Comparative onset of effect of biologics and small molecules in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Extended Induction and Prognostic Indicators of Response in Patients Treated with Mirikizumab with Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis in the LUCENT Trials

BACKGROUND

Efficacy and safety of mirikizumab, a p19-targeted anti-interleukin-23 monoclonal antibody, for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis was demonstrated previously. We evaluated clinical response, baseline characteristics, and clinical status in patients not responding by 12 weeks (W) of induction who then received extended induction treatment.

METHOD

Patients unresponsive to 300 mg of intravenous (IV) mirikizumab every 4 weeks by W12 received 3 additional 300 mg IV doses every 4 weeks. Week-4 responders received 200 mg mirikizumab every 4 weeks subcutaneously until W52. Patients responding by W12 but subsequently losing response received rescue therapy with 300 mg IV for 3 doses every 4 weeks. Logistic regression modelling was performed for patients not achieving W12 clinical response to assess baseline characteristics and W12 efficacy parameters and potential prognostic factors of clinical response at W24.

RESULTS

Of patients not achieving clinical response during induction, 53.7% achieved response following extended induction. After 52W, 72.2%, 43.1%, and 36.1% of patients achieved clinical response, endoscopic, and clinical remission, respectively. Of induction responders who subsequently lost response, 63.2% and 36.8% achieved symptomatic response and remission, respectively, after receiving rescue therapy No prior biologic or tofacitinib treatment, no immunomodulators at baseline, age older than 40 years, and W12 modified Mayo Score improvement were positively associated with a response to extended induction. The safety profile was similar to initial induction, with 38.3% treatment emergent adverse events, mostly mild.

CONCLUSION

With "extended induction," total of 80.3% mirikizumab-treated patients achieved clinical response by W24. Potential prognostic factors determining response include disease severity, disease phenotype, C-reactive protein, and previous biologic therapy.

Network Meta-Analysis: Histologic and Histo-Endoscopic Improvement and Remission With Advanced Therapy in Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

Histology has prognostic value in ulcerative colitis (UC). However, direct comparisons of histological endpoints are lacking.

AIM

To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare histological endpoints with biologics and small molecules.

METHODS

We searched four databases up until July 2024 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on advanced therapies for moderate-to-severe UC reporting histological endpoints. Outcomes included histological improvement or remission, and histo-endoscopic improvement after induction or during maintenance. We used a random-effects frequentist model and have reported outcomes as relative risk and 95% confidence interval. We estimated relative drug efficacy with the P-score. We conducted subgroup analysis by trial phase and evaluated risk of bias and evidence certainty.

RESULTS

We included 24 RCTs (15 therapies, 8874 patients). Nineteen provided data on induction and 10 on maintenance; outcome definitions were similar. Etrasimod 2 mg/day ranked highest in achieving histologic improvement (P-score 0.98) and remission (P-score 0.90) following induction. Globally, guselkumab 200-400 mg ranked first for histo-endoscopic improvement, while etrasimod 2 mg/day and upadacitinib 45 mg/day were superior in the subgroup analysis. During maintenance, upadacitinib 30 mg/day was superior in achieving histologic improvement and remission (P-score 0.88 for both) and histo-endoscopic improvement (P-score 0.94). Etrasimod 2 mg/day ranked second for histologic remission (P-score 0.70) and histo-endoscopic improvement (P-score 0.73), while mirikizumab 200 mg/month ranked second for histologic improvement.

CONCLUSION

These results support the ability of small molecules to achieve stringent endpoints in moderate-to-severe UC. Histological outcome data for biologics was sparser, particularly during maintenance. Head-to-head RCTs are imperative to better inform clinical practice.

