Introduction

The 36-week (W) POWER trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of a single intravenous (IV) re-induction ustekinumab (UST) dose vs continued UST subcutaneous (SC) treatment in Crohn’s disease (CD) patients with secondary loss of response (LoR) to standard UST maintenance therapy. Here, we report subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint by baseline characteristics.

Aims & Methods

Adults with moderately–severely active CD who initially responded to UST IV induction therapy per label and later experienced LoR were included. LoR was defined as CD Activity Index (CDAI) score of ≥220 and ≤450, plus either elevated C-reactive protein (CRP; >3mg/L), faecal calprotectin (fCal; >250mg/kg), or endoscopy performed ≤3 months before W0 with ≥1 ulcerations in ileum and/or colon (active CD). At baseline (W0), randomised patients received ~6mg/kg IV UST/SC placebo (IV arm) or IV placebo/SC UST 90mg (SC arm), followed by SC UST 90mg dosing at W8/16. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise baseline characteristics. Clinical assessments occurred at W0/8/16. Primary endpoint: clinical response (CRes; decrease of ≥100 points from W0 or CDAI <150) at W16. Odds ratios (ORs), confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values were estimated with a logistic regression model.

Results

The full analysis set comprised 215 patients at W0 (SC, n=107; IV, n=108). At W16, 86.0% (SC) and 92.6% (IV) of patients completed treatment. At W16, 37.4% (SC) and 49.1% (IV) of patients achieved CRes (p=0.089). Of all baseline characteristics, disease location and duration, inflammatory biomarkers, and prior biologic failures were of particular interest (Table). A greater proportion of patients from the IV vs SC arm achieved CRes at W16 (OR 3.6; 95%CI 1.6–8.1; p=0.002) of those with ileum and colon involvement. Patients with disease duration of <5 years in the IV (n=22) vs SC (n=20) arm were more likely to achieve W16 CRes (OR 4.5; 95%CI 1.2–17.4; p=0.029). A greater proportion of patients in the IV vs SC arm with elevated baseline CRP (OR 2.1; 95%CI 1.1–4.0; p=0.029) or fCal (OR 2.0; 95%CI 1.0–4.0; p=0.045) achieved W16 CRes as did patients with 1 prior biologic failure (OR 2.8; 95%CI 1.0–7.6; p=0.042).

Conclusion

POWER assessed the efficacy and safety of UST IV re-induction in patients with LoR during UST maintenance therapy. This analysis suggests that patients with fewer prior biologic exposures and shorter disease duration but a higher disease burden at baseline including greater disease extent involving ileum and colon, or elevated inflammatory biomarkers, are more likely to benefit from UST IV re-induction therapy.

