Introduction

Microscopic colitis (MC) refers to two pathologies – Collagenous colitis (CC) and Lymphocytic colitis (LC) that cause chronic watery diarrhoea, urgency, incontinence leading to significantly decreased quality of life¹. It is thought that MC develops due to a pathological immune response to intestinal luminal antigens in genetically predisposed individuals, with microbiota playing an important role^{2, 3}. However, the pathogenesis of MC is still unclear.

Aims & Methods

The aim of this study was to identify and characterize changes in bacterial composition of MC patients in terminal ileum and different colonic segments and determine its relation to the clinical course of disease. Biopsies from terminal ileum and six segments of the colon were collected during diagnostic colonoscopies. DNA extraction was performed using AllPrep DNA/RNA Micro Kit (Qiagen) following the manufacturer’s instructions. To determine bacterial composition, sequencing of the 16S rRNA variable region V3-V4 was conducted using the 27F and 338R polymerase chain reaction primers and sequenced on a MiSeq (2×250 bp; Illumina, Hayward, CA). Bioinformatic analysis was performed using DADA2, and taxonomic classification was carried out with the RDP classifier.

Results

Biopsy samples from 20 active CC patients, 20 active LC patients, and 50 controls demonstrated distinct microbial profiles across different intestinal segments, as revealed by beta-diversity and differential compositional analyses. Compared with controls, CC patients had consistent alterations in three bacterial families throughout the entire colon, with Erysipelatoclostridiaceae and Coriobacteriaceae decreased and Pasteurellaceae increased. Additionally, 35 families had segment-specific changes, and 25 families displayed altered abundance in the terminal ileum.
LC patients exhibited a consistent increase in Erisypelotrichaceae across the entire colon, with 38 other families showing segmental changes, and 12 families displaying altered abundance in the terminal ileum. Comparing LC and CC revealed a significantly different bacterial profile. LC showed lower abundance across many families, particularly in the right colon and terminal ileum. After sample collection, 15 CC patients and 12 LC patients received budesonide, with 3 CC and 2 LC patients having incomplete response. Beta diversity analysis revealed significant differences in the ascending colon and left side of the colon of CC patients based on response to budesonide. Patients with incomplete response to budesonide had an increased abundance of the genus Paucibacter. Similar tendencies were not observed in LC.
1 CC patient exhibited a quiescent disease course, 6 reached a sustained remission after treatment, 7 had a relapsing and 6 had a chronic active disease. Significant differences in beta diversity were observed in transverse, descending colon and rectum. Beta diversity of the descending colon had a medium correlation with disease behaviour. In the LC group 6 patients had a quiescent disease, 8 had a sustained remission after treatment, 3 exhibited a relapsing and 4 had a chronic active disease. No significant correlation between microbiota and disease behaviour was observed in LC.

Conclusion

This study showed significant differences in bacterial composition between CC, LC and controls in the terminal ileum and colon. In both CC and LC, bacterial alterations were not consistent throughout the entire colon but varied between different colonic segments. Microbiome differences based on response to budesonide and disease behaviour were observed in CC, but not LC.

References

1. Verhaegh BPM, Münch A, Guagnozzi D, et al. Course of Disease in Patients with Microscopic Colitis: A European Prospective Incident Cohort Study. J Crohns Colitis. 2021;15(7):1174-1183.
2. Miehlke S, Guagnozzi D, Zabana Y, et al. European guidelines on microscopic colitis: United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and European Microscopic Colitis Group (EMCG) statements and recommendations. United European Gastroenterol J. Published online 2020.
3. Burke KE, D’Amato M, Ng SC, Pardi DS, Ludvigsson JF, Khalili H. Microscopic colitis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021;7(1).

Introduction

Guselkumab (GUS), a dual-acting interleukin-23p19 subunit inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy in participants (pts) with ulcerative colitis (UC) treated with intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) induction. Here, we report the efficacy and safety of SC induction followed by SC maintenance through Week (W) 48 in ASTRO, a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, treat-through study in pts with moderately to severely active UC.

