Introduction

Despite the use of various multidisciplinary diagnostic tools, early differentiation between benign and malignant biliary strictures remains challenging. BILEMUT consists of a mutational analysis of bile cfDNA collected at the time of first ERCP using a next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel of 52 genes (1). It has demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 96.4% and 69.2%, respectively, for malignancy in biliary strictures. While genetic analyses were once very expensive, they have become more affordable nowadays. When evaluating new diagnostic techniques, it is crucial to consider not only their accuracy but also their cost, adverse events, and potential for early diagnosis.

Aims & Methods

Prospective observational descriptive pilot study in a cohort of patients diagnosed with non-malignant biliary strictures after the first ERCP recruited in a tertiary hospital between 2017-2020. The aim of this study is to compare the differences in diagnostic costs in euros between performing BILEMUT and repeating tests to achieve a diagnosis according to current clinical practice in biliary strictures. Moreover, adverse events and time required for diagnosis were evaluated.

Results

From the cohort of 68 patients with biliary stricture, 35 received a non-malignant diagnosis after undergoing the first ERCP. Of those patients, 12 were directly referred to surgery, 7 were considered for a wait and see or palliative care approach due to age and/or comorbidity, and 16 required further diagnostic tests to confirm the diagnosis.
In these 16 patients, the median cost of the different endoscopic procedures, radiological techniques, hospital admissions and consultations performed was 8641.52 euros (895.9 – 31704.4). The cost of BILEMUT was 1223 euros per patient. BILEMUT assay had a S=100%, E= 62.5%, NPV=100%, PPV=72,7%. Repeating tests to achieve a definitive diagnosis according to current clinical practice in biliary strictures yield a S = 62.5%, E=100%, PPV=100% and NPV=62.5%. Both strategies had the same diagnostic accuracy in this cohort, 81.3% (57-93.4%). Among the 8 patients who were diagnosed with malignant biliary stricture, the median time to reach the final diagnosis in real clinical practice was 43 days (range 10-930). In contrast, BILEMUT analysis was obtained much faster, with a median turnaround time of 10 days (range 7-14 days). BILEMUT does not pose any additional risks to patients. Furthermore, no complications occurred in the current clinical practice strategy in this cohort despite the extra invasive tests.

Conclusion

This pilot study suggests that the BILEMUT approach in patients with indeterminate biliary strictures after the first ERCP could reduce costs without impairing diagnostic accuracy compared to the current clinical practice approach. In addition, BILEMUT reduced the time and number of diagnostic tests needed to achieve a final diagnosis. There could be a lower theoretical risk of complications associated with the BILEMUT approach due to its ability to reduce the need for invasive tests. However, this study did not demonstrate such a risk reduction.

References

Arechederra M, Rullán M, Amat I, et al. Gut 2022;71:1141–1151.

Introduction

Tulisokibart is a monoclonal antibody that targets tumor necrosis factor-like cytokine 1A (TL1A), a regulator of inflammation and fibrosis in inflammatory bowel disorders. In the Phase 2 ARTEMIS-UC study, a significantly higher proportion of participants on tulisokibart compared to placebo achieved clinical remission after 12 weeks of induction treatment in patients with moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis (UC) and conventional or advanced treatment failure.¹ In a post hoc analysis from ARTEMIS-UC, re-induction and delayed induction treatment with tulisokibart were effective in participants who did not respond during the initial induction period.² We explored the efficacy and safety of tulisokibart maintenance therapy up to 1 year during the open-label extension of ARTEMIS-UC among patients who responded to induction, re-induction, and delayed induction.

Aims & Methods

Participants (≥18 years) were randomized to intravenous (IV) tulisokibart 1000 mg on day 1 and 500 mg at weeks 2, 6, and 10 or placebo. The study population consisted of 2 cohorts based on a genetic diagnostic test (Dx) assessing likelihood for responding to anti-TL1A treatment. Cohort 1 included participants stratified by Dx results while Cohort 2 included only Dx positive participants. Cohort 1 is the population used in this analysis. Participants were classified as induction responders (defined as reduction of ≥2 points and ≥30% in modified Mayo score from baseline, accompanied by a reduction ≥1 in rectal bleeding subscore or absolute rectal bleeding subscore ≤1 at week 12) or induction nonresponders. Induction non-responders in the tulisokibart and placebo groups were assigned to an open label 12-week re-induction with the aforementioned tulikosibart induction dosing regimen. Cohort 1 induction, re-induction, and delayed induction responders were randomized (stratified by Dx status) to open-label IV tulisokibart 100 mg or 250 mg every 4 weeks.