Disclosure

I. Marín-Jiménez has served as a consultant, advisory member, speaker or has received research funding from Abbvie, Chiesi, Faes Farma, FalkPharma, Ferring, Gebro Pharma, Hospira, Janssen, MSD, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Shire, Takeda, Tillots and UCB Pharma. S. Schreiber has received personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion Healthcare, Dr. Falk Pharma, Fresenius, Galapagos/Gilead, Hikma, I-Mab, Janssen, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Protagonist, ProventionBio, Takeda and Theravance Biopharma. S. Lee served as a consultant for Applied Molecular Transport, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bridge Biotherapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion Healthcare, Cornerstones Health, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, KCRN Research, Samsung Bioepis and UCB; and received research grants from AbbVie, AbGenomics, Arena, Celgene, Janssen, Salix, Takeda and UCB. C.J. van der Woude received grant support from Falk Ben-elux, Ferring and Pfizer; received speaker fees from AbbVie, Takeda, Ferring, Dr Falk Pharma and Pfizer; and served as a consultant for Janssen. D. Wolf has received honoraria as a speaker, consultant and/or advisory board member from AbbVie, Arena, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer and Takeda. E. Schnoy has received personal fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion Healthcare, Dr. Falk Pharma, Galapagos/Gilead, I-Mab, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Takeda and Tillotts Pharma. B. Salzberg served as a consultant for Johnson and Johnson and has received honoraria as a speaker from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Johnson and Johnson. M. Nazar is an employee of Janssen-Cilag Polska Sp. z o.o., and has restricted stocks. C. Busse, W. Langholff, C. Gasink, T. Baker and B. Godwin report employment with/funding by Janssen Research & Development, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, and stock ownership in Johnson & Johnson. B. Feagan received grant/research support from AbbVie Inc., Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca/MedImmune Ltd., Atlantic Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene Corporation, Celltech, Genentech Inc/Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Gilead Sciences Inc., GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Janssen Research & Development LLC., Pfizer Inc., Receptos Inc./Celgene International, Sanofi, Santarus Inc., Takeda Development Center Americas Inc., Tillotts Pharma AG and UCB; was a consultant for Abbott/AbbVie, AdMIRx Inc., Akebia Therapeutics, Allergan, Amgen, Applied Molecular Transport Inc., Aptevo Therapeutics, Asta Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Atlantic Pharma, Avir Pharma, Biogen Idec, BioMx Israel, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calypso Biotech, Celgene, Elan/Biogen, EnGene, Ferring Pharma, Galapagos, Galen/Atlantica, GiCare Pharma, Gilead, Gossamer Pharma, GSK, Inception IBD Inc, Intact Therapeutics, JnJ/Janssen, Kyowa Kakko Kirin Co Ltd., Lexicon, Lilly, Lycera BioTech, Merck, Mesoblast Pharma, Millennium, Nestles, Nextbiotix, Novonordisk, ParImmune, Parvus Therapeutics Inc., Pfizer, Prometheus Therapeutics and Diagnostics, Progenity, Protagonist, Qu Biologics, Rebiotix, Receptos, Roche/Genentech, Salix Pharma, Shire, Sienna Biologics, Sigmoid Pharma, Sterna Biologicals, Synergy Pharma Inc., Takeda, Teva Pharma, TiGenix, Tillotts, UCB Pharma, Vertex Pharma, Vivelix Pharma, VHsquared Ltd. and Zyngenia; was a member of the speakers bureau for Abbott/AbbVie, JnJ/Janssen, Lilly, Takeda, Tillotts and UCB Pharma; a member of the scientific advisory board for Abbott/AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Atlantic Pharma, Avaxia Biologics Inc., Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Centocor Inc., Elan/Biogen, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, JnJ/Janssen, Merck, Nestles, Novartis, Novonordisk, Pfizer, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonist, Salix Pharma, Sterna Biologicals, Takeda, Teva, TiGenix, Tillotts Pharma AG and UCB Pharma; and was a Senior Scientific Officer for Robarts Clinical Trials Inc.

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

Etrasimod is an investigational, oral, once-daily, selective sphingosine 1‑phosphate (S1P)_1,4,5 receptor modulator in development for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC).

Aims & Methods

The study design for phase 3 ELEVATE UC 52 (NCT03945188) and ELEVATE UC 12 (NCT03996369) trials has been described previously.¹ ELEVATE UC 52 comprised a 12‑week (wk) induction period followed by a 40‑wk maintenance period with a treat-through design. ELEVATE UC 12 comprised a 12‑wk induction period. Patients (pts) had a documented history of inadequate response/loss of response/intolerance to ≥ 1 treatment for UC. This subgroup analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of etrasimod 2 mg once daily vs placebo (PBO) in adults with UC by prior exposure to advanced (biologic/Janus kinase inhibitor [bio/JAKi]) therapy. We present subgroup efficacy analyses of the primary and select secondary endpoints at Wk 12 and Wk 52 in ELEVATE UC 52 and Wk 12 in ELEVATE UC 12 in pts naïve to, or with prior exposure to, ≥ 1 bio/JAKi therapy. Additional symptomatic endpoints were analysed by study visit to Wk 12 (pooled ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12).

Results

In ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12, respectively, 274 and 222 pts with a baseline modified Mayo score 5–9 were treated with etrasimod, and 135 and 112 pts with PBO. Pts treated with etrasimod vs PBO, in both bio/JAKi‑naïve and -exposed subgroups, achieved statistically significant improvements in clinical remission, clinical response and endoscopic improvement at Wks 12 and 52 in ELEVATE UC 52 (Table). In ELEVATE UC 12, bio/JAKi-naïve pts achieved statistically significant improvements in all endpoints, while pts in both subgroups achieved statistically significant improvements in clinical response (Table). In bio/JAKi‑naïve and -exposed pts, respectively, pooled data showed the earliest significant improvements were during Wks 2 and 12 for symptomatic response and Wks 4 and 2 for symptomatic remission (Table).

