Thieme, Tillotts Pharma, and Vifor Pharma.

The success of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in people with active ulcerative colitis (UC) was not improved by using highly standardized and controlled “superdonor” samples versus control samples, according to results reported at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

Indeed, a similar percentage (10% and 13.9%, respectively; P = .72­) of patients achieved combined steroid-free endoscopic and clinical remission at 8 weeks, which was the primary endpoint of the randomized, controlled, RESTORE-UC trial.

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

“Maybe we were too bold to say we will go for steroid-free endoscopic remission and response,” said Clara Caenepeel, MD, who was the presenting study investigator. “It’s a very strict endpoint.”

The reasoning for such a strict endpoint, however, was so that the trials’ findings could be compared with some of the other studies that have been done with FMT in UC. Importantly, all those trials have all been positive, making the results of the RESTORE-UC trial at odds with their findings.

“I think in the analysis that we will do now is definitely look at how many steps we went into the right direction,” noted Dr. Caenepeel, who is a doctoral researcher at IBD Leuven (Belgium).
 

Response to results

Although this is a negative trial, its findings are still important for future work looking at the role of FMT in managing patients with inflammatory bowel disease and identifying the best donor material and ways to deliver it.

While some have suggested it was back to the bench to explore negative results, others such as Michael A. Kamm, MBBS, MD, FRCP, FRACP, congratulated the investigators for undertaking the study, saying that “these studies are very hard to do!”

Dr. Kamm, who is professor of gastroenterology and leads the Kamm Gut Research Group at the University of Melbourne, was part of the Australian team that conducted the FOCUS (Faecal Microbiota Transplantation in Ulcerative Colitis) study. That study used the same primary endpoint of steroid-free endoscopic and clinical remission at 8 weeks but reported positive results – 27% of patients who had FMT versus just 8% of those who had a saline enema as a placebo achieved the endpoint (P = .021). Similarly positive findings have also been reported from five other studies.

“To understand why [RESTORE-UC] study is negative, coming after several positive studies, one needs to explore the differences in study design,” Dr. Kamm observed in an interview. Those differences include how donors were selected, how the FMT was delivered, and how patients were selected.

“All the early studies made no presumption about a favorable donor profile,” Dr. Kamm noted with regard to the selection of donors based on their microbial profile. Moreover “the mode of delivery – sigmoidoscopy without any colonoscopic whole-colon delivery, in contrast to previous studies – as well as patient selection, [with] no information on the anatomical extent of their disease,” could be important.

“There are enough robust positive studies of FMT in ulcerative colitis to believe that this therapy can be effective,” said Dr. Kamm. “Analysis of negative studies like this one should help us to understand what factors are needed to achieve a positive outcome.”
 

RESTORE-UC trial

“Fecal microbiota transplantation is a new emerging strategy in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis,” Dr. Caenepeel observed during her presentation. At the time the study was started in 2017 there had been four other studies, with “very heterogeneous” designs in terms of the samples used, the placebos given, the delivery of FMT, and the primary endpoints. The idea of superdonor samples also came out of those trials.

So the aim was to try to standardize practice and set up a trial “to examine if we could increase the FMT success rate in our active ulcerative colitis patients by strictly preselecting our donors; by standardized FMT preparation; and a standardized and repeated FMT administration,” Dr. Caenepeel said.

RESTORE-UC was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, and sham-controlled trial conducted in seven Belgian hospitals. A predefined futility analysis was performed when 66% (n = 72) of the proposed 108 patients had been recruited. Of these, 36 receive autologous FMT and 30 received superdonor FMT.

“We put the emphasis on standardization. This started already with our donor selection,” Dr. Caenepeel said. From a potential 57 healthy donors, 15 were selected and altogether provided more than 500 samples that were then whittled down to the ones that provided the “best” microbial content.

FMT or autologous samples delivered four times – first by sigmoidoscopy and then at weekly intervals by rectal enema. Every patient received the same donor material, Dr. Caenepeel stressed, containing the same enterotype and concentration.

In addition to the primary endpoint of steroid-free endoscopic and clinical remission at Week 8, secondary endpoints included steroid-free clinical remission, steroid-free clinical response, steroid-free endoscopic remission, and steroid-free endoscopic response. Again, however, no significant differences were seen between the two study arms.

Two serious adverse events were seen in the trial, both occurring in the autologous sample group; these were dysuria/constipation and a worsening of colitis that needed surgery.

In discussion, Walter Reinisch, MD, the director of the inflammatory bowel disease study group at the Medical University of Vienna, picked up on why the study may have been negative. He observed that using a steroid-free endoscopic endpoint, where the Mayo score was zero, may have been a factor. A result of 19% at week 8 was not insignificant, he said, observing “if studies from big sponsors would get these results, they would be very happy.”

