Introduction

Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral, reversible Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) approved for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC).^1-2 Despite substantial evidence from clinical trials supporting the use of UPA for treating UC, real-world (RW) data on its effectiveness and safety remain limited.³ The Prospective Real-World Study of UPA in UC (PROFUNDUS) is an ongoing multi-country, open-label, noninterventional, observational study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of UPA in patients with moderate-to-severe UC in RW practice (initiated 15 Aug 2022).

Aims & Methods

PROFUNDUS recruited 785 adult patients (18 to 75 years [yrs] of age) with moderate-to-severe UC initiating UPA in 16 countries worldwide. UPA was administered in accordance with the terms of the local marketing authorization, with patient treatment determined by the investigator, and patients followed for up to 3 yrs (156 weeks [wk]). This analysis represents data available after the first 500 patients completed 6 months of treatment or discontinued before 6 months, with a data cut-off of 28 Feb 2025. Of the first 500 patients who provided informed consent and met the inclusion criteria, the full analysis set (FAS) included 490 patients who initiated a once-daily UPA dosing regimen. This analysis reported baseline demographics and disease characteristics among FAS; the time to achievement of first clinical response per daily Partial Adapted Mayo Score (pAMS) and the percentage of patients achieving clinical response per pAMS at the end of UPA induction (wk 8) or extended induction (wk 16) were reported among evaluable patients who took at least 1 dose of UPA and had available scores to define the outcomes, a subset of FAS. Safety outcomes were analysed through week 26 (6 months), with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) presented as patient numbers and percentages.

Results

Among FAS, the patient age range was 18 to 79 yrs; 43.3% were female. At baseline (defined as the last available assessment on or before the first dose date of UPA), pAMS were as follows: < 2: 26.5%; 2-4: 48.1%; > 4-5: 18.8%; > 5-6: 6.6%; with score 0 indicative of inactive disease, while a score of 6 indicates active disease and spontaneous bleeding.⁴ At baseline, 51.3% of patients had a history of intolerance or inadequate response (IR) to advanced therapies (AT-IR), with 13.1% of patients who failed ≥ 1 JAKi. Among evaluable patients, the median (IQR) time to achieve the first clinical response per daily pAMS was 4 (3.0-8.0) days (N = 373; Table). By the end of induction treatment (wk 8 or 16), 79.6% (258/324) of the evaluable UPA-treated patients achieved clinical response per pAMS (Table). Among UPA-treated patients, the occurrence rates of any treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and TEAEs possibly related to the study treatment were as follows: any adverse event (AE) (51.2%; 34.9%), serious AEs (5.5%; 2.2%), and severe AEs (5.1%; 2.2%) (Table).

Conclusion

In this interim analysis of the PROFUNDUS study, UPA demonstrated rapid effectiveness in achieving clinical response in patients with moderate-to-severe UC in RW practice, in a wide variety of age ranges, consistent with the efficacy observed in the UPA UC clinical trials.¹ Overall, UPA was well-tolerated, with few serious AEs reported, and most of these were assessed as unrelated to UPA by the investigator.

References

1. AbbVie Inc. RINVOQ (Upadacitinib) [package insert] U.S. Food and Drug Administration website. https://www.rxabbvie.com/pdf/rinvoq_pi.pdf. Revised May 2023. Accessed 25 Feb 2025.
2. AbbVie DG& CoK. RINVOQ. Summary of Product Characteristics. European Medicine Agency website. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/rinvoq-epar-product-information_en.pdf. Revised Feb 2025. Accessed 25 Feb 2025.
3. Seidelin J, et al. J Crohn’s Colitis. 2025;19(1):i1260-i1262. [Abstract].
4. Louis E, et al. JAMA. 2024;332(11):881-897.

