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.

Introduction

Risankizumab (RZB) is a high-affinity humanised immunoglobulin (Ig) G1 monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the p19 subunit of the interleukin-23 (IL-23) cytokine and inhibits its interaction with the IL-23 receptor.^1,2 Long-term RZB therapy for 3 years of maintenance showed durable efficacy and a well-tolerated safety profile in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) in the COMMAND open-label extension (OLE) study.^1,3 This post hoc analysis evaluated the long-term efficacy of RZB in improving patient-reported outcomes through week (wk) 96 of the ongoing COMMAND OLE study.

Aims & Methods

COMMAND OLE is a 220-wk study enrolling patients who completed 52-wks maintenance dosing or enrolled directly as responders to induction.^1,3 This analysis included patients who completed 52 wks maintenance and an additional 96 wks of RZB treatment in the OLE. All patients received subcutaneous (SC) RZB180 Q8w starting at OLE wk 0, except patients who had prior rescue therapy (single RZB 1200 mg intravenous dose, then SC RZB360 Q8w) who continued RZB360 in the OLE. The OLE study was not designed to compare RZB180 and RZB360 groups. The data cut-off date for this interim analysis was 30 June 2024. Efficacy outcomes included the percentage of patients who achieved the absence of abdominal pain, bowel urgency, faecal incontinence, nocturnal bowel movements, tenesmus, sleep disruption due to UC symptoms; Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) response; a meaningful within-person change (MWPC) in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue, Short-Form Health Survey-36 version 2 Mental Component Score (SF-36v2 MCS), and SF-36v2 Physical Component Score (PCS). Results were reported using as-observed (AO; Table) and nonresponder imputation (NRI) methods (Table). Safety was reported previously.³

Results

Of the 1003 patients (RZB180 = 701; RZB360 = 302) who entered the OLE, 398 (39.7%) patients (RZB180 = 262; RZB360 = 136) completed wk 96 at data cut-off date. In the AO analysis, RZB180- or RZB360-treated patients showed sustained improvements from OLE wks 0 to 96 in the absence of abdominal pain, bowel urgency, nocturnal bowel movements, tenesmus, faecal incontinence, sleep disruption due to UC symptoms, IBDQ response, MWPC in FACIT-Fatigue, SF-36 PCSv2, and SF-36v2 MCS (Table). Using the more conservative NRI analysis, similar results were observed for most endpoints through OLE wk 96 (Table). Despite RZB360-treated patients were more likely to have numerically higher clinical and endoscopic activity at OLE wk 0 compared with RZB180-treated patients (Adapted Mayo Score [AMS], mean [standard deviation], RZB180, 2.0 [1.4]; RZB360, 3.5 [2.0]; endoscopic subscore: RZB180, 1.1 [1.0]; RZB360, 1.9 [1.0]; clinical remission per AMS, RZB180, 54.8%; RZB360, 24.8%), at OLE wk 96, both RZB dosing regimens exhibited consistent and similar sustained improvements throughout all investigated patient-reported outcomes.

Conclusion

RZB-treated patients who completed OLE wk 96 (3 years of total maintenance therapy) experienced sustained improvement in quality of life and patient-reported outcomes.

References

1. Louis E, et al. JAMA. 2024; 332:881-97.
2. Singh S, et al. mAbs. 2015;7:778-91.
3. Atreya R, et al. J Crohn’s Colitis. 2025;19(S1):i108-i110 [Abstract].