Perhaps the trials to date have been a little too simplistic by looking at the donor’s microbiota, Dr. Caenepeel. “It goes much further than microbiota,” she said. Thus, future work will perhaps look at the genetics and immunity of those undergoing FMT, she suggested.

Dr. Caenepeel, Dr. Kamm, and Dr. Reinisch had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The success of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in people with active ulcerative colitis (UC) was not improved by using highly standardized and controlled “superdonor” samples versus control samples, according to results reported at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

Indeed, a similar percentage (10% and 13.9%, respectively; P = .72­) of patients achieved combined steroid-free endoscopic and clinical remission at 8 weeks, which was the primary endpoint of the randomized, controlled, RESTORE-UC trial.

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

“Maybe we were too bold to say we will go for steroid-free endoscopic remission and response,” said Clara Caenepeel, MD, who was the presenting study investigator. “It’s a very strict endpoint.”

The reasoning for such a strict endpoint, however, was so that the trials’ findings could be compared with some of the other studies that have been done with FMT in UC. Importantly, all those trials have all been positive, making the results of the RESTORE-UC trial at odds with their findings.

“I think in the analysis that we will do now is definitely look at how many steps we went into the right direction,” noted Dr. Caenepeel, who is a doctoral researcher at IBD Leuven (Belgium).
 

Response to results

Although this is a negative trial, its findings are still important for future work looking at the role of FMT in managing patients with inflammatory bowel disease and identifying the best donor material and ways to deliver it.

While some have suggested it was back to the bench to explore negative results, others such as Michael A. Kamm, MBBS, MD, FRCP, FRACP, congratulated the investigators for undertaking the study, saying that “these studies are very hard to do!”

Dr. Kamm, who is professor of gastroenterology and leads the Kamm Gut Research Group at the University of Melbourne, was part of the Australian team that conducted the FOCUS (Faecal Microbiota Transplantation in Ulcerative Colitis) study. That study used the same primary endpoint of steroid-free endoscopic and clinical remission at 8 weeks but reported positive results – 27% of patients who had FMT versus just 8% of those who had a saline enema as a placebo achieved the endpoint (P = .021). Similarly positive findings have also been reported from five other studies.

“To understand why [RESTORE-UC] study is negative, coming after several positive studies, one needs to explore the differences in study design,” Dr. Kamm observed in an interview. Those differences include how donors were selected, how the FMT was delivered, and how patients were selected.

“All the early studies made no presumption about a favorable donor profile,” Dr. Kamm noted with regard to the selection of donors based on their microbial profile. Moreover “the mode of delivery – sigmoidoscopy without any colonoscopic whole-colon delivery, in contrast to previous studies – as well as patient selection, [with] no information on the anatomical extent of their disease,” could be important.

“There are enough robust positive studies of FMT in ulcerative colitis to believe that this therapy can be effective,” said Dr. Kamm. “Analysis of negative studies like this one should help us to understand what factors are needed to achieve a positive outcome.”
 

RESTORE-UC trial

“Fecal microbiota transplantation is a new emerging strategy in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis,” Dr. Caenepeel observed during her presentation. At the time the study was started in 2017 there had been four other studies, with “very heterogeneous” designs in terms of the samples used, the placebos given, the delivery of FMT, and the primary endpoints. The idea of superdonor samples also came out of those trials.

So the aim was to try to standardize practice and set up a trial “to examine if we could increase the FMT success rate in our active ulcerative colitis patients by strictly preselecting our donors; by standardized FMT preparation; and a standardized and repeated FMT administration,” Dr. Caenepeel said.

RESTORE-UC was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, and sham-controlled trial conducted in seven Belgian hospitals. A predefined futility analysis was performed when 66% (n = 72) of the proposed 108 patients had been recruited. Of these, 36 receive autologous FMT and 30 received superdonor FMT.

“We put the emphasis on standardization. This started already with our donor selection,” Dr. Caenepeel said. From a potential 57 healthy donors, 15 were selected and altogether provided more than 500 samples that were then whittled down to the ones that provided the “best” microbial content.

FMT or autologous samples delivered four times – first by sigmoidoscopy and then at weekly intervals by rectal enema. Every patient received the same donor material, Dr. Caenepeel stressed, containing the same enterotype and concentration.

In addition to the primary endpoint of steroid-free endoscopic and clinical remission at Week 8, secondary endpoints included steroid-free clinical remission, steroid-free clinical response, steroid-free endoscopic remission, and steroid-free endoscopic response. Again, however, no significant differences were seen between the two study arms.

Two serious adverse events were seen in the trial, both occurring in the autologous sample group; these were dysuria/constipation and a worsening of colitis that needed surgery.

In discussion, Walter Reinisch, MD, the director of the inflammatory bowel disease study group at the Medical University of Vienna, picked up on why the study may have been negative. He observed that using a steroid-free endoscopic endpoint, where the Mayo score was zero, may have been a factor. A result of 19% at week 8 was not insignificant, he said, observing “if studies from big sponsors would get these results, they would be very happy.”