Aims & Methods

Eligible pts had modified Mayo scores of 5 to 9, rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES) ≥2. Pts also had documented inadequate response/intolerance to biologics, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, and/or sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) inhibitors (BIO/JAKi/S1Pi-IR) or to corticosteroids, 6-mercaptopurine, or azathioprine. Randomization was stratified by baseline BIO/JAKi/S1Pi-IR status and MES with 418 pts allocated 1:1:1 to GUS 400 mg SC every 4 weeks (q4w) (×3)→GUS 200 mg SC q4w (N=140), GUS 400 mg SC q4w (×3)→GUS 100 mg SC every 8 weeks (q8w) (N=139), or PBO SC (N=139). PBO pts who met rescue criteria were switched to GUS at W16; GUS pts who met rescue criteria stayed on their assigned GUS dose regimen (sham rescue).

Results

At W48, greater proportions of pts in the GUS groups achieved clinical remission compared with PBO (36.7% for GUS 100 mg q8w [Δ 29.5%], 42.9% for GUS 200 mg q4w [Δ 35.6%], 7.2% for PBO) (Table). Endoscopic remission proportions were 25.9% for GUS 100 mg q8w (Δ 20.9%), 26.4% for GUS 200 mg q4w (Δ 21.4%), and 5.0% for PBO. Clinical response, symptomatic remission, endoscopic improvement, histologic improvement, and histologic remission proportions were also greater for GUS vs PBO. Consistent with the results of the overall population, efficacy was also observed for subpopulations of BIO/JAKi/S1Pi-naïve and BIO/JAKi/S1Pi-IR pts. Safety events per 100 pts-years were not greater in the GUS groups compared with the PBO group: adverse events (AE) (GUS 100 mg q8w and 200 mg q4w vs PBO: 308.3 and 310.7 vs 357.1), serious AEs (6.5 and 8.2 vs 38.4), serious infections (0.8 and 2.5 vs 3.7), and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (4.9 and 4.1 vs 19.8).
Table. Efficacy endpoints at Week 48 in the overall population and by biologic, JAK inhibitor, and/or S1P inhibitor history