Results

In Cohort 1, 47 tulisokibart induction responders, 13 re-induction responders, and 29 delayed induction responders were randomized to open-label maintenance treatment with tulisokibart 100 mg or 250 mg every 4 weeks. Maintenance of treatment effect was generally similar with a trend for higher efficacy with tulisokibart 250 mg vs 100 mg maintenance treatment observed across the 3 groups. The safety profile of tulisokibart maintenance treatment was similar across the 3 groups, with no new safety signals being observed.

Conclusion

Tulisokibart was effective as a maintenance treatment in patients with moderate to severe UC. The effect was generally similar across Cohort 1 tulisokibart induction responders, re-induction responders, and delayed induction responders. Tulisokibart maintenance treatment was well tolerated across the 3 groups, with no identified safety signals. Altogether, this suggests that a second induction regimen in tulisokibart non-responders may result in a long-term efficacy benefit without increased safety risk. Larger trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Table: Efficacy and fecal calprotectin

References

1. Sands et al. N Engl J Med 2024; 26;391:1119-1129
2. Hoque et al. J Crohns Colitis 2025; 19(suppl 1):i1158-i1159

Disclosure

Sami Hoque: ​Received Lecture fees and research grants from Tillotts, Ferring and Eli Lilly.
Bruce E. Sands: Travel fees from Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc.; Received food & beverage from AnX Robotica Corp.; Grant from Janssen Research & Development, LLC; Owns stock options in Ventyx Biosciences; Consulting fees from AbbVie, Abivax, Aclaris Therapeutics, Adiso Therapeutics, Agomab Therapeutics, Alimentiv, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Artizan Biosciences, Artugen Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Celltrion Healthcare, Celltrion Healthcare, Connect Biopharm, Cytoki Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Entera, Enveda Biosciences, Equilium, Evommune, F. Homann-La Roche AG, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Galapagos, Genentech USA, Inc., Gilead Sciences , GlaxoSmithKline, GossamerBio, HMP Acquisition, Imhotex, Immunic, Immunyx Pharma Ltd., Index Pharmaceuticals, Innovation Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems Inc., Kaleido, Kallyope, Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd, Merck & Co., Inc., Microba, Microbiotica Limited, MiroBio, Mobius Care, Morphic Therapeutic, MRM Health, Nexus Therapeutics, Nimbus Therapeutics, Odyssey Therapeutics, Pfizer, Progenity Inc., Prometheus Biosciences, Protagonist Therapeutics, Q32 Bio, Rasayana Therapeutics, Recludix Pharma, Recludix Pharma, SANOFI US SERVICES INC., Spyre Therapeutics, Surrozen, Synlogic Operating Company, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Target RWE, Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Theravance Biopharma Inc., TLL Pharmaceutical, VectivBio AG, Ventyx Biosciences
Brian G. Feagan: Consulting fees from Abbvie, Adiso Therapeutics, Agomab, Alimentiv Inc, Allianthera, Amgen Canada, AnaptysBio, Applied Molecular Transport, Arena Pharma, Biora Therapeutics, Blackbird Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim AB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celsius Therapeutics, Connect BioPharma, Duality, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Global Services, LLC, JapanTobacco, Klick Health, Mage Biologics, Mestag Therapeutics, Mobius Therapeutics, LLC, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Nexys Therapeutics, Nimbus Discovery Inc, Orphagen Inc., PFIZER CANADA INC, Prometheus, SANOFI US SERVICES INC., Seres Therapeutics, Sobi, Inc, Spyre Therapeutics, Surrozen, Synedgen, Takeda Canada, Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc., Televant, Tillotts, Triastek Inc.
Mark Yen: Employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.
Bin Dong: Employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.
Wen Zhou: Employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.
Silvio Danese: Consulting fees from AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion Healthcare, Ferring, Gilead Sciences, Hospira, Inc., Janssen Biotech, Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems Inc., Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB Inc., Vifor (International) Ltd.