Comparative Effectiveness of Ozanimod and Vedolizumab as First-Line Advanced Therapies in Ulcerative Colitis: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is limited real-world evidence comparing the effectiveness of ozanimod to vedolizumab as first-line advanced therapies in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a multi-institutional US database in adults with UC who were initiated on ozanimod compared to vedolizumab between January 1, 2021 and 22 June, 2024. The primary outcome was to compare the risk of a composite outcome of corticosteroid use, colectomy, or change to another advanced therapy between the 2 cohorts within 12 months. 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed for demographics, comorbid conditions, disease extent, laboratory parameters, and previous corticosteroid use. The risk was expressed as an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

We identified 222 patients in the ozanimod cohort (mean age 41.2 ± 15.7, 46.3% male sex, 68% White, and 22.5% ulcerative proctitis), and 4145 patients in the vedolizumab cohort (mean age 47.4 ± 18.3, 45.2% male sex, 69.7% White, and 17.2% ulcerative proctitis). After PSM, there was no significant difference in the risk of the composite outcome (aOR 0.92, 95% CI, 0.63-1.36) and corticosteroid use (aOR 0.80, 95% CI, 0.53-1.18) between the 2 cohorts within 12 months. There was a higher risk of change in therapy in the ozanimod cohort (aOR 1.95, 95% CI, 1.09-3.49) compared to the vedolizumab cohort. Colectomy rates were low in both cohorts (<0.04%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our real-world study showed that ozanimod use is associated with similar corticosteroid use but higher odds of a change in therapy compared to vedolizumab when used as first-line therapy in patients with UC. Further prospective studies are needed to understand long-term outcomes.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib vs. Vedolizumab, Ustekinumab, and Tofacitinib After Induction and Maintenance for Ulcerative Colitis: Three Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons

INTRODUCTION

Evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of approved therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) during induction and maintenance, including upadacitinib (UPA), vedolizumab (VEDO), ustekinumab (UST), and tofacitinib (TOFA), is limited.

METHODS

Using data from phase 3 trials, three placebo (PBO)-anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of the efficacy and safety of UPA versus VEDO, UST, and TOFA (U-ACHIEVE and U-ACCOMPLISH, GEMINI-1, UNIFI, and OCTAVE induction and maintenance trials) have been conducted. Baseline characteristics from UPA trials were weighted separately to match each comparator trial. Induction responders were re-randomized to oral UPA 15 or 30 mg, VEDO 300 mg intravenously every 8 weeks (Q8W), UST 90 mg SC Q8W, or oral TOFA 5 mg, or PBO in maintenance. Treat-through efficacy outcomes at weeks 44(UST)/46(VEDO)/52(UPA/TOFA) were adjusted by the likelihood of induction response and included clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic improvement. Safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and AEs leading to discontinuation (except UPA vs. VEDO). Benefit-risk was assessed by numbers needed to treat (NNT)/harm, calculated as the inverse of the difference in proportions of patients achieving each efficacy/safety outcome for UPA versus comparator.

RESULTS

The proportions of patients who demonstrated clinical response or endoscopic improvement was greater with UPA 15 mg versus VEDO and TOFA (p < 0.05). The proportions of patients demonstrating all treat-through efficacy outcomes were significantly greater with UPA 30 mg versus VEDO, UST, or TOFA with NNTs 3.2-8.7. No significant differences in proportions of AEs, SAEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation were observed between the two doses of UPA and comparators.

CONCLUSION

In patients with active UC, greater clinical efficacy, and similar safety after 1 year of maintenance were observed with UPA versus VEDO, UST, and TOFA, suggesting a favorable benefit-risk profile for UPA. Despite matched baseline characteristics, differences in trial design and endpoints may persist.

Game changer: How Janus kinase inhibitors are reshaping the landscape of ulcerative colitis management

Recent advancements in the treatment landscape of ulcerative colitis (UC) have ushered in a new era of possibilities, particularly with the introduction of Janus kinase (JAK)-signal transducer and activator of transcription inhibitors. These novel agents offer a paradigm shift in UC management by targeting key signaling pathways involved in inflammatory processes. With approved JAK inhibitors (JAKis), such as tofacitinib, filgotