Introduction

Post-operative recurrence (POR) affects a substantial proportion of Crohn's disease (CD) patients following intestinal resection. While ileocolonoscopy remains the gold standard for detecting recurrence, its invasive nature and patient burden have spurred interest in non-invasive monitoring approaches. This study evaluates the performance of faecal calprotectin (FC) and cross-sectional imaging at different timepoints in predicting endoscopic recurrence in postoperative CD patients.

Aims & Methods

In this multicenter retrospective cohort of 895 CD patients who underwent ileocecal resection, we analyzed the diagnostic accuracy of FC measurements at 3, 6-12, and 18-24 months postoperatively for predicting endoscopic recurrence (Rutgeerts score ≥i2 or SES-CD ≥3). Additionally, we assessed the concordance between intestinal ultrasound (IUS) and magnetic resonance imagings (MRI) and endoscopic findings at both 6-12- and 18-24-months using kappa statistics.

Results

FC demonstrated modest discriminatory ability at 3 months (AUC 0.642, 95% CI: 0.530-0.753) and 6-12 months (AUC 0.653, 95% CI: 0.593-0.713), with improved performance at 18-24 months (AUC 0.676, 95% CI: 0.608-0.744). The optimal cutoff values for FC (47.5 μg/g at 3 and 6-12 months; 80.0 μg/g at 18-24 months) were substantially lower than standard thresholds (150-250 μg/g) used in non-operated patients.
At 6-12 months, radiological and endoscopic assessments showed moderate agreement (κ=0.426, p<0.001) with 63.2% concordance. At 18-24 months, IUS demonstrated superior agreement with endoscopic findings (κ=0.531, p<0.001; sensitivity 83.8%, specificity 72.7%) compared to MRI (κ=0.324, p<0.001). Notably, radiological remission at 18-24 months was identified as a significant protective factor against surgical recurrence (OR 0.356, 95% CI: 0.179-0.705, p=0.003).

Table I: Concordance between endoscopic and radiologic findings (IUS and MRI) for inflammation and remission at 18–24 months post-ileocecal resection. Abbreviations: IUS: Intestinal ultrasound, MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging.

Conclusion

Non-invasive monitoring with FC shows promise in postoperative CD surveillance, though diagnostic thresholds differ substantially from those established for non-operated patients. IUS demonstrates superior concordance with endoscopic findings compared to MRI, particularly at later timepoints. The protective role of radiological remission against surgical recurrence highlights the importance of transmural healing. Combining FC with radiological assessment, especially IUS, may provide a comprehensive, patient-friendly approach to monitoring postoperative CD, potentially reducing the need for invasive procedures in selected patients but further studies are needed in this direction.

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

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

Etrasimod is an oral, once-daily, selective sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P)_1,4,5 receptor modulator for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC), with demonstrated efficacy in patients (pts) with baseline modified Mayo Score (MMS) 4–9.¹ No prior clinical trials of advanced therapies in UC have studied efficacy only in pts with baseline MMS ≤6.

Aims & Methods

GLADIATOR (NCT04607837) was a proof-of-concept, global, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of etrasimod in adults with mildly to moderately active UC (MMS 4–6; endoscopic subscore ≥2; rectal bleeding subscore ≥1) and inadequate response, loss of response or intolerance to ≥1 UC therapy. Pts were randomised 2:1 to etrasimod 2 mg or placebo once daily, stratified by previous biologic/Janus kinase inhibitor exposure and baseline corticosteroid use. GLADIATOR used a treat-through design (12-week [wk] induction period followed by a 40‑wk maintenance period). From Wk 12, pts whose disease had worsened or not improved vs baseline may have been eligible to enrol in an open-label extension trial (NCT03950232). The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of pts achieving clinical remission at Wk 52; additional endpoints are shown in the Table. Safety was monitored throughout the study.

Results

In the primary analysis set for efficacy, 127 and 60 pts received etrasimod and placebo, respectively. At Wk 52, 26.0% and 18.3% of pts receiving etrasimod and placebo, respectively, were in clinical remission (p=0.2524; Table). At Wk 12, a greater proportion of pts receiving etrasimod achieved clinical remission, endoscopic improvement (EI) and endoscopic improvement-histologic remission (EIHR) vs placebo (p<0.05; Table). Pts receiving etrasimod were more likely to achieve sustained clinical remission vs placebo (p=0.0104; Table). Etrasimod was generally well tolerated and findings were consistent with the known safety profile.

Conclusion

In pts with mildly to moderately active UC, etrasimod demonstrated higher rates of clinical remission, EI and EIHR at Wk 12, as well as sustained clinical remission at Wk 52, vs placebo. However, the primary endpoint of clinical remission at Wk 52 was not met. Etrasimod demonstrated efficacy in pts with UC with an MMS 4–9, including those with an MMS 4–6, in the ELEVATE UC clinical programme.¹ The proof-of-concept GLADIATOR trial further supports etrasimod’s efficacy in active UC and provides important insights on studying pts with mildly to moderately active UC.

References

1. Sandborn WJ et al. Lancet 2023; 401: 1159–1171.

Disclosure

SD: Lecture fees: AbbVie, Amgen, Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc, Gilead, Janssen, Mylan, Pfizer Inc, Takeda; Consultancy fees: AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Gilead Sciences, Hospira, Janssen, Johnson&Johnson, MSD, Mundipharma, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, TiGenix, UCB, Vifor; Directorship: Gastroenterology and Endoscopy.
MG, KL: Employees of Pfizer AG; shareholders of Pfizer Inc.
LPB: Consultancy fees: AbbVie, Abivax, Alimentiv, Alma Bio Therapeutics, Amgen, Applied Molecular Transport, Arena, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, CONNECT Biopharm, Cytoki Pharma, Enthera, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, Gossamer Bio, GlaxoSmithKline, HAC-Pharma, IAG Image Analysis, Index Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Mopac, Morphic, MSD, Norgine, Novartis, OM Pharma, ONO Pharma, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pandion Therapeutics, Par’Immune, Pfizer Inc, Prometheus, Protagonist, Roche, Roivant, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, Theravance, Thermo Fisher, Tigenix, Tillotts, Viatris, Vifor, Vectivbio, Ventyx, Ysopia; Grants: Takeda, Fresenius Kabi, Celltrion; Lectures: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Celltrion, Ferring, Galapagos, Genetech, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Pfizer Inc, Sandoz, Takeda, Tillotts, Viatris, Vifor.
AJY: Consultancy fees: AbbVie, Arena, BMS, Celltrion, Pfizer Inc, Takeda; Lectures: AbbVie, BMS.
MCD: Consultancy fees: AbbVie, Abivax, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson&Johnson, Merck, Pfizer Inc, Prometheus Laboratories, Prometheus Biosciences, Sanofi, Sphyre, Takeda, UCB; Shareholder: Trellus Health; Directorship: Trellus Health.
DTR: Consultancy fees: AbbVie, Abivax SA, Altrubio, Avalo Therapeutics, Bausch Health, Bristol Myers Squibb, Buhlmann Diagnostics Corp, Celltrion, ClostraBio, Connect BioPharma, Douglas Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly & Co., Foresee, Genentech, Image Analysis Group, InDex Pharmaceuticals, Iterative Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Odyssey Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Throne, Vedanta; Grants: Takeda.
BGF: Senior Scientific Director of Alimentiv Inc, which provides central reading services. He is not a company employee and has no equity stake in the organisation, which is owned by a medical trust; Speaker fees: AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda; Consultancy fees: AbbVie, AbolerIS, AgomAB Therapeutics, Allianthera, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Applied Molecular Transport Inc, Arena Pharma, Avoro Capital Advisors, Atomwise, BioJamp, Biora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boxer, Celsius Therapeutics,Celgene/BMS, Connect BioPharma, Cytoki, Disc Medicine, Duality, EcoR1, Eli Lilly, Equillium, Ermium, First Wave, First Word Group, Galapagos, Galen Atlantica, Genentech, Gilead, Gossamer Pharma, GSK, Hinge Bio, Hot Spot Therapeutics, Index Pharma, Imhotex, Immunic Therapeutics, JAKAcademy, Janssen, Japan Tobacco Inc, Kaleido Biosciences, Landos Biopharma, Leadiant, L.E.K. Consulting, Lenczner Slaght, LifeSci Capital, Lument AB, Millennium, MiroBio, Morgan Lewis, Morphic Therapeutics, Mylan, OM Pharma, Origo BioPharma, Orphagen, Pandion Therapeutics, Pendopharm, Pfizer Inc, Prometheus Therapeutics and Diagnostics, Play to Know AG, Progenity, Protagonist, PTM Therapeutics, Q32 Bio, Rebiotix, REDX, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Seres Therapeutics, Silverback Therapeutics, Surrozen Inc, Takeda, Teva, Thelium, Tigenix, Tillotts, Ventyx Biosciences, VHSquared Ltd, Viatris, Ysios, Ysopia, Zealand Pharma; Shareholder: Gossamer Pharma.
GRDH: Advisory fees: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Alimentiv, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Cosmo, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GSK, Johnson&Johnson, Takeda, Pfizer Inc, Polpharma, Prometheus Biosciences, Tillotts, Ventyx; Speaker fees: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Johnson&Johnson, Takeda, Pfizer Inc, Tillotts.
FB: Research/grants: AbbVie, Amgen, Eurogenerics, Janssen, Takeda; Lectures: AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Celltrion, Ferring, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer Inc, Takeda; Consultancy fees: AbbVie, Abivax, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer Inc, Sandoz.
GG, JY, NL, CZ, WW, SM, EHL, IM, SS, WN: Employees/shareholders of Pfizer Inc.
SV: Lectures: AbbVie, Dr. Falk Pharma, Ferring, Galapagos, Hospira, Janssen, MSD, Takeda, Tillotts; Consultancy fees: AbbVie, AbolerIS Pharma, Alimentiv, Arena, AstraZeneca, Avaxia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, CVasThera, Dr Falk Pharma, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Hospira, Imidomics, Janssen, Johnson&Johnson, Materia Prima, MiroBio, Morphic, MrMHealth, MSD, Mundipharma, Pfizer Inc, Prodigest, Progenity, Prometheus, Robarts Clinical Trials, Second Genome, Shire, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance Biopharma, Tillotts Pharma AG, Zealand Pharma; Grants: AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer Inc, Galapagos, Janssen, Takeda.