Conclusion

In ELEVATE UC 52, both bio/JAKi-naïve and -exposed pts treated with etrasimod showed statistically significant improvements in induction and maintenance efficacy endpoints vs PBO. In ELEVATE UC 12, etrasimod demonstrated statistically significant improvements vs PBO in induction in bio/JAKi-naïve pts. For symptomatic response in the pooled analysis, a significant treatment difference occurred later for bio/JAKi-exposed than -naïve pts.

References

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

Disclosure

SV: research: AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer, Galapagos, Takeda; consultancy/advisory: AbbVie, AbolerIS, Alimentiv, Arena, AstraZeneca, Avaxia, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, CVasThera, Dr. Falk, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Hospira, Imidomics, Janssen, J&J, MateriaPrima, MiroBio, Morphic, MrMHealth, MSD, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Prodigest, Progenity, Prometheus, Robarts Clinical Trials, Second Genome, Shire, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, Tillotts, Zealand; speaker: AbbVie, Dr. Falk, Ferring, Hospira, MSD, Takeda, Tillotts.
BES: research: Arena, Janssen. Speaker: BMS, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda. consultancy/advisory: AbbVie, Alimentiv, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Prometheus, Sun, Takeda, Teva. Stock: Ventyx. Non-financial: Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda.
LPB: research: Takeda, Fresenius Kabi, Celltrion; consultancy: AbbVie, Alimentiv, Alma Bio, Amgen, AppliedMolecular Transport, Arena, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, CONNECT Biopharm, Cytoki, Enthera, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, Gossamer, GSK, HAC, IAG Image Analysis, Index, Inotrem, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Medac, Mopac, Morphic, MSD, Norgine, Novartis, OM, ONO, OSE, Pandion, Par'Immune, Pfizer, Prometheus, Protagonist, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, Theravance, Thermo Fisher, TiGenix, Tillotts, Viatris, Vifor, Ysopia, Abivax; speaker: Galapagos, AbbVie, Janssen, Genentech, Ferring, Tillotts, Celltrion, Takeda, Pfizer, Sandoz, Biogen, MSD, Amgen, Vifor, Arena, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Viatris, Medac, Sanofi; stock: CTMA.
GD’H: advisor: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Alimentiv, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Cosmo, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GSK, J&J, Takeda, Pfizer, Polpharma, Prometheus, Tillotts, Ventyx; speaker: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, J&J, Takeda, Pfizer, Tillotts.
JP: personal: AbbVie, Arena, Athos, Atomwise, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Immunic, Janssen, Mirum, Morphic, Nestlé, Origo, Pandion, Pfizer, Progenity, Revolo, Takeda, Theravance, Wassermann; grants: AbbVie, Pfizer.
AJY: consultancy: Pfizer, Arena, Takeda, BMS; speaker: BMS.
DW: research grants: AbbVie, Arena, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, Ventyx; speaker: AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda; consultant: AbbVie, Arena, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda.
TR: speaker: Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, BMS, AbbVie, Lilly; Data Adjudication: Ferring/Rebiotix; Advisory boards: AbbVie, Ardelyx, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS/Celgene, Ferring, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Intercept, Iterative Scopes (shareholder), Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Prometheus, Sanofi, Takeda, Nestle/Seres
SS: speaker: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Dr. Falk, Fresenius, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda; consultancy/advisory: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Dr. Falk, Fresenius, Gilead, IMAB, Janssen, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Protagonist, Provention, Takeda, Theravance.
KS, CJR: employees & shareholders of Pfizer.
MVC: grants: Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis, BMS; consultancy: AbbVie, Arena, BMS, Medtronic, Pfizer, Prometheus, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Takeda; speaker: AbbVie, Janssen, Medtronic, Pfizer, BMS, Takeda.
FB: research: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Takeda; speaker: AbbVie, Arena, Celltrion, Ferring, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda; consultancy: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Sandoz.
MCD: research: Janssen; consultancy: AbbVie, Arena, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Prometheus, Takeda, Trellus Health, UCB; stock: Trellus; directorship/ownership interests: Trellus.
MG: employee & shareholder of Pfizer AG.
SD: consultancy/advisory: AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Gilead, Hospira, Janssen, J&J, MSD, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, TiGenix, UCB, Vifor; speaker: AbbVie, Amgen, Ferring, Gilead, Janssen, Mylan, Pfizer, Takeda; directorship/ownership interests: Gastroenterology and Endoscopy.
BGF: consultant/advisory board: AbbVie, AbolerIS, AgomAB, AllianThera, Amgen, AnaptysBio, AppliedMolecular Transport, Arena, Avoro Capital, Atomwise, BIOJAMP, Biora, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boxer, Celsius, Celgene/BMS, Connect, Cytoki, Disc Medicine, Duality, EcoR1, Eli Lilly, Equillium, Ermium, First Wave, FirstWord, Galapagos, Galen Atlantica, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Gossamer, GSK, Hinge, HotSpot, InDex, Imhotex, Immunic, JAK, Janssen, Japan Tobacco, Kaleido, Landos, Leadiant, L.E.K., Lenczner Slaght, LifeSci, Lument AB, Millennium, MiroBio, Morgan Lewis, Morphic, Mylan, OM, Origo, Orphagen, Pandion, Pendopharm, Pfizer, Prometheus, Diagnostics, Play to Know AG, Progenity, Protagonist, PTM, Q32, Rebiotix, REDX, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Seres, Silverback, Surrozen, Takeda, Teva, Thelium, TiGenix, Tillotts, Ventyx, VHSquared, Viatris, Ysios, YSOPIA, Zealand; speaker: AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda; Alimentiv Senior Scientific Director (central reading services; not a company employee, no equity); shareholder: Gossamer