Perhaps the trials to date have been a little too simplistic by looking at the donor’s microbiota, Dr. Caenepeel. “It goes much further than microbiota,” she said. Thus, future work will perhaps look at the genetics and immunity of those undergoing FMT, she suggested.

Dr. Caenepeel, Dr. Kamm, and Dr. Reinisch had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The success of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in people with active ulcerative colitis (UC) was not improved by using highly standardized and controlled “superdonor” samples versus control samples, according to results reported at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.

Indeed, a similar percentage (10% and 13.9%, respectively; P = .72­) of patients achieved combined steroid-free endoscopic and clinical remission at 8 weeks, which was the primary endpoint of the randomized, controlled, RESTORE-UC trial.

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

“Maybe we were too bold to say we will go for steroid-free endoscopic remission and response,” said Clara Caenepeel, MD, who was the presenting study investigator. “It’s a very strict endpoint.”

The reasoning for such a strict endpoint, however, was so that the trials’ findings could be compared with some of the other studies that have been done with FMT in UC. Importantly, all those trials have all been positive, making the results of the RESTORE-UC trial at odds with their findings.

“I think in the analysis that we will do now is definitely look at how many steps we went into the right direction,” noted Dr. Caenepeel, who is a doctoral researcher at IBD Leuven (Belgium).
 

Response to results

Although this is a negative trial, its findings are still important for future work looking at the role of FMT in managing patients with inflammatory bowel disease and identifying the best donor material and ways to deliver it.

While some have suggested it was back to the bench to explore negative results, others such as Michael A. Kamm, MBBS, MD, FRCP, FRACP, congratulated the investigators for undertaking the study, saying that “these studies are very hard to do!”

Dr. Kamm, who is professor of gastroenterology and leads the Kamm Gut Research Group at the University of Melbourne, was part of the Australian team that conducted the FOCUS (Faecal Microbiota Transplantation in Ulcerative Colitis) study. That study used the same primary endpoint of steroid-free endoscopic and clinical remission at 8 weeks but reported positive results – 27% of patients who had FMT versus just 8% of those who had a saline enema as a placebo achieved the endpoint (P = .021). Similarly positive findings have also been reported from five other studies.

“To understand why [RESTORE-UC] study is negative, coming after several positive studies, one needs to explore the differences in study design,” Dr. Kamm observed in an interview. Those differences include how donors were selected, how the FMT was delivered, and how patients were selected.

“All the early studies made no presumption about a favorable donor profile,” Dr. Kamm noted with regard to the selection of donors based on their microbial profile. Moreover “the mode of delivery – sigmoidoscopy without any colonoscopic whole-colon delivery, in contrast to previous studies – as well as patient selection, [with] no information on the anatomical extent of their disease,” could be important.

“There are enough robust positive studies of FMT in ulcerative colitis to believe that this therapy can be effective,” said Dr. Kamm. “Analysis of negative studies like this one should help us to understand what factors are needed to achieve a positive outcome.”
 

RESTORE-UC trial

“Fecal microbiota transplantation is a new emerging strategy in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis,” Dr. Caenepeel observed during her presentation. At the time the study was started in 2017 there had been four other studies, with “very heterogeneous” designs in terms of the samples used, the placebos given, the delivery of FMT, and the primary endpoints. The idea of superdonor samples also came out of those trials.

So the aim was to try to standardize practice and set up a trial “to examine if we could increase the FMT success rate in our active ulcerative colitis patients by strictly preselecting our donors; by standardized FMT preparation; and a standardized and repeated FMT administration,” Dr. Caenepeel said.

RESTORE-UC was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, and sham-controlled trial conducted in seven Belgian hospitals. A predefined futility analysis was performed when 66% (n = 72) of the proposed 108 patients had been recruited. Of these, 36 receive autologous FMT and 30 received superdonor FMT.

“We put the emphasis on standardization. This started already with our donor selection,” Dr. Caenepeel said. From a potential 57 healthy donors, 15 were selected and altogether provided more than 500 samples that were then whittled down to the ones that provided the “best” microbial content.

FMT or autologous samples delivered four times – first by sigmoidoscopy and then at weekly intervals by rectal enema. Every patient received the same donor material, Dr. Caenepeel stressed, containing the same enterotype and concentration.

In addition to the primary endpoint of steroid-free endoscopic and clinical remission at Week 8, secondary endpoints included steroid-free clinical remission, steroid-free clinical response, steroid-free endoscopic remission, and steroid-free endoscopic response. Again, however, no significant differences were seen between the two study arms.

Two serious adverse events were seen in the trial, both occurring in the autologous sample group; these were dysuria/constipation and a worsening of colitis that needed surgery.