Disclosure

Funding: AbbVie funded this study (PROFUNDUS; NCT05494606) and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship.
Acknowledgments: AbbVie and the authors thank the participants, study sites, and investigators who participated in this clinical trial. Paulette A. Krishack, PhD, of AbbVie, provided medical writing support.
Disclosures: Remo Panaccione has received consulting fees, speaker fees, and research support from Abbott, AbbVie, Abbivax, Alimentiv Amgen, AnaptysBio, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Celltrion, Cosmos Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elan, Eli Lilly, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Galapagos, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, JAMP Bio, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Mylan, Novartis, Oppilan Pharma, Organon, Pandion Pharma, Pendopharm, Pfizer, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Satisfai Health, Sublimity Therapeutics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Theravance Biopharma, Trellus, Viatris, Ventyx, and UCB.
Gareth Parkesreports personal payments, honoraria, speaker fees, travel grants and/or fellowships from AbbVie, Allergan, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Ferring, Galapagos, Janssen, Napp, Takeda, and Tillotts, and directorship and shareholding with Ampersand Health. TR reports personal grants from AbbVie; personal consulting fees from AbbVie, Arena, Aslan, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Heptares, LabGenius, Janssen, MonteRosa, Mylan, MSD, Novartis, Numab, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, UCB and XAP; membership of the ECCO Scientific Committee, and membership in the UEG Scientific Committee; director of Endoread.
Mathurin Fumery has received lecture and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BI, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, CTMA, Ferring, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, MSD, Sandoz, Takeda, Tillots, and Viatris.
Dominik Bettenworth is on the advisory board or consultant for Amgen, AbbVie, Dr. Falk Foundation, Ferring, MSD, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Roche, Takeda, Tillotts Pharma, and Vifor. Silvio Danese has served as a speaker, consultant, and advisory board member for Schering-Plough, AbbVie, Actelion, Alphawasserman, AstraZeneca, Cellerix, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, Ferring, Genentech, Grünenthal, Johnson and Johnson, Millenium Takeda, MSD, Nikkiso Europe GmbH, Novo Nordisk, Nycomed, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, UCB Pharma and Vifor.
Pierre A Morisset, Madhuja Mallick, Shirley H. Chen, and Smitha Suravaram are employees of AbbVie and may own stock options.

Introduction

Perianal Crohn’s disease (pCD) represents a challenging phenotype of Crohn's disease (CD). While risankizumab (RZB) has demonstrated efficacy in luminal CD, its role in pCD remains unknown. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of RZB in pCD and compare the outcomes with other biologics including anti-TNF, ustekinumab (UST), and vedolizumab (VDZ).

Aims & Methods

This retrospective multicenter study performed at nine international centers included adult patients with pCD who initiated RZB as advanced-line (second or more) therapy between 2020 and 2024. Historical controls included pairwise propensity-scored matched pCD patients treated with anti-TNF, UST, or VDZ as second- or third-line therapies. The primary outcome was clinical remission in patients with active pCD, defined as complete resolution of perianal symptoms. Secondary outcomes included clinical response (any symptomatic improvement) in active perianal disease, and relapse rates among patients with inactive pCD at baseline, defined as new or recurrent signs or symptoms of perianal disease.

Results

A total of 214 patients with active pCD were included: 59 (27.6%) received RZB, 62 (29.0%) anti-TNF, 57 (26.6%) UST, and 36 (16.8%) VDZ. Clinical remission was achieved in 58% of patients treated with RZB, compared to 32.9% of those receiving non-RZB therapies (p = 0.01), including 27% for anti-TNF, 44% for UST, and 25% for VDZ. Clinical pCD response rates were 81% for RZB, compared to 71% for anti-TNF, 88% for UST, and 44% for VDZ; p < 0.001. In propensity score–matched comparisons, remission rates with RZB were numerically higher than anti-TNF (56% vs. 31%, p = 0.056) and VDZ (58% vs. 29%, p = 0.08), and comparable to UST (53% vs. 43%, p = 0.5). The median time to clinical response with RZB was three months [IQR: 2–3.5], comparable to anti-TNF (3 [IQR: 2–4], p = 0.4), but significantly shorter than UST (5 [IQR: 4–6], p < 0.001) and VDZ (6.5 [IQR: 4–8], p < 0.001).
Among 160 patients with inactive pCD at baseline, matched analysis showed significantly lower relapse rates with RZB compared to anti-TNF (2% vs. 22%, p = 0.004) and VDZ (0% vs. 28%, p = 0.004), with no significant difference compared to UST (3% vs. 15%, p = 0.2).

Conclusion

Risankizumab demonstrates favorable clinical response, faster time to response, and higher remission rates in active pCD, along with the lowest relapse rates in inactive disease. These results support RZB as an effective therapeutic option for pCD, warranting prospective validation.

Disclosure

No conflicts of interest were declared in relation to this study.