Introduction

Owing to the multiplication of therapeutic options in ulcerative colitis (UC), how sequencing the drugs is a burning question. For chosing the best treatment, efficacy is a key point. However, only one head-to-head randomized controlled trial is available (VARSITY) and network meta-analyses are difficult to interpret. Then, real-world data are necessary to help ranking the treatment in UC.

Aims & Methods

We aimed to compare the effectiveness of tofacitinib and ustekinumab in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) previously exposed to at least one anti-TNF agent.
In this multicenter study, we retrospectively included consecutive UC adult patients previously exposed to at least one anti-TNF agent, with partial Mayo score (pMS) > 2, having who started tofacitinib or ustekinumab between January 2019 and June 2022.
The primary endpoint was steroid-free clinical remission (pMS ≤ 2) (CFREM) at week 16 (W16). Secondary endpoints were endoscopic remission (CFREM + Mayo endoscopic score (MES) ≤ 1), and histological remission (CFREM + MES ≤ 1 + Nancy index ≤ 1).
Comparisons were performed using propensity score analyses adjusted on potential confounders.

Results

Overall, 289 patients were included (tofacitinib = 124 patients, ustekinumab = 165 patients). The groups were comparable (tofacitinib vs vedolizumab) for male gender (50.8% vs 43.3%), mean age (40.7 vs 42.9 years), median UC duration (8.6 vs 9.3 years), concomitant use of 5-ASA (13.7% vs 9.7%), steroids (25.0% vs 29.7%), immunosuppressants (7.3% vs 5.5%), and ≥ 2 prior biologics (85.5% vs 82.4%). Tofacitinib group had more pancolitis (55.6% vs 42.4%, p = 0.026) and UC with pMS > 6 (64.5% vs 50.3%, p = 0.016). In our study, 42.1 % of the patients treated with tofacitinib continued using a dose of 10 mgx2/day until W16 while 47.3% of the patients on ustekinumab required dose escalation to 90 mg/4 weeks before W16.
After propensity score analysis, the rate of CFREM at W16 was 37.8% and 35.6% in the tofacitinib and ustekinumab arms, respectively arm (p=0.75). CFREM at W16 was achieved in 43.3% vs 57.1% (p = 0.48) after failure of one biologic, 20.7% vs 37.9% (p=0.16) two biologics and 46.7% vs 23.2% (p=0.047) if ≥ 3 biologics, in tofacitinib and ustekinumab arms, respectively. After primary failure to at least one biologic, the rate of CFREM at W16 was 46.3% on tofacitinib vs 25.9% on ustekinumab (p = 0.13). CFREM at W16 was similar with tofacitinib and ustekinumab in case of more severe UC such as pMS ≥ 6 (40.6% vs 41.5%) and CRP > 30 (27.2% vs 33.0%).
No predictor of tofacitinib effectiveness has been identified. Factors associated with no CFREM at W16 on ustekinumab were male gender (p=0.035), ≥ 3 prior biologics (p=0.013), prior use of tofacitinib (p=0.03), primary failure to at least one biologic (p=0.013).
After propensity score analysis, endoscopic remission was achieved in 17.0% vs 11.7% (p =0.47) and histological remission in 4.4% vs 7.8% (p=0.32) of the patients treated with tofacitinib and ustekinumab, respectively.
At last follow-up, we did not observe any difference between the two groups regarding the time to drug discontinuation, time to hospitalization and time to colectomy.

Conclusion

Tofacitinib and ustekinumab have similar effectiveness at short and long-term in UC after anti-TNF failure. However, the efficacy of ustekinumab could be more impacted by prior therapeutic failures but not by UC severity.

Disclosure

Anthony Buisson: Consulting fees for Abbvie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Celtrion, CTMA, Fresenius-Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Nexbiome, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda and Tillotts. Lecture fees for Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Fresenius-Kabi Galapagos, Janssen, Mayoli-Spindler, MSD, Norgine, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Tillotts and Vifor Pharma. Research grants from Abbvie, Celltrion, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda.
Maria Nachury: MN received board membership, consultancy, or lecture fees from Abbvie, Adacyte, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, CTMA, Celltrion, Ferring, Fresenius-Kabi, Janssen, Mayoli-Spindler, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda
Thomas Guilmoteau: None
Romain Altwegg: Received lecture and consulting fees from Abbvie, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda.
Xavier Treton: Received honoraria from Abbvie, MSD, Takeda, Ferring, Norgine and Janssen.
Mathurin Fumery: Consulting/lecture fees for Abbvie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Celtrion, CTMA, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, Tillotts. MSD, Gilead, Celgene, Sandoz and Ferring.
Mélanie Serrero: Declared fees from Pfizer, Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, MSD, Amgen, Ferring, Tillotts, Celltrion
Ludovic Caillo: Declared fees from Janssen, abbvie, Takeda, amgen, Pfizer, norgine
Bruno Pereira: None
Aurélien Amiot: Has served as a consultant, served on the advisory board, received lecture fees, and received travel fees from AbbVie, Hospira, Takeda, Gilead, Biocodex, Janssen, Ferring, and MSD.
Guillaume Bouguen: Received lecture fees from Abbvie, Ferring, MSD, Takeda and Pfizer and consultant fees from Takeda, Janssen.