In discussion, Walter Reinisch, MD, the director of the inflammatory bowel disease study group at the Medical University of Vienna, picked up on why the study may have been negative. He observed that using a steroid-free endoscopic endpoint, where the Mayo score was zero, may have been a factor. A result of 19% at week 8 was not insignificant, he said, observing “if studies from big sponsors would get these results, they would be very happy.”

Perhaps the trials to date have been a little too simplistic by looking at the donor’s microbiota, Dr. Caenepeel. “It goes much further than microbiota,” she said. Thus, future work will perhaps look at the genetics and immunity of those undergoing FMT, she suggested.

Dr. Caenepeel, Dr. Kamm, and Dr. Reinisch had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

An infliximab biosimilar (infliximab-axxq) delivered via subcutaneous injection was superior to intravenous vedolizumab (Entyvio) for induction and maintenance therapy of Crohn’s disease (CD), according to a systematic review and meta-analysis from French researchers.  

In contrast, the same research showed no significant differences in efficacy between these agents for people with ulcerative colitis (UC).

The subcutaneous injection formulation of infliximab-axxq, also known as CT-P13 SC, is approved by the European Medicines Agency for both CD and UC (Remsima SC). This formulation is not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“It’s kind of a small revolution, because now we have access, and in France, we are using a lot of subcutaneous infliximab,” Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, MD, said during a digital oral presentation at ECCO ‘22 Virtual, the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation 2022 Congress. He is ECCO president and a gastroenterologist at University Hospital of Nancy in France.

Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet and colleagues compared the efficacy and safety of the two agents in major randomized controlled trials looking at moderate-to-severe CD or UC from January 2010 to April 2021.

Subcutaneous infliximab-axxq data came from NCT02883452, an ongoing phase 1 study started in 2016. The vedolizumab data come from GEMINI I, II, and III; VISIBLE 1 and 2; and VARSITY trials.
 

Key findings

In CD, induction efficacy was 79% for subcutaneous infliximab-axxq versus a 45% response for vedolizumab, as measured by the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index-70 (CDAI-70).

In addition, the study showed a 62% induction efficacy for subcutaneous infliximab-axxq versus 36% for vedolizumab on the CDAI-100.

The maintenance response on the CDAI-100 was achieved by 64% of the infliximab-axxq patients versus 47% of the vedolizumab patients.

“You can see better efficacy results of subcutaneous infliximab compared to vedolizumab in CD for both induction and maintenance,” Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet said, adding that what is seen here is probably what has been observed.
 

Similar results for UC

“We know vedolizumab is a good drug in UC, and there was not a difference between UC and CD,” Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet said.

There were no significant differences between subcutaneous infliximab-axxq and vedolizumab in terms of clinical response for induction (77% vs. 69%, respectively) or clinical response for maintenance (62% vs. 63%, respectively).

Similarly, no significant differences emerged in rates of clinical remission or mucosal healing.
 

Safety so far

Safety profiles for both agents in both indications were similar over 1 year.

However, Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet shared a caveat about that timeline. “It’s a 1-year follow-up, not a 10-year follow-up with 100,000 patients,” he said. “But still, what we see here is a confirmation of what we see in other analyses. There is not a significant [safety] difference between these two drugs.”

The rate of any adverse event in CD was 76% for subcutaneous infliximab-axxq versus 77% for vedolizumab, for example. Rates of any serious adverse event were 9% and 14%, respectively.

In UC studies, the rate of any adverse event was 67% for subcutaneous infliximab-axxq versus 64% for vedolizumab. Rates of serious adverse events were 12% and 11%, respectively.

Rates of discontinuation over 1 year differed between agents. Five percent of subcutaneous infliximab-axxq participants with CD discontinued treatment as because of lack of efficacy compared with 32% with vedolizumab. In UC participants, discontinuation for the same reason was reported for 3% of subcutaneous infliximab-axxq patients versus 15% of vedolizumab.

Although all participants in the subcutaneous infliximab-axxq trial were anti-tumor necrosis factor treatment naive, some in the vedolizumab may have been previously exposed to such therapy, Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet said. “Subgroup analyses would be need to further explore that.”

“It’s interesting and a clinically relevant piece of work,” said Mark Samaan, MD, session moderator and consultant gastroenterologist at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London, who was not involved in the study.

“The results are in keeping with what one might expect from IV infliximab administration. In that sense, [it is] reassuring that the two routes of administration appear to perform in a broadly similar manner,” Dr. Samaan said.

“So long as adequate exposure is achieved, I wouldn’t have expected route of administration to be a significant determinant of efficacy,” he added.

Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet reports receiving personal fees from Galapagos, AbbVie, Janssen, Genetech, Ferring, Tillots, Pharmacosmos, Celltrion, Takeda, Samsung Bioepis, Alma, Sterna, Nestle, Inotrem, Enterome, Allergen, MSD, Roche, Arena, Gilead, Hikma, Amgen, BMS, Vifor, Norgene, Mylan, Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Opplian Pharma, Sublimity Therapeutics, Applied Molecular Transport, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Enthera, and Theravance. Dr. Samaan reports receiving advisory fees from Janssen, Takeda, Sandoz, Samsung Bioepis, Galapagos, and AbbVie and lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, MSD, Falk, AbbVie, and Galapagos.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An infliximab biosimilar (infliximab-axxq) delivered via subcutaneous injection was superior to intravenous vedolizumab (Entyvio) for induction and maintenance therapy of Crohn’s disease (CD), according to a systematic review and meta-analysis from French researchers.  

In contrast, the same research showed no significant differences in efficacy between these agents for people with ulcerative colitis (UC).

The subcutaneous injection formulation of infliximab-axxq, also known as CT-P13 SC, is approved by the European Medicines Agency for both CD and UC (Remsima SC). This formulation is not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“It’s kind of a small revolution, because now we have access, and in France, we are using a lot of subcutaneous infliximab,” Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, MD, said during a digital oral presentation at ECCO ‘22 Virtual, the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation 2022 Congress. He is ECCO president and a gastroenterologist at University Hospital of Nancy in France.

Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet and colleagues compared the efficacy and safety of the two agents in major randomized controlled trials looking at moderate-to-severe CD or UC from January 2010 to April 2021.

Subcutaneous infliximab-axxq data came from NCT02883452, an ongoing phase 1 study started in 2016. The vedolizumab data come from GEMINI I, II, and III; VISIBLE 1 and 2; and VARSITY trials.
 

Key findings

In CD, induction efficacy was 79% for subcutaneous infliximab-axxq versus a 45% response for vedolizumab, as measured by the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index-70 (CDAI-70).

In addition, the study showed a 62% induction efficacy for subcutaneous infliximab-axxq versus 36% for vedolizumab on the CDAI-100.

The maintenance response on the CDAI-100 was achieved by 64% of the infliximab-axxq patients versus 47% of the vedolizumab patients.

“You can see better efficacy results of subcutaneous infliximab compared to vedolizumab in CD for both induction and maintenance,” Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet said, adding that what is seen here is probably what has been observed.
 

Similar results for UC

“We know vedolizumab is a good drug in UC, and there was not a difference between UC and CD,” Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet said.

There were no significant differences between subcutaneous infliximab-axxq and vedolizumab in terms of clinical response for induction (77% vs. 69%, respectively) or clinical response for maintenance (62% vs. 63%, respectively).

Similarly, no significant differences emerged in rates of clinical remission or mucosal healing.
 

Safety so far

Safety profiles for both agents in both indications were similar over 1 year.

However, Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet shared a caveat about that timeline. “It’s a 1-year follow-up, not a 10-year follow-up with 100,000 patients,” he said. “But still, what we see here is a confirmation of what we see in other analyses. There is not a significant [safety] difference between these two drugs.”

The rate of any adverse event in CD was 76% for subcutaneous infliximab-axxq versus 77% for vedolizumab, for example. Rates of any serious adverse event were 9% and 14%, respectively.

In UC studies, the rate of any adverse event was 67% for subcutaneous infliximab-axxq versus 64% for vedolizumab. Rates of serious adverse events were 12% and 11%, respectively.

Rates of discontinuation over 1 year differed between agents. Five percent of subcutaneous infliximab-axxq participants with CD discontinued treatment as because of lack of efficacy compared with 32% with vedolizumab. In UC participants, discontinuation for the same reason was reported for 3% of subcutaneous infliximab-axxq patients versus 15% of vedolizumab.

Although all participants in the subcutaneous infliximab-axxq trial were anti-tumor necrosis factor treatment naive, some in the vedolizumab may have been previously exposed to such therapy, Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet said. “Subgroup analyses would be need to further explore that.”

“It’s interesting and a clinically relevant piece of work,” said Mark Samaan, MD, session moderator and consultant gastroenterologist at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London, who was not involved in the study.

“The results are in keeping with what one might expect from IV infliximab administration. In that sense, [it is] reassuring that the two routes of administration appear to perform in a broadly similar manner,” Dr. Samaan said.

“So long as adequate exposure is achieved, I wouldn’t have expected route of administration to be a significant determinant of efficacy,” he added.

Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet reports receiving personal fees from Galapagos, AbbVie, Janssen, Genetech, Ferring, Tillots, Pharmacosmos, Celltrion, Takeda, Samsung Bioepis, Alma, Sterna, Nestle, Inotrem, Enterome, Allergen, MSD, Roche, Arena, Gilead, Hikma, Amgen, BMS, Vifor, Norgene, Mylan, Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Opplian Pharma, Sublimity Therapeutics, Applied Molecular Transport, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Enthera, and Theravance. Dr. Samaan reports receiving advisory fees from Janssen, Takeda, Sandoz, Samsung Bioepis, Galapagos, and AbbVie and lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, MSD, Falk, AbbVie, and Galapagos.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An infliximab biosimilar (infliximab-axxq) delivered via subcutaneous injection was superior to intravenous vedolizumab (Entyvio) for induction and maintenance therapy of Crohn’s disease (CD), according to a systematic review and meta-analysis from French researchers.  

In contrast, the same research showed no significant differences in efficacy between these agents for people with ulcerative colitis (UC).

The subcutaneous injection formulation of infliximab-axxq, also known as CT-P13 SC, is approved by the European Medicines Agency for both CD and UC (Remsima SC). This formulation is not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“It’s kind of a small revolution, because now we have access, and in France, we are using a lot of subcutaneous infliximab,” Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, MD, said during a digital oral presentation at ECCO ‘22 Virtual, the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation 2022 Congress. He is ECCO president and a gastroenterologist at University Hospital of Nancy in France.

Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet and colleagues compared the efficacy and safety of the two agents in major randomized controlled trials looking at moderate-to-severe CD or UC from January 2010 to April 2021.

Subcutaneous infliximab-axxq data came from NCT02883452, an ongoing phase 1 study started in 2016. The vedolizumab data come from GEMINI I, II, and III; VISIBLE 1 and 2; and VARSITY trials.
 

Key findings

In CD, induction efficacy was 79% for subcutaneous infliximab-axxq versus a 45% response for vedolizumab, as measured by the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index-70 (CDAI-70).

In addition, the study showed a 62% induction efficacy for subcutaneous infliximab-axxq versus 36% for vedolizumab on the CDAI-100.

The maintenance response on the CDAI-100 was achieved by 64% of the infliximab-axxq patients versus 47% of the vedolizumab patients.

“You can see better efficacy results of subcutaneous infliximab compared to vedolizumab in CD for both induction and maintenance,” Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet said, adding that what is seen here is probably what has been observed.
 

Similar results for UC

“We know vedolizumab is a good drug in UC, and there was not a difference between UC and CD,” Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet said.

There were no significant differences between subcutaneous infliximab-axxq and vedolizumab in terms of clinical response for induction (77% vs. 69%, respectively) or clinical response for maintenance (62% vs. 63%, respectively).

Similarly, no significant differences emerged in rates of clinical remission or mucosal healing.
 

Safety so far

Safety profiles for both agents in both indications were similar over 1 year.

However, Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet shared a caveat about that timeline. “It’s a 1-year follow-up, not a 10-year follow-up with 100,000 patients,” he said. “But still, what we see here is a confirmation of what we see in other analyses. There is not a significant [safety] difference between these two drugs.”

The rate of any adverse event in CD was 76% for subcutaneous infliximab-axxq versus 77% for vedolizumab, for example. Rates of any serious adverse event were 9% and 14%, respectively.

In UC studies, the rate of any adverse event was 67% for subcutaneous infliximab-axxq versus 64% for vedolizumab. Rates of serious adverse events were 12% and 11%, respectively.

Rates of discontinuation over 1 year differed between agents. Five percent of subcutaneous infliximab-axxq participants with CD discontinued treatment as because of lack of efficacy compared with 32% with vedolizumab. In UC participants, discontinuation for the same reason was reported for 3% of subcutaneous infliximab-axxq patients versus 15% of vedolizumab.

Although all participants in the subcutaneous infliximab-axxq trial were anti-tumor necrosis factor treatment naive, some in the vedolizumab may have been previously exposed to such therapy, Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet said. “Subgroup analyses would be need to further explore that.”

“It’s interesting and a clinically relevant piece of work,” said Mark Samaan, MD, session moderator and consultant gastroenterologist at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London, who was not involved in the study.

“The results are in keeping with what one might expect from IV infliximab administration. In that sense, [it is] reassuring that the two routes of administration appear to perform in a broadly similar manner,” Dr. Samaan said.

“So long as adequate exposure is achieved, I wouldn’t have expected route of administration to be a significant determinant of efficacy,” he added.

Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet reports receiving personal fees from Galapagos, AbbVie, Janssen, Genetech, Ferring, Tillots, Pharmacosmos, Celltrion, Takeda, Samsung Bioepis, Alma, Sterna, Nestle, Inotrem, Enterome, Allergen, MSD, Roche, Arena, Gilead, Hikma, Amgen, BMS, Vifor, Norgene, Mylan, Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Opplian Pharma, Sublimity Therapeutics, Applied Molecular Transport, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Enthera, and Theravance. Dr. Samaan reports receiving advisory fees from Janssen, Takeda, Sandoz, Samsung Bioepis, Galapagos, and AbbVie and lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, MSD, Falk, AbbVie, and Galapagos.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two features are significantly associated with a higher risk for developing long COVID symptoms among people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to a large Danish population study.