	Overall			BIO/JAKi/S1Pi-naïve			BIO/JAKi/S1Pi-IR
Outcomes at Week 48	Placebo SC (N=139)	GUS 400 mg SC→ GUS 100 mg SC q8w (N=139)	GUS 400 mg SC→ GUS 200 mg SC q4w (N=140)	Placebo SC (N=79)	GUS 400 mg SC→ GUS 100 mg SC q8w (N=81)	GUS 400mg SC→ GUS 200mg SC q4w (N=83)	Placebo SC (N=56)	GUS 400 mg SC→ GUS 100 mg SC q8w (N=57)	GUS 400 mg SC→ GUS 200 mg SC q4w (N=55)
Clinical remission	10 (7.2)	51 (36.7) Δ 29.5 P<0.001	60 (42.9) Δ 35.6 P<0.001	6 (7.6)	39 (48.1) Δ 40.3 P<0.001	42 (50.6) Δ 43.0 P<0.001	4 (7.1)	12 (21.1) Δ 13.7 P=0.034	18 (32.7) Δ 25.2 P<0.001
Clinical response	26 (18.7)	78 (56.1) Δ 37.4 P<0.001	83 (59.3) Δ 40.6 P<0.001	19 (24.1)	52 (64.2) Δ 39.5 P<0.001	54 (65.1) Δ 40.8 P<0.001	7 (12.5)	25 (43.9) Δ 30.9 P<0.001	29 (52.7) Δ 39.3 P<0.001
Endoscopic improvement	16 (11.5)	62 (44.6) Δ 33.1 P<0.001	66 (47.1) Δ 35.6 P<0.001	10 (12.7)	46 (56.8) Δ 44.0 P<0.001	45 (54.2) Δ 41.7 P<0.001	6 (10.7)	16 (28.1) Δ 16.0 P=0.024	21 (38.2) Δ 26.8 P<0.001
Endoscopic remission	7 (5.0)	36 (25.9) Δ 20.9 P<0.001	37 (26.4) Δ 21.4 P<0.001	5 (6.3)	27 (33.3) Δ 26.9 P<0.001	28 (33.7) Δ 27.5 P<0.001	2 (3.6)	9 (15.8) Δ 11.5 P=0.033	9 (16.4) Δ 12.6 P=0.025
Symptomatic remission	20 (14.4)	66 (47.5) Δ 33.1 P<0.001	75 (53.6) Δ 39.2 P<0.001	15 (19.0)	47 (58.0) Δ 38.6 P<0.001	51 (61.4) Δ 42.3 P<0.001	5 (8.9)	19 (33.3) Δ 24.3 P=0.001	24 (43.6) Δ 34.0 P<0.001
Histologic improvement	18 (12.9)	65 (46.8) Δ 33.8 P<0.001	73 (52.1) Δ 39.2 P<0.001	13 (16.5)	45 (55.6) Δ 38.6 P<0.001	50 (60.2) Δ 43.8 P<0.001	4 (7.1)	20 (35.1) Δ 26.8 P<0.001	23 (41.8) Δ 34.1 P<0.001
Histologic remission	15 (10.8)	52 (37.4) Δ 26.6 P<0.001	63 (45.0) Δ 34.2 P<0.001	11 (13.9)	35 (43.2) Δ 29.1 P<0.001	41 (49.4) Δ 35.5 P<0.001	4 (7.1)	17 (29.8) Δ 21.5 P=0.002	22 (40.0) Δ 32.4 P<0.001
Data are presented as n (%); ∆% (adjusted treatment difference) versus placebo; nominal p-value versus placebo. The adjusted treatment difference was based on the common risk difference by use of the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator. In the overall population, the p-values were based on the Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by BIO/JAKi/S1Pi-IR status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopic subscore at baseline (Moderate [2]/Severe [3]). For the BIO/JAKi/S1Pi-naive/-IR subgroups, the p-values were stratified only by the Mayo endoscopic subscore at baseline. Participants who, prior to Week 48, had an ostomy or colectomy, a prohibited change in UC medications, discontinued study agent due to lack of efficacy or an AE of worsening of UC, or met rescue criteria per IWRS were considered not to have achieved any of the key efficacy endpoints shown at Week 48. For participants who discontinued study agent due to COVID-19-related reasons (excluding COVID-19 infection) or regional crisis, their observed values were used, if available. Participants who discontinued study agent prior to Week 48 due to other reasons were considered not to have achieved any of the efficacy endpoints shown at Week 48. Participants who were missing one or more of the components pertaining to an endpoint at Week 48 were considered not to have achieved the endpoint. Endpoint definitions: clinical remission, Mayo SFS 0/1 and not increased from BL, Mayo RBS=0, and MES 0/1 with no friability; clinical response, ≥30% and ≥2-point decrease from BL in Modified Mayo score with ≥1-point decrease from BL in RBS or RBS 0/1; endoscopic improvement, MES 0/1 with no friability; endoscopic remission, MES of 0; symptomatic remission, SFS 0/1 and not increased from BL and RBS=0; histologic improvement, neutrophil infiltration in <5% of crypts; no crypt destruction; and no erosions, ulcerations, or granulation tissue per Geboes grading system; histologic remission, absence of neutrophils from the mucosa (both lamina propria and epithelium); no crypt destruction; and no erosions, ulcerations, or granulation tissue per Geboes grading system. AE=adverse event; BIO=biologic; BL=baseline; COVID-19=coronavirus disease 2019; GUS=guselkumab; IR=inadequate response; IWRS=Interactive Web Response System; JAK=Janus kinase; JAKi=JAK inhibitor; MES=Mayo endoscopic subscore; N=population size; n=sample size; [HZ1] q4w=every 4 weeks; q8w=every 8 weeks; RBS=rectal bleeding subscore; S1P=sphingosine-1-phosphate; S1Pi=S1P inhibitor; SC=subcutaneous; SFS=stool frequency subscore; UC=ulcerative colitis

Conclusion

GUS SC induction followed by SC maintenance was efficacious through 1 year in pts with moderately to severely active UC, and the safety profile is consistent with GUS in its approved indications including UC.