Introduction

Initial reports have described rectal endoscopic knife-assisted full-thickness resection (kFTR) as a novel technique for achieving R0 resection in deeply invasive or technically challenging rectal lesions, avoiding the significant morbidity and mortality of rectal surgery.^1,2​​​​ We aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and technical outcomes of rectal kFTR.

Aims & Methods

In this retrospective international study, we included consecutive patients who underwent rectal kFTR at 15 centres across 4 continents between April 2017 and April 2025. We included patients with adenocarcinoma suspected of deep submucosal invasion, severe fibrosis, or subepithelial lesions were included. Primary outcomes were technical success, en-bloc and R0 resection rates and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included rectal preservation, length of hospital stay, and recurrence. Risk factors for adverse events were evaluated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

Results

A total of 94 patients (mean age 65 years [IQR 58-73]; 56.4% male; 79.8% ASA I/II) underwent rectal kFTR. Median lesion size was 35 mm [IQR 25-50]. kFTR was performed for suspected deep invasion (57; 60.6%), severe fibrosis (31; 33%), and subepithelial lesions (6; 6.4%). Of lesions included, 59 (62.8%) were in the distal rectum, and 13 (13.8%) were anterior.

Technical success was achieved in 92 procedures (97.9%). Mean procedure time was 135 minutes (IQR 100-180). Antibiotics were administered in 83 procedures (88.3%) for a median of 5 days (IQR 5-5). Median hospital stay was 1 day (IQR 1 - 3). Overall, 19 adverse events occurred in 15/94 (16%) patients: 12 (63.1%) mild, 6 (31.6%) moderate, and 1 (5.3%) severe per ASGE lexicon. Delayed bleeding occurred in 4 (4.3%) patients, and post-procedural pain in 7 patients (7.4%). Surgery was required in one case for a recto-vaginal fistula. Increasing lesion size was the only risk factor independently associated with a higher risk of adverse events (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02–1.09, p = 0.003).

En-bloc and R0 resections were achieved in 91/94 (96.8%) and 74 (78.7%) procedures, respectively. Rectal preservation was achieved in 68 patients (72.3%) while, 25 (26.6%) underwent completion surgery for non-curative cancer resections, with no residual tumor in the surgical specimen in 11/25 cases (44%).

Among 59 patients with adenocarcinoma and available follow-up (median 12 months (IQR 6 - 23.5)), 3 (5.1%) experienced loco-regional recurrences, 1 (1.7%) had distant metastasis from a pT2 adenocarcinoma with surgery after kFTR, and 1 died of non-cancer-related causes.

Conclusion

kFTR appeared to be a feasible and safe technique for excising deeply invasive adenocarcinomas and complex fibrotic or subepithelial rectal lesions in expert centres. The high rate of R0 resections enabled accurate histopathological risk stratification, supporting individualised post-procedural management and rectal preservation in most patients. Rectal kFTR may serve as an alternative to device-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection and local surgical excision, potentially avoiding radical surgery in highly selected patients. Further prospective research is needed to confirm these findings.