People with Crohn’s disease (CD) who experienced adverse acute COVID-19, defined as requiring hospitalization, were nearly three times more likely to report persistent symptoms 12 weeks after acute infection.

“Long-term, persisting symptoms following COVID-19 is a frequently occurring problem, which is probably underappreciated. IBD specialists should therefore be aware of any of these symptoms and actively ask patients whether they have these problems,” lead author Mohamed Attauabi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Attauabi and colleagues also found that people with ulcerative colitis (UC) who discontinued immunosuppressive agents because of COVID-19 were 1.5 times more likely to experience long COVID symptoms, a result that surprised the researchers.

“This has not been shown before and remains to be confirmed,” said Dr. Attauabi, a fellow in the department of gastroenterology at Herlev Hospital at the University of Copenhagen.

Attauabi presented the results as a digital oral presentation at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

A closer look at IBD and COVID-19

Large, hospital-based studies of symptoms consistent with long COVID reveal a high prevalence of fatigue, sleep difficulties, and anxiety at 12 weeks or more post acute infection. However, these were not specific to people with CD or UC, Dr. Attauabi said.

“In patients with IBD, the risk of long-term sequelae of COVID-19 remains to be investigated,” he said.

Dr. Attauabi and colleagues studied 197 people with CD and 319 with UC, all of whom had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19. Participants were prospectively enrolled in the population-based Danish IBD-COVID registry from January 28, 2020 to April 1, 2021. At a median of 5.1 months, a subset of 85 people with CD and 137 with UC agreed to report any post-COVID symptoms.

Older age, smoking, IBD disease activity, and presence of comorbidities were not associated with a significantly elevated risk of long COVID.

In a multivariate analysis, hospitalization for COVID-19 among people with CD was significantly associated with long COVID (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-3.90; P = .04).

Furthermore, people with UC who stopped taking immunosuppressive agents also had a significantly higher risk (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.07-10.22; P = .01).

“However, IBD medications such as systemic steroids were not associated with this outcome,” Dr. Attauabi said.
 

Fatigue most common long COVID symptom

Fatigue was the most common long COVID symptom, reported by 37% of patients with CD and 36% with UC.

Anosmia and ageusia were also common, reported by 29% and 28% of patients with CD, and 27% and 19% of those with UC, respectively.

“In our cohort of patients with UC or CD who developed COVID-19, the long-term health effects of COVID-19 did not appear to differ among patients with UC or CD nor according to IBD medications,” Dr. Attauabi said.

That is a “great study,” said session cochair Torsten Kucharzik, MD, PhD, head of internal medicine and gastroenterology at Lueneburg (Germany) Hospital.

When Dr. Kucharzik asked about smoking, Dr. Attauabi responded that they collected information on current and previous smoking, but they chose not to include the data because it was not statistically significant.

Dr. Attauabi has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kucharzik has reported receiving grants from Takeda and personal fees from companies including MSD/Essex, AbbVie, Falk Foundation, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Arena, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Janssen, Galapagos, Olympus, Mundipharma, Takeda, Amgen, Pfizer, Roche, and Vifor Pharma.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two features are significantly associated with a higher risk for developing long COVID symptoms among people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to a large Danish population study.

People with Crohn’s disease (CD) who experienced adverse acute COVID-19, defined as requiring hospitalization, were nearly three times more likely to report persistent symptoms 12 weeks after acute infection.

“Long-term, persisting symptoms following COVID-19 is a frequently occurring problem, which is probably underappreciated. IBD specialists should therefore be aware of any of these symptoms and actively ask patients whether they have these problems,” lead author Mohamed Attauabi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Attauabi and colleagues also found that people with ulcerative colitis (UC) who discontinued immunosuppressive agents because of COVID-19 were 1.5 times more likely to experience long COVID symptoms, a result that surprised the researchers.

“This has not been shown before and remains to be confirmed,” said Dr. Attauabi, a fellow in the department of gastroenterology at Herlev Hospital at the University of Copenhagen.

Attauabi presented the results as a digital oral presentation at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

A closer look at IBD and COVID-19

Large, hospital-based studies of symptoms consistent with long COVID reveal a high prevalence of fatigue, sleep difficulties, and anxiety at 12 weeks or more post acute infection. However, these were not specific to people with CD or UC, Dr. Attauabi said.

“In patients with IBD, the risk of long-term sequelae of COVID-19 remains to be investigated,” he said.

Dr. Attauabi and colleagues studied 197 people with CD and 319 with UC, all of whom had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19. Participants were prospectively enrolled in the population-based Danish IBD-COVID registry from January 28, 2020 to April 1, 2021. At a median of 5.1 months, a subset of 85 people with CD and 137 with UC agreed to report any post-COVID symptoms.