Disclosure

ML reports research support from Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda; consulting for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Intercept, Janssen (Johnson & Johnson), Lilly, Pfizer, Prometheus, Roivant, Takeda, and Target RWE.
JRA reports grant support from Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Adiso, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Roivant, Celltrion, TrexBio, Shattuck Labs and Seres Therapeutics; payments for speaking from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen; and is a steering committee member and investigator for Janssen.
SD reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Alimentiv, Allergan, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Athos, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Enthera, Ferring, Gilead, Hospira, Inotrem, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sublimity, Takeda, TiGenix, UCB, and Vifor; and reports lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Ferring, Gilead, Janssen, Mylan, Pfizer, and Takeda.
MG, TB, YA, KH, SJ, LJ, and HZ are employees of and may own stock in Johnson & Johnson.
TH reports research grants from AbbVie GK, Boston Scientific Corporation, EA Pharma Co. Ltd., JIMRO Co. Ltd., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co. Ltd., Pfizer Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., and Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.; consulting fees from AbbVie GK, Abivax, Bristol Myers Squibb, EA Pharma Co. Ltd., Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Lilly, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, and Pfizer Inc.; and lecture fees from AbbVie GK, EA Pharma Co. Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., JIMRO Co., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Pfizer Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
DTR reports consulting and/or speaker fees and/or advisory board participation for AbbVie, Altrubio, Apex, Avalo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Buhlmann Diagnostics, Celgene, Connect BioPharma, Intouch Group, Iterative Health, Janssen (Johnson & Johnson), Lilly, Pfizer, Samsung Neurologica, and Takeda; Altrubio, Datos Health, and Iterative Health stock options; grants from Takeda; and membership on the Board of Directors of Cornerstones Health, Inc. and on the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation’s Board of Trustees.
LPB reports grants or contracts from Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Medac, MSD, and Takeda; consulting and/or payment or honoraria and/or data safety monitoring board or advisory board participation for AbbVie, Abivax, Adacyte, Alfasigma, Alimentiv, Amgen, Applied Molecular Transport, Arena, Banook, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Connect Biopharm, Cytoki Pharma, Enthera, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, Gossamer Bio, GlaxoSmithKline, IAC Image Analysis, Index Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Janssen, Kern Pharma, Lilly, Medac, Mopac, Morphic, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Oncodesign Precision Medicine, ONO Pharma, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pandion Therapeutics, Par' Immune, Pfizer, Prometheus, Protagonist, Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Satisfay, Takeda, Telavant, Theravance, Thermo Fischer, Tigenix, Tillots, Viatris, Vectivbio, Ventyx, and Ysopia; and meeting attendance/travel support from AbbVie, Alfasigma, Amgen, Celltrion, Connect Biopharm, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Morphic, MSD, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda, Thermo Fischer, and Tillots.

Introduction

Fatigue is a debilitating, multifactorial symptom experienced by many patients with Crohn’s disease (CD).¹ Mirikizumab (MIRI), an anti-interleukin-23p19 antibody, demonstrated significant improvement in fatigue in patients with moderately to severely active CD in the Phase 2 AMAG² and Phase 3 VIVID-1³ studies.

Aims & Methods

This analysis examines the association of changes in clinical, endoscopic (endo) and selected patient-reported outcomes with changes in fatigue in MIRI-treated patients in the VIVID-1 study. Co primary and gated secondary outcomes, including comparisons with ustekinumab, have been presented elsewhere^4,5Adult patients (N=1065) with moderately to severely active CD were randomized 6:3:2 to MIRI, ustekinumab or placebo. MIRI was given every 4 weeks (W) as 900 mg intravenous at W0, W4, and W8, then 300 mg subcutaneous from W12 to W52. Fatigue was assessed via the validated Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) questionnaire (scale from 0-52, higher scores indicating less fatigue⁶ andat least 6-point increase identified as a clinically meaningful within-patient change). Achievement of ≥6-point increase in FACIT-F at W52 was reported among those with and without clinical remission by Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI), endo response, endo remission, and Urgency Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) ≤2 at W52. For stool frequency (SF), abdominal pain (AP), fecal calprotectin (FCP), and C-reactive protein (CRP), the association of the change from baseline (CFB) at W52 vs. the CFB in FACIT-F at W52 was assessed by the Pearson correlation coefficient.

