Introduction

Infliximab is an important treatment option in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It has traditionally been administered as an intravenous(IV) infusion but is now available as a subcutaneous (SC) injection. There is limited real world data around SC infliximab use and drug levels. In Ireland, IV medications are paid for from the hospital budget and SC medications are paid for from the community health budget.

Aims & Methods

This study aims to assess the trough levels of infliximab when given in SC formulation compared to IV formulation, to assess faecal calprotectin pre and post switching drug route, to assess patient’s attitudes to SC therapy and to examine the cost savings associated with switching to SC infliximab. Proactive therapeutic drug levels are routinely performed in our clinic and we routinely offer SC switch to patients on IV infliximab. Patients currently receiving infliximab were identified using the departmental IBD database. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Infliximab trough levels from when the patient was receiving IV infliximab were compared to the most recent trough level while using SC infliximab. Response to SC infliximab was assessed using faecal calprotectin. Health related quality of life was also measured using the IBD Disk Questionnaire. A subset of patients completed a questionnaire about attitudes to SC therapy. The financial cost of providing IV infliximab to each patient was assessed.

Results

In total 103 patients receiving SC infliximab for >3 months were identified. 0 were excluded. 55 (53%) were female and 48 (47%) were male. The median age was 39 (19-79). 57 (55%) had Crohn’s disease (CD), 46 (45%) had ulcerative colitis (UC). Infliximab trough levels improved by an average of 14.98ug/mL (188.6%) after switching to SC (P<0.05). Faecal calprotectin fell by an average of 74.45ug/g (-18.8%) after switching from IV to SC formulation (P<0.05). Average IBD disk score while on SC infliximab was 36.96/100 reflecting that the included patients have ongoing disease activity. The IBD disk score correlated with faecal calprotectin r 0.22 (P<0.05). In a subset of patients surveyed, 90% (n=10) preferred SC to IV infliximab. Switching from IV to SC infliximab for the 103 patients included in this study has saved our department 523,137 euro per annum. There are also significant savings in terms of infusion suite capacity. In total our unit saves 670 infusion suite appointments per year due to these patients switching to SC therapy.

Conclusion

Switching from IV to SC Infliximab is not associated with a deterioration in infliximab drug levels or faecal calprotectin levels. Switching from IV to SC infliximab saved significant amounts of money for our hospital budget and has improved our infusion suite capacity. Patients expressed a preference for SC administration over IV. In summary switching from IV to SC infliximab may be considered for patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.

Introduction

Mirikizumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against the p19 subunit of interleukin (IL)-23 approved for the management of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). Currently, there is no large study supporting the effectiveness of mirikizumab in UC in a real-life setting.

Aims & Methods

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of mirikizumab in real-life setting. This was a retrospective multicenter cohort study of a prospectively collected database including adult patients with confirmed diagnosis of UC treated with mirikizumab according to clinical practice. Patients were enrolled in three third-level italian centers (San Raffaele Hospital, Humanitas Research Hospital, and Federico II Hospital) from June 2024 to February 2025. All patients with at least 3 months of follow-up after therapy initiation were eligible. The primary outcome was the clinical remission rate (defined as partial Mayo Score (pMS) < 2 with a rectal bleeding subscore of 0) at week 12. Secondary outcomes included changes in bowel urgency (measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) urgency score), changes in serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin (FC) levels from week 0 to 12, safety profile of mirikizumab during induction therapy.

Results

In total 100 patients (60% male, with median age 48.53 ± 15.36) with UC were included. Most patients had a left-sided colitis (55, 55%) or a pancolitis (41, 41%). Most patients (81, 81%) were already treated with at least one advanced therapy before starting mirikizumab (including 28 patients treated with ustekinumab, 28%). A fifth of patients (19, 19%) were exposed to ≥ 4 advanced therapies. A significant reduction in pMS was observed from baseline to week 12 (median [IQR]: 4.0 [1.75–6.0] vs. 2.0 [0.0–4.0]; Wilcoxon signed-rank test: W = 312, Z = -5.35, p < 0.00001, n = 69) with 48 (48%) patients reaching clinical remission at week 12. Moreover, a significant improvement in bowel urgency was observed from baseline to week 12 (t(98) = 6.58, p = 2.28×10⁻⁹), with a moderate-to-large effect size (g = 0.66). From baseline to week 12, both FC and CRP levels showed significant reductions following treatment (FC: V = 1153.00, p = 2.4×10⁻⁵, r = 0.67; CRP: V = 680.00, p = 0.03, r = 0.37). Effect sizes were large for FC and moderate for CRP with paired data from 53 and 47 patients being analyzed, respectively. In total, 39 patients (39%) underwent extended induction while 3 patients (3%) discontinued the drug at week 12. There were no adverse events leading to discontinuation or death. Two mild adverse events were reported (upper respiratory tract infection in 1 patient and pyrexia in 1 patients). No significant changes were observed in liver aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels over time (AST: χ²(2) = 0.21, p = 0.90, W = 0.005; ALT: χ²(2) = 3.73, p = 0.16, W = 0.08).

Conclusion

This is the largest study demonstrating the effectiveness and safety of mirikizumab in inducing clinical remission in patients with UC in a real-life setting. Patients treated with mirikizumab achieved a significant reduction in bowel urgency, FC and CRP levels. No statistically significant increase in liver toxicity was detected during the induction treatment.