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.

Introduction

Th17 cells are found enriched in inflamed intestinal lesions of Crohn’s disease (CD) patients. Several evidences indicate that Th17 cells may have both a protective role in the gut but also a more pro-inflammatory function. Indeed, in response to specific polarizing cytokines and pathogenic stimuli, Th17 cells can transdifferentiate into IFNγ-producing Th17 cells acquiring a more pathogenic profile. Here, we aimed to identify the specific immunological and transcriptomic profile of intestinal-resident IFNγ-producing Th17 cells, as well as the role in the CD pathogenesis and specific gut microbiota components that induce their activation and selective increase in the gut of CD patients.

Aims & Methods

In order to define the role of IFNγ-producing Th17 cells in chronic intestinal inflammation, CD4⁺T cell subsets from CD patients and controls were phenotypically and functionally analyzed by RNA sequencing and flow cytometry. They were analyzed for responses to CD-relevant antigens with the antigen-specificity assay and monitored in CD patients before and after treatment with antibodies that neutralize TNFα (Infliximab), integrin α4β7 (Vedolizumab), or IL-23p19 (Risankizumab).

Results

Th17 cells expressing CCR5 (“pTh17”) co-produced the highest levels of IFNγ/IL-17 but were distinct from established Th1/17 cells. pTh17 cells were associated with intestinal inflammation in CD, but not with UC. Conversely, Th1/17 cells, which also co-produced IFNγ/IL-17, were not increased in inflamed compared to non-inflamed lamina propria of CD or non-IBD patients. Biological therapies differentially affected intestinal pTh17 cell frequency: whether Infliximab significantly reduced gut-infiltrating pTh17 in CD responder patients, Vedolizumab only impaired migration of cTh17 cells to the gut but did not reduce intestinal-resident pTh17 cells. Notably, pTh17 cells transdifferentiated in-vitro from conventional CCR5^-Th17 cells (“cTh17”) in the presence of IL-23. Consistently, intestinal pTh17 cells were specifically and strongly reduced after Risankizumab therapy in CD patients. Importantly, intestinal pTh17 cells were selectively activated by adherent-invasive Escherichia coli strains, but not by a commensal/probiotic E. coli strain. In contrast, Th1/17 cells were selectively activated by Cytomegalovirus.

Conclusion

We identified a previously uncharacterized subset of human intestinal IFNγ-producing Th17 cells, whose generation was promoted by IL-23 in vitro and in vivo. CCR5⁺Th17 cells (pTh17) produced high levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, were selectively associated with intestinal inflammation in CD, and responded to CD-associated AIEC strains, suggesting a key pathogenic role in CD. Finally, besides the possibility to use pTh17 cells as a diagnostic or predictive biomarker, they also represent an important novel target for the development of new therapeutic strategies aimed at selectively blocking the harmful signalling pathways driving intestinal chronic inflammation in CD.

Disclosure

• Prof. M. Vecchi served as a consultant to Abbvie, MSD, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, and Celgene. He received lecturer fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Takeda, MSD, Janssen-Cilag, and Zambon.
• Prof. F. Caprioli has served as consultant to Mundipharma, AbbVie, MSD, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, and Celgene; received lecture fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Takeda, Allergy Therapeutics, and Janssen; and received unrestricted research grants from Giuliani, SOFAR, MS&D, Takeda, Pfizer and AbbVie.
• All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.