Introduction

Up to 50% of patients (pts) with inflammatory bowel disease have one or more extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs), which are independent risk factors for poor quality of life and greater disability.¹ Here, we evaluated EIM resolution in patients (pts) with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease (CD) who received risankizumab (RZB), an anti-IL-23p19 monoclonal antibody, versus (vs) placebo (PBO) during the ADVANCE and MOTIVATE induction and FORTIFY maintenance studies.^2,3

Aims & Methods

In this post-hoc analysis of pooled data from ADVANCE and MOTIVATE, data collected from an EIM form, used by investigators to record the presence of 16 pre-specified EIMs (yes/no), were examined. EIM presence at induction baseline (BL), resolution (see Table footnote for definition) at wk 12 with intravenous (IV) RZB 600 mg vs PBO in ADVANCE+MOTIVATE, and maintained resolution at FORTIFY wk 52 among pts treated with subcutaneous (SC) RZB 180 mg or 360 mg vs PBO (withdrew RZB) were assessed.³ Statistical analysis methods are provided in Table footnotes. Nominal P-values for pairwise treatment comparisons are shown.

Results

Previously, EIM resolution at wk 12 in pts with EIMs at BL was evaluated as a ranked secondary endpoint in ADVANCE and MOTIVATE.² A greater proportion of pts achieved EIM resolution at wk 12 with IV RZB 600 mg vs PBO in ADVANCE (38.1% vs 20.5%, nominal P-value = 0.02), but not MOTIVATE (29.5% vs 23.7%, nominal P-value = 0.38). In this pooled analysis, at BL, 323 EIMs were reported for 240 pts in the IV RZB 600 mg arm, and 221 EIMs were reported for 161 pts in the PBO arm; approximately 45% of pts in each arm had ≥1 EIM at BL. The most frequently reported EIMs at BL were peripheral arthropathy (IV RZB 600 mg, 64% [103/161]; PBO, 70.4% [169/240]), anaemia (IV RZB 600 mg, 36% [58/161]; PBO, 28.8% [69/240]), and axial arthropathy (IV RZB 600 mg, 16.1% [26/161]; PBO, 19.2% [46/240]). Together, these EIMs accounted for most reported EIMs across the IV RZB 600 mg (87.9% [284/323]) and PBO (84.6% [187/221]) arms; the incidence of other EIMs were too low for clinically meaningful interpretation (see Table footnotes). A greater proportion of pts achieved resolution of any EIM at wk 12 vs PBO (P = 0.031) with IV RZB 600 mg (Table). A significantly greater proportion of pts with anaemia or axial arthropathy, but not peripheral arthropathy, at BL achieved resolution of the respective EIM at wk 12 with IV RZB 600 mg vs PBO (anaemia: RZB 600 mg, 26/69 [37.4%]; PBO, 13/58 [22.4%]; adjusted (adj) difference 14.4%, P = 0.049; axial arthropathy: RZB 600 mg, 23/46 [50%]; PBO, 8/26 [30.8%]; adj difference 22.6%, P = 0.042; peripheral arthropathy: RZB 600 mg, 67/169 [39.8%]; PBO, 32/103 [31.2%]; adj difference 6.8%, P = 0.236). With SC RZB 360 mg compared to PBO, a greater proportion of pts with EIMs at BL achieved resolution of EIMs at wk 52 (P = 0.005), and a greater proportion of pts who achieved resolution of any EIM at wk 12 maintained resolution at wk 52 (P=0.014) (Table).

Conclusion

References

1. Marinelli C, et al. Gastroenterology Research and Practice. 2019 Aug 21;2019:1–10.
2. D’Haens G, et al. The Lancet. 2022 May;399(10340):2015–30.
3. Ferrante M, et al. The Lancet. 2022 May;399(10340):2031–46.

Disclosure

Subrata Ghosh: SG has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Pfizer, and Receptos; speaker fees from AbbVie, Falk Pharma, Pfizer, Ferring, Janssen, Shield, and Takeda
Marc Ferrante: Research grants from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, EG, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda and Viatris; Consultancy fees from: AbbVie, Agomab Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Medtronic, MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda and ThermoFisher; Speakers’ fees from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Falk, Ferring, Janssen-Cilag, Lamepro, MSD, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda, Truvion Healthcare and Viatris
Britta Siegmund: Consultant for AbbVie, Arena, BI, BMS, Celgene, Falk, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Prometheus, and Takeda; and received speaker’s fees from AbbVie, CED Service GmbH, Falk, Ferring, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda
Takehiro Arai: Nothing to disclose
Walter Reinisch WR has served as a speaker for AbbVie, Celltrion, Falk Pharma GmbH, Ferring, Janssen, Galapagos Medice, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Shire, Takeda, Therakos, as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, AOP Orphan, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bioclinica, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calyx, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Falk Pharma GmbH, Ferring, Galapagos, Gatehouse Bio Inc., Genentech, Gilead, Grünenthal, ICON, Index Pharma, Inova, Janssen, Landos Biopharma, Medahead, MedImmune, Microbiotica, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, MSD, Novartis, OMass, Otsuka, Parexel, Periconsulting, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Protagonist, Provention, Quell Therapeutics, Sandoz, Seres Therapeutics, Setpointmedical, Sigmoid, Sublimity, Takeda, Teva Pharma, Therakos, Theravance, Zealand, as an advisory board member for AbbVie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, MSD, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda, and has received research funding from AbbVie, Janssen, MSD, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda.
David Hudesman Consultant: AbbVie, BMS, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Pfizer, Prometheus, Takeda, UCB
Research Support: Janssen and Pfizer
Edouard Louis: Research grant: Janssen, Pfizer, Ferring, Falk, AbbVie and Takeda; educational grant: AbbVie, Janssen, Fresenius-Kabi and Takeda; speaker fees: AbbVie, Falk, Ferring, Janssen, Pfizer, Galapagos, BMS and Takeda; advisory board: Abbvie, Celgene, Ferring, Janssen, BMS, Pfizer, and Takeda, Galapagos, Gilead, Arena, Eli Lilly; consultant: Abbvie
Naomi Martin, Joanne Rizzo,Kristina Kligys, Yafei Zhang, Javier Zambrano, and Jasmina Kalabic are AbbVie employees and may own AbbVie stock and/or options.