References

1. Argenziano ME*, Sorge A*, Poortmans PJ, Montori M, Balducci D, Hoorens A, Maroni L, Tate DJ, Knife-Assisted Full-Thickness Resection Guided by Pocket Detection Method for Detection and Complete Excision of Deeply Invasive Rectal Cancer, VideoGIE (2024), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vgie.2024.11.004.
2. Argenziano, M.E.*, Sorge, A.*, Hoorens, A., Montori, M., Poortmans, P.J., Smeets, S., Tornai, T., Debels, L.K., Desomer, L. and Tate, D.J. (2025), Knife-assisted full-thickness resection guided by the pocket-detection method for posterior deeply invasive rectal cancer: A novel endoscopic approach (with video). DEN Open, 5: e70116. https://doi.org/10.1002/deo2.70116

Introduction

The phase 2b GALAXI 1 and phase 3 GALAXI 2&3 studies evaluated guselkumab (GUS), a dual-acting IL-23p19 subunit inhibitor, in participants (pts) with moderately to severely active CD.¹ Pts treated with ustekinumab (UST) who met inadequate response criteria during the long-term extension (LTE) could cross over to GUS 200 mg SC q4w. Here, we present efficacy and safety results in pts who received GUS after experiencing an inadequate response to UST in the pooled GALAXI LTE.

Aims & Methods

Individuals with prior inadequate response or intolerance to UST were excluded from GALAXI; however, during the LTE, pts treated with UST 90 mg SC q8w who met inadequate treatment response criteria (not in clinical response [≥100-point reduction in CDAI score from baseline or CDAI<150] and CDAI ≥220) between Wks 52-80 of LTE were eligible for a treatment switch to GUS 200 mg SC q4w, without IV induction. Clinical response and clinical remission (CDAI<150) were both assessed 16 weeks after treatment switch. Endoscopic response (≥50% improvement from baseline SES-CD or SES-CD≤2) and endoscopic remission (SES-CD≤4 and ≥2-point reduction from baseline and no subscore >1 in any individual component) were assessed at Wk 96. Safety was assessed through Wk 96.

Results

In total, 80 pts treated with UST underwent treatment switch to GUS 200 mg SC q4w maintenance therapy due to meeting inadequate treatment response criteria between Wks 52-80 of the LTE. Of these 80 pts, 75 were included in the efficacy analyses (baseline mean age, 35.2yrs; male, 64.0%; mean CD disease duration, 8.21yrs; mean CDAI, 291.5; mean SES-CD, 12.8; history of inadequate response/intolerance to biologics [BIO-IR], 60.0%).
The proportions of pts achieving clinical response and clinical remission 16 weeks after treatment switch from UST to GUS 200 mg SC q4w were 61.3% and 52.0%, respectively. These results were comparable to the proportions of pts treated with GUS 200 mg IV q4w induction in the BIO-IR subgroup of the total LTE population who achieved clinical response and clinical remission at Wk 12 (61.7% and 46.7%, respectively).
The proportions of pts achieving endoscopic response and endoscopic remission at Wk 96 (ie, ~1 year after treatment switch from UST to GUS 200 mg SC q4w) were 49.3% and 30.7%, respectively. These results were similar to the proportions of pts in the BIO-IR subgroup receiving GUS 200 mg SC q4w maintenance who achieved endoscopic response and endoscopic remission at Wk 48 (57.2% and 35.5%, respectively).
Safety results are summarized in the Table.

Table. Safety Summary From Treatment Switch Through Week 96

Conclusion

Among pts who experienced inadequate response to UST in the LTE, more than half achieved clinical remission 16 weeks after treatment switch to GUS 200 mg SC q4w, and approximately 50% were in endoscopic response ~1 year after treatment switch. These data suggest pts with an inadequate treatment response to UST may benefit from GUS treatment. Results should be interpreted considering that pts received GUS SC maintenance therapy directly without IV induction. Key safety event rates were consistent with the known safety profile of GUS in approved indications.

References

1) Sachen K, Hammaker D, Sarabia I, et al. Frontiers in Immunology. 2025; doi:10.3389/fimmu.2025.1532852.

Disclosure

AA reports potential conflicts of interest with AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, DiaSorin, Eli Lilly, Gilead, IBD Horizons, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and TLL Pharmaceuticals
DW reports consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda
RL reports having received advisory board fees from AbbVie, Aspen, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Chiesi, Ferring, Glutagen, Hospira, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, and Takeda; received research grants from Celltrion, Shire, Janssen, Takeda, Joanna Tiddy grant from University of Sydney, McCusker Charitable Trust, Gastroenterological Society of Australia, NHMRC, Gutsy Group, and Pfizer
RVR, WvD, and CB are employees of Johnson & Johnson and own company stock/stock options.
TH received grant support from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, EA pharma Co. Ltd., AbbVie GK, JIMRO Co. Ltd., Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co. Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Pfizer Inc., Mochida Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Boston Scientific Corporation, Kissei Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., consulting fees from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, EA pharma Co. Ltd., AbbVie GK, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Pfizer Inc., Nichi-Iko Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, and lecture fee from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, AbbVie GK, EA pharma Co. Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., JIMRO Co., Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Pfizer Inc. Kissei Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
JP reports 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.