Efficacy and Safety of Dual Targeted Therapy for Partially or Non-responsive Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Use of Upadacitinib in 16 Tofacitinib-refractory Ulcerative Colitis Patients: A Single-center Case 2Series

We present a case series of 16 patients with ulcerative colitis who received upadacitinib after failing tofacitinib. Five patients (36%) achieved steroid-free clinical remission. Five (62%) demonstrated endoscopic response, while 2 patients (25%) achieved endoscopic remission. Adverse events were low.

Comparison of ustekinumab, infliximab and combination therapy in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis - a study protocol of a randomized, multicenter, head-to-head COMBO-UC trial

Background

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease with a complex etiology that affects the large intestine. Characterized by chronic, bloody diarrhea, UC can lead to severe complications, including an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Despite advancements in conservative treatment, including biologics like anti-TNF agents and ustekinumab (UST), many patients do not achieve full remission. Dual targeted therapy (DTT) combining infliximab (IFX) and UST is a promising approach to improve treatment outcomes.

Methods

This prospective, randomized, multicenter, head-to-head controlled trial will evaluate the efficacy and safety of UST, IFX, and combination therapy (UST + IFX) in 172 patients with moderate to severe active UC across eight gastroenterology centers in Poland. The study includes a 14-16 week remission induction period followed by a 52-week maintenance phase. Patients will be randomly assigned to one of three treatment arms: IFX monotherapy, UST monotherapy, or IFX + UST combination therapy. Primary endpoint is clinical and endoscopic remission post-induction. Secondary endpoints include clinical response, biochemical remission, histological remission, and quality of life assessments using the Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Questionnaire and 36-Item Short Form Survey. Safety will be monitored through adverse event and serious adverse event reporting.

Discussion

This trial aims to determine whether combining IFX and UST can achieve higher remission rates and better long-term outcomes compared to monotherapy. The results could provide crucial insights into the optimal use of biologic agents in UC treatment, potentially establishing DTT as a standard therapy. The study's design, including extensive follow-up and robust endpoint measures, will contribute to understanding the therapeutic potential and safety profile of this combination therapy.

To STRIDE or not to STRIDE: a critique of "treat to target" in ulcerative colitis

INTRODUCTION

The STRIDE consensus intends to complement the clinical endpoint with an endoscopic endpoint of mucosal healing and others as treatment targets in ulcerative colitis. If these targets are not reached, STRIDE requires dose or timing adjustments or switching the medication. This narrative review provides a critique of this concept.

AREAS COVERED

We analyze and discuss the limitations of current endpoints as targets, their currently limited achievability, and the lacking evidence from controlled trials relating to 'treat to target.' The relevant publications in PubMed were identified in a literature review with the key word 'ulcerative colitis.'

EXPERT OPINION

In ulcerative colitis, the standard clinical target is measured traditionally by the MAYO-score, but in variable combinations of patient and physician reported outcomes as well as also different definitions of the endoscopic part. Only a score of 0 is more stringent than clinical remission but is only achieved by a minority of patients in first and even less in second line therapy. The concept is not based on clear evidence that patients indeed benefit from appropriate escalation of treatment. Until the STRIDE approach is proven to be superior to standard treatment focusing on clinical well-being, the field should remain reluctant.

Combination treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: Present status and future perspectives

The treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), especially those with severe or refractory disease, represents an important challenge for the clinical gastroenterologist. It seems to be no exaggeration to say that in these patients, not only the scientific background of the gastroenterologist is tested, but also the abundance of "gifts" that he should possess (insight, intuition, determination, ability to take initiative, etc.) for the successful outcome of the treatment. In daily clinical practice, depending on the severity of the attack, IBD is treated with one or a combination of two or more pharmaceutical agents. These combinations include not only the first-line drugs (e.g., mesalazine, corticosteroids, antibiotics, etc) but also second- and third-line drugs (immunosuppressants and biologic agents). It is a fact that despite the significant therapeutic advances there is still a significant percentage of patients who do not satisfactorily respond to the treatment applied. Therefore, a part of these patients are going to surgery. In recent years, several small-size clinical studies, reviews, and case reports have been published combining not only biological agents with other drugs (e.g., immunosuppressants or corticosteroids) but also the combination of two biological agents simultaneously, especially in severe cases. In our opinion, it is at least a strange (and largely unexplained) fact that we often use combinations of drugs in a given patient although studies comparing the simultaneous administration of two or more drugs with monotherapy are very few. As mentioned above, there is a timid tendency in the literature to combine two biological agents in severe cases unresponsive to the applied treatment or patients with severe extraintestinal manifestations. The appropriate dosage, the duration of the administration, the suitable timing for checking the clinical and laboratory outcome, as well as the treatment side-effects, should be the subject of intense clinical research shortly. In this editorial, we attempt to summarize the existing data regarding the already applied combination therapies and to humbly formulate thoughts and suggestions for the future application of the combination treatment of biological agents in a well-defined category of patients. We suggest that the application of biomarkers and artificial intelligence could help in establishing new forms of treatment using the available modern drugs in patients with IBD resistant to treatment.