Older age, smoking, IBD disease activity, and presence of comorbidities were not associated with a significantly elevated risk of long COVID.

In a multivariate analysis, hospitalization for COVID-19 among people with CD was significantly associated with long COVID (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-3.90; P = .04).

Furthermore, people with UC who stopped taking immunosuppressive agents also had a significantly higher risk (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.07-10.22; P = .01).

“However, IBD medications such as systemic steroids were not associated with this outcome,” Dr. Attauabi said.
 

Fatigue most common long COVID symptom

Fatigue was the most common long COVID symptom, reported by 37% of patients with CD and 36% with UC.

Anosmia and ageusia were also common, reported by 29% and 28% of patients with CD, and 27% and 19% of those with UC, respectively.

“In our cohort of patients with UC or CD who developed COVID-19, the long-term health effects of COVID-19 did not appear to differ among patients with UC or CD nor according to IBD medications,” Dr. Attauabi said.

That is a “great study,” said session cochair Torsten Kucharzik, MD, PhD, head of internal medicine and gastroenterology at Lueneburg (Germany) Hospital.

When Dr. Kucharzik asked about smoking, Dr. Attauabi responded that they collected information on current and previous smoking, but they chose not to include the data because it was not statistically significant.

Dr. Attauabi has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kucharzik has reported receiving grants from Takeda and personal fees from companies including MSD/Essex, AbbVie, Falk Foundation, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Arena, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Janssen, Galapagos, Olympus, Mundipharma, Takeda, Amgen, Pfizer, Roche, and Vifor Pharma.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two features are significantly associated with a higher risk for developing long COVID symptoms among people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to a large Danish population study.

People with Crohn’s disease (CD) who experienced adverse acute COVID-19, defined as requiring hospitalization, were nearly three times more likely to report persistent symptoms 12 weeks after acute infection.

“Long-term, persisting symptoms following COVID-19 is a frequently occurring problem, which is probably underappreciated. IBD specialists should therefore be aware of any of these symptoms and actively ask patients whether they have these problems,” lead author Mohamed Attauabi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Attauabi and colleagues also found that people with ulcerative colitis (UC) who discontinued immunosuppressive agents because of COVID-19 were 1.5 times more likely to experience long COVID symptoms, a result that surprised the researchers.

“This has not been shown before and remains to be confirmed,” said Dr. Attauabi, a fellow in the department of gastroenterology at Herlev Hospital at the University of Copenhagen.

Attauabi presented the results as a digital oral presentation at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

A closer look at IBD and COVID-19

Large, hospital-based studies of symptoms consistent with long COVID reveal a high prevalence of fatigue, sleep difficulties, and anxiety at 12 weeks or more post acute infection. However, these were not specific to people with CD or UC, Dr. Attauabi said.

“In patients with IBD, the risk of long-term sequelae of COVID-19 remains to be investigated,” he said.

Dr. Attauabi and colleagues studied 197 people with CD and 319 with UC, all of whom had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19. Participants were prospectively enrolled in the population-based Danish IBD-COVID registry from January 28, 2020 to April 1, 2021. At a median of 5.1 months, a subset of 85 people with CD and 137 with UC agreed to report any post-COVID symptoms.

Older age, smoking, IBD disease activity, and presence of comorbidities were not associated with a significantly elevated risk of long COVID.

In a multivariate analysis, hospitalization for COVID-19 among people with CD was significantly associated with long COVID (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-3.90; P = .04).

Furthermore, people with UC who stopped taking immunosuppressive agents also had a significantly higher risk (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.07-10.22; P = .01).

“However, IBD medications such as systemic steroids were not associated with this outcome,” Dr. Attauabi said.
 

Fatigue most common long COVID symptom

Fatigue was the most common long COVID symptom, reported by 37% of patients with CD and 36% with UC.

Anosmia and ageusia were also common, reported by 29% and 28% of patients with CD, and 27% and 19% of those with UC, respectively.

“In our cohort of patients with UC or CD who developed COVID-19, the long-term health effects of COVID-19 did not appear to differ among patients with UC or CD nor according to IBD medications,” Dr. Attauabi said.

That is a “great study,” said session cochair Torsten Kucharzik, MD, PhD, head of internal medicine and gastroenterology at Lueneburg (Germany) Hospital.

When Dr. Kucharzik asked about smoking, Dr. Attauabi responded that they collected information on current and previous smoking, but they chose not to include the data because it was not statistically significant.

Dr. Attauabi has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kucharzik has reported receiving grants from Takeda and personal fees from companies including MSD/Essex, AbbVie, Falk Foundation, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Arena, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Janssen, Galapagos, Olympus, Mundipharma, Takeda, Amgen, Pfizer, Roche, and Vifor Pharma.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.