Disclosure

Funding: AbbVie funded this study (COMMAND; NCT03398135) 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; S. Michael Austin, of AbbVie, provided editorial support.
Disclosures: Luc Biedermann has received lecture and consulting fees from Takeda, Sanofi, AbbVie, Falk, Bristol Myer Squibb, and Pfizer and is on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Falk, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and Sanofi.
Julian Panés received consultancy fees/honorarium from AbbVie, Alimentiv, Athos, Atomwise, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celsius, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Mirum, Nimbus, Pfizer, Progenity, Prometheus, Protagonist, Revolo, Sanofi, Sorriso, Surrozen, Takeda, and Wasserman, and has served on a data safety monitoring board for Alimentiv, Mirum, Sorriso, Sanofi, and Surrozen.
Silvio Danese has received consultancy fees from AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Enthera, Ferring, Gilead, Hospira, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mundipharma, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sublimity Therapeutics, Takeda, TiGenix, UCB and Vifor.
Satoshi Tanida received speaker fees from JIMRO, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, AbbVie, Janssen, Kissei, writing fees from Pfizer, and research funding from AbbVie.
Parambir S. Dulai received research support and/or consulting for AbbVie, Abivax, Adiso, Alimentiv, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Celltrion, Genentech/Roche, Geneoscopy, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda.
Nidhi Shukla, Jasmina Kalabic, Pierre Morisset, Cecile Holweg, and Dolly Sharma, are employees of AbbVie and may own stock options.
Joana Torres has received grant funding/speaker fees from and/or has participated in advisory boards for AbbVie, Galapagos, Janssen, and Pfizer.

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

Biologic therapies such as anti-TNF-alpha agents (infliximab, adalimumab), interleukin modulators, and gut-selective integrin antagonists like vedolizumab have significantly improved outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), leading to enduring remission, better quality of life, and reduced surgical intervention and hospitalizations. However, many patients may eventually lose response, often due to factors like the formation of anti-drug antibodies, altered drug metabolism, or individual patient characteristics. Dose escalation—by increasing dosage or reducing intervals—is commonly used to counteract this loss, especially for anti-TNF therapies guided by therapeutic drug monitoring. Vedolizumab poses a greater challenge in this regard due to the lack of standardized monitoring protocols. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of dose-escalated infliximab, adalimumab, and vedolizumab in IBD patients who worsened after initial response, evaluating outcomes such as treatment persistence and clinical remission, to guide more personalized, cost-effective treatment strategies.

Aims & Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of IBD patients who underwent Infliximab (IFX), vedolizumab, or adalimumab (ADA) therapy dose escalation between 2020-2024 at a tertiary IBD centre. Primary outcomes included clinical remission using disease activity scores (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity/SCCAI Index for UC, Harvey-Bradshaw Index/HBI for CD), biochemical markers (CRP, faecal calprotectin) and treatment persistence, evaluated at 3-12 months, 12 months, and annually up to 36 months post-escalation.

Results

A total of 155 patients (median age 31 years, 46% female) were included, of which 89 patients (57%) were prescribed dose-escalated IFX, 48 patients (31%) were prescribed dose-escalated ADA and 18 patients (12%) were prescribed dose-escalated Vedolizumab. Of those included, 118 patients (76%) had Crohn’s disease, 36 patients (23%) had ulcerative colitis (UC) and 1 patient (1%) had indeterminate disease. Indications for dose escalation included secondary loss of response (SLOR) (105/155; 68%) and/or low drug levels (65/155; 42%). Dose-escalated IFX led to significant improvements in disease activity scores at 3 months (HBI: p=0.002; SCCAI: p=0.0003). Improvement in SCCAI was maintained at 12 months (p=0.00007), 2 years (p=0.0008) and 3 years (p=0.025). Improvement in HBI was maintained at 2 years (p=0.01) and 3 years (p=0.049). Significant improvement in CRP following dose-escalated IFX was reported at 3 months (p=0.011), 12 months (p=0.004), 2 years (p=0.006) and 3 years (p=0.03). Dose-escalated ADA led to a significant improvement in HBI at 3 months (p=0.023). This improvement was maintained at 12 months (p=0.005) and 2 years (p=0.008). Early improvement in faecal calprotectin was reported at 3 months (p=0.046). Significant initial improvement in SCCAI following dose-escalated Vedolizumab was reported at 3 months (p=0.043). This improvement was not maintained at any further follow-up points (p>0.05). Minor adverse events were reported in 3 patients receiving dose escalated ADA and in 6 patients receiving dose escalated IFX.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that biologic dose escalation is an effective and safe mechanism to recapture clinical remission, with high rates of treatment persistence.