Disease clearance in ulcerative colitis: A new therapeutic target for the future

Advancements in murine modeling systems for ulcerative colitis have diversified our understanding of the pathophysiological factors involved in disease onset and progression. This has fueled the identification of molecular targets, resulting in a rapidly expanding therapeutic armamentarium. Subsequently, management strategies have evolved from symptomatic resolution to well-defined objective endpoints, including clinical remission, endoscopic remission and mucosal healing. While the incorporation of these assessment modalities has permitted targeted intervention in the context of a natural disease history and the prevention of complications, studies have consistently depicted discrepancies associated with ascertaining disease status through clinical and endoscopic measures. Current recommendations lack consideration of histological healing. The simultaneous achievement of clinical, endoscopic, and histologic remission has not been fully investigated. This has laid the groundwork for a novel therapeutic outcome termed disease clearance (DC). This article summarizes the concept of DC and its current evidence.

Ustekinumab in the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Evolving Paradigms

Inflammatory bowel diseases, comprising Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), are chronic, relapsing, and remitting immune-mediated inflammatory diseases affecting the gastrointestinal tract. Ustekinumab (UST) is a monoclonal antibody that blocks the p40 subunit of the anti-interleukin (IL) 12/23. Pivotal trials (CERTIFI and UNITI-IM for CD, UNIFI for UC) established the efficacy of UST for the induction and maintenance of remission in both CD and UC, with the most favorable results in naïve patients to biologics. In recent years, a wealth of 'real-world' data has emerged supporting positive clinical, endoscopic, and histological outcomes in patients treated with UST, as well as reassuring safety data. More recently, the results of the first head-to-head trials of UST and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists were reported. Moreover, a number of studies exploring the role of UST in specific clinical settings, such as perianal CD, postoperative complications and recurrence, extraintestinal manifestations, chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis, and pregnancy, were reported. This review explores the results reported to date on UST, including those from pivotal trials, real-world data, and emerging studies regarding therapeutic drug monitoring and immunogenicity. The safety profile of UST was also reviewed.

Burden of chronic corticosteroid use among patients with ulcerative colitis initiated on targeted treatment or conventional therapy in the United States

BACKGROUND

Chronic corticosteroid use is common in ulcerative colitis (UC); however, real-world evidence of its burden to the health care system is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify chronic corticosteroid use burden in UC.

METHODS

Adults with UC initiated on targeted treatments (ie, biologics and advanced/small molecule therapies) or conventional therapy (index date) were selected from a deidentified US insurance claims database (January 1, 2004, to September 30, 2021). Targeted treatments and conventional therapy initiators were stratified into chronic (>90 days corticosteroid use 12 months post-index [landmark]) and nonchronic corticosteroid users. Patient characteristics 12 months pre-index were balanced with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Health care resource use, costs (US$ 2021), and corticosteroid-related complications were compared in the 12 months post-landmark. RESULTS: Targeted treatment initiators included 1,886 chronic and 1,911 nonchronic corticosteroid users; conventional therapy initiators included 4,980 chronic and 5,199 nonchronic users. Chronic vs nonchronic users had 94% more inpatient days and 16% more outpatient visits among targeted treatment initiators, and 135% more inpatient days and 30% more outpatient visits among conventional therapy initiators (all P < 0.01). Mean all-cause total costs per patient per year were $73,491 for chronic vs $58,884 for nonchronic users ($14,607 higher; P < 0.01) for targeted treatment initiators, and $39,335 for chronic vs $21,271 for nonchronic users ($18,065 higher; P < 0.01) for conventional therapy initiators. Odds of infection and bone loss were 14% and 113% higher, respectively, in chronic vs nonchronic users among targeted treatment initiators and 29% and 47% higher in chronic vs nonchronic users among conventional therapy initiators (all P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that chronic corticosteroid use is associated with substantial clinical and economic burden and may indicate unmet needs in the management of UC progression.

Extraintestinal Cancers in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a group of chronic multifactorial inflammatory disorders including two major entities: Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Preliminary evidence suggests that patients with IBD may be at increased risk of developing intestinal and extraintestinal cancers (EICs). Actually, little is known about the association between IBD and EICs, and there is ever-growing concern regarding the safety of immunomodulators and biological therapy, which may represent a risk factor for carcinogenesis.

AIMS

The aim of this review is to summarize the evidence regarding the association between IBD and EICs, the safety of immunomodulators and biological therapy and the management of immunomodulators and biologic agents in IBD patients with prior or current EICs.

RESULTS

IBD patients have a higher risk of developing different forms of extraintestinal solid organ tumors and hematological malignancies. Immunomodulators and biological therapy may increase the risk of developing some types of EICs and may be consciously used in patients with IBD and current or prior history of malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Decisions regarding the use of immunomodulators or biological therapies should be made on an individual basis, considering a multidisciplinary approach involving oncologists.