Disclosure

F. D'Amico. OM Nardone, A. Zilli, M. Allocca, S. Danese, L. Peyrin-Biroulet and A. Armuzzi have served as speaker and advisory board member for Lilly

Introduction

Vedolizumab (VDZ), a gut-selective anti-lymphocyte trafficking drug indicated for Crohn's disease (CD), is administered intravenously at Weeks 0, 2, and 6, then every 8 weeks (Q8W). Dose escalation to every 4 weeks (Q4W) may recapture response to treatment in ~50% of patients with inadequate/loss of response. Factors associated with VDZ dose escalation from Q8W to Q4W and real-world outcomes remain underexplored.

Aims & Methods

Adults with moderate to severe CD initiating VDZ Q8W maintenance therapy were prospectively followed in a Canadian patient support program (2015-2023). Two cohorts were included: 1) patients escalated to Q4W during maintenance therapy any time after week 14 infusion (Q8W>Q4W maintenance) and 2) patients maintained on Q8W treatment for ≥2 years without dose escalation (Q8W maintenance). Baseline characteristics were summarized as median (range) and frequency (%) and compared between cohorts. Rates of clinical remission (Harvey-Bradshaw Index [HBI]<5) were described stratifying by prior biologic experience. Associations between baseline factors and clinical remission 3 months after Q4W dose escalation were assessed using Wilcoxon rank sum test and Fisher’s exact test. Treatment persistence at 12 and 24 months after treatment initiation and dose escalation were evaluated in the Q8W>Q4W cohort using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

Results

250 patients were included in the Q8W>Q4W maintenance cohort (39% bio-naïve), and 116 in the Q8W maintenance cohort (51% bio-naïve). In both cohorts, median age at treatment initiation was 50 years and baseline HBI score was 10. In the Q8W>Q4W maintenance cohort, median disease duration prior to initiation of treatment was 14 years (0-69) and median follow-up duration was 22 months (7-60). In the Q8W cohort, median disease and follow-up duration were 8 years (0-50) and 35 months (27-46), respectively. At 14 weeks post-treatment initiation, rates of remission in the Q8W>Q4W maintenance cohort were 47% (bio-naïve) and 22% (bio-experienced), and in the Q8W cohort 61% (bio-naïve) and 48% (bio-experienced) (Table 1). Among patients in the Q8W>Q4W maintenance cohort not in remission at the time of dose escalating, 33% achieved remission 3 months after dose escalation to Q4W. Disease duration at baseline was shorter in these patients than in those who did not achieve remission (8 months [0-52] vs. 16 months [0-69], p=0.007). In the Q8W>Q4W maintenance cohort, 12- and 24-month treatment persistence after treatment initiation was 91% and 64% (bio-naïve) and 94% and 67% (bio-experienced), respectively. After dose escalation, 12- and 24-month treatment persistence was 66% and 59% (bio-naïve) and 69% and 53% (bio-experienced) (Table 1).

Conclusion

Patients with CD who underwent VDZ Q8W>Q4W dose escalation achieved lower rates of clinical remission than those remaining on Q8W treatment, and one third achieved clinical remission 3 months after dose escalating. Baseline disease duration was significantly associated with remission among those escalating to Q4W.

References

N/A

Disclosure

AHS: Advisory Board Membership/Consultant: Abbvie, Amgen, BioJAMP, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, McKesson, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Organon, Pendopharm, Roche, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda, Viatris, Speakers’ Bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Organon, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda, Research Grants: Abbvie, Arena, Celgene/BMS, Genentech, Janssen, Roche, Takeda.
EJB: Participation in advisory boards or speaker services: Abbvie, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Pendopharm, Jamp, Fresenius, Kabi, Bausch Health, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, BMS, Grant/Research: Janssen, Abbvie, Any other investment or relationship that could be judged by a reasonable and knowledgeable participant to have the potential to influence the content of the training activity, Abbvie, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Pendopharm, Jamp, Fresenius, Kabi, Bausch Health, Celltrion, BMS.
JFL: AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Frenesius-Kabi, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda. AHS: Advisory Board Membership/Consultant: Abbvie, Amgen, BioJAMP, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, McKesson, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Organon, Pendopharm, Roche, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda, Viatris, Speakers’ Bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Organon, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda, Research Grants: Abbvie, Arena, Celgene/BMS, Genentech, Janssen, Roche, Takeda.
PW: Personal fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Biogen, and Janssen
MJA, AW, RW: were employees of Takeda Canada Inc. at the time of the study.
RM, JW, CP: were employees of Pentavere Research Group Inc. at the time of the study.
LPB: Consulting from AbbVie, 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, GSK, HACPharma, 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, Prometheus, Protagonist, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Takeda, Theravance, Thermo Fisher, Tigenix, Tillots, Viatris, Vifor, Ysopia, Abivax, Samsung, Ventyx, Roivant, and Vectivbio; grants from Takeda, Fresenius Kabi, and Celltrion; and lecture fees from Galapagos, AbbVie, Janssen, Genentech, Ferring, Tillots, Celltrion, Takeda, Pfizer, Sandoz, Biogen, MSD, Amgen, Vifor, Arena, Lilly, Gilead, Viatris, and Medac.
BB: Advisor/Speaker: Ferring, Janssen, Abbvie, Takeda, Pfizer, BMS, Merck, Sandoz, Organon, Lifelabs, Celltrion. Advisor: Alimentiv, Gilead, Iterative Health, AMT, Celgene, Merck, Amgen, Pendopharm, Eli Lilly, BMS, Fresenius Kabi, Mylan, Viatris, Bausch Health, Celltrion Healthcare, BioJamp Pharma, Eupraxia. Research support: Janssen, Abbvie, GSK, BMS, Amgen, Genentech, Merck. Stock Options: Qu Biologic.