Results

At W52, 50.9% (268/527) of MIRI-treated patients achieved FACIT-F ≥6-point increase from baseline. Greater proportions of patients who achieved clinical and endo outcomes had ≥6-point increase in FACIT-F (p<0.05) vs. those who did not achieve the outcome (Table). There was weak/moderate correlation between CFB at W52 in AP, SF and log-transformed FCP and CRP, and the CFB in FACIT-F at W52 (Table).

Table: W52 FACIT-F, A: ≥6-pt Increase From BL by Outcomes at W52 and B: CFB Correlation With CFB at W52 in Outcomes

A. W52 FACIT-F ≥6-point Increase From BL by Outcome at W52a, NRI	Outcome Achieved n/N (%) (95% CI)b	Outcome NOT Achieved n/N (%) (95% CI)b	Risk Difference (95% CI)b	p-Valuec
Clinical remission by CDAId	185/280 (66.1) (60.5-71.6)	83/247 (33.6) (27.7-39.5)	32.5 (24.4-40.6)	<0.0001
Endo responsee	154/256 (60.2) (54.2-66.2)	114/271 (42.1) (36.2-47.9)	18.1 (9.7-26.5)	<0.0001
Endo remissionf	59/96 (61.5) (51.7-71.2)	209/431 (48.5) (43.8-53.2)	13.0 (2.1-23.8)	0.0216
Urgency NRS ≤2g	127/188 (67.6) (60.9-74.2)	127/311 (40.8) (35.4-46.3)	26.7 (18.1-35.4)	<0.0001
B. CFB in FACIT-F vs. CFB in Outcomes at W52	N	Pearson Correlation Coefficient	95% CIh	p-Value
CFB in AP score	574	-0.379	-0.447 to -0.306	<0.0001
CFB in SF score	572	-0.306	-0.378 to -0.230	<0.0001
CFB in log-transformed FCP	461	-0.112	-0.201 to -0.020	0.0166
CFB in log-transformed CRP	576	-0.208	-0.285 to -0.128	<0.0001

^aMIRI-treated patients with baseline (BL) FACIT-F score ≤46 points; ^bConfidence interval (CI) constructed using asymptotic method without continuity correction; ^cChi Square test; ^dCDAI <150; ^eSimple Endoscopic Score for CD (SES-CD) Total Score ≥50% improvement from BL; ^fSES-CD Total Score ≤4, ≥2-point reduction from BL and no subscore >1; ^gIn those with BL Urgency NRS ≥3; ^hPearson correlation with Fisher’s z-transformation. A negative correlation indicates an improvement in outcome is associated with an improvement in FACIT-F. Correlation strength defined as: >0.5=strong, 0.3 to ≤0.5=moderate, 0.1 to <0.3=weak, <0.1=insubstantial⁷
NRI=nonresponder imputation.

Conclusion

In patients with moderately to severely active CD treated with MIRI, improvements in clinical, endoscopic, and selected patient-reported outcomes were associated with clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue at W52.

References

1. D’Silva A, et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20:995-1009.
2. Regueiro MD, et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2023;118:S816.
3. Travis S, et al. J Crohn's Colitis.2024;18:i21–i23.
4. Ferrante M, et al. J Crohn's Colitis. 2024;18:S1 i7–i9.
5. Jairath V, et al. J Crohn's Colitis. 2024;18:i62–i64.
6. Tinsley A, et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011;34:1328-36.
7. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, 1988, Routledge.

Disclosure

P. Bossuyt has received financial support for research from: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, and Viatris; lecture fees from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, CAG, Celltrion, Eli Lilly and Company, EPGS, Galapagos NV, Globalport, Janssen, Materia Prima, Pentax, Scope, and Takeda; and advisory board fees from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, CIRC, Dr. Falk Pharma Benelux, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos NV, Janssen, Pentax, PSI-CRO, Roche, Takeda, and Tetrameros; M. Regueiro has served as an advisor and/or consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Organon, Pfizer, Prometheus Therapeutics and Diagnostics, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, and UCB Pharma; M. Fischer has received consulting fees from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Pfizer, Rebiotix, Scioto Biosciences, and Seres Therapeutics; K. Traxler, G. Yu, M. Protic, K. Tsilkos, and A. Vadhariya are employees and shareholders of: Eli Lilly and Company; T. Hisamatsu has received lecture fees from: AbbVie, EA Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., JIMRO, Kyorin, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mochida Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, and Takeda; has received honoraria as an advisory board member or consultant for: AbbVie, Brystol Myers Squibb, EA Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Pfizer, and Takeda; and has received pharmaceutical/research grants from: AbbVie, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, EA Pharma, Kissei Pharmaceutical, JIMRO, Kyorin, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mochida Pharmaceutical, Nichi-lko Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kayaku, Pfizer, Takeda, and Zeria Pharmaceutical; P. Juillerat has received fees for lectures and consulting/advisory board from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sandoz, Takeda, Tillotts Pharma AG, and UCB Pharma

Introduction

Response to hepatitis B vaccine (HBV) is variable in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with seroconversion rates of 34-89%. Strategies suggested to improve the seroconversion rates are double dose, accelerated schedule, or addition of booster dose with variable results. This study compared the standard (20 µg) dose and double (40 µg) dose of HBV vaccination in IBD patients.

Aims & Methods

Patients of IBD were randomized to 1:1 to receive standard or double dose of HBV at 0, 1 and 6 months. Anti-HBs titers were assessed at 1 month after the third dose. Response was defined as an adequate immune response (AIR, anti-HBs titer >10 mIU/mL) and effective immune response (EIR, anti-HBs titer >100 mIU/mL). Total mayo score and Crohn’s disease activity index (CDAI) was used to identify the active disease. IBD medications with immunosuppressive effects were categorized as immunomodulators, corticosteroids, tofacitinib and biologic group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was done to identify the predictors of AIR and EIR.

Results

Eighty-eight patients of IBD were randomized to receive standard (45, 51.1%) or double (43, 48.9%) dose of HBV. 79 of 88 patients had ulcerative colitis (UC) and 9 had Crohn’s disease (CD). 49 (55.7%) patients had active disease while 39 (44.3%) were in remission. At the end of the study, total 63 (71.61%) patients achieved AIR and 51 (60%) achieved EIR. AIR (88.4 % vs. 55.6 %, p 0.001) and EIR (69.8% vs. 46.7%, p = 0.028) rates were significantly higher with double dose compared to standard dose of HBV. Patients with active IBD had higher AIR (87.5% vs. 44%, p = 0.001) and EIR (70.8% vs. 32%, p = 0.007) rates with double dose of HBV. Patients with IBD in remission also had higher AIR (89.5% vs. 70%) and EIR (78.4% vs. 65%) rates with double dose of HBV, though statistically non-significant.
Multivariable analysis identified the use of double dose of HBV {odds ratio (OR) 10.865, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.418-48.817} and biologic (OR 0.022, 95% CI: 0.001-0.421) as predictors to achieve AIR. Similarly, double dose of HBV (OR 3.0, 95% CI: 1.087-8.280) and use of biologic (OR 0.074, 95% CI: 0.006-0.931) also predicted the EIR.

Conclusion

Double dose of HBV vaccine demonstrated a superiority over standard dose of vaccine for achieving both AIR and EIR. Use of biologic impaired the response. Double dose of HBV should be used in IBD patients to improve the seroconversion rates.

Disclosure

No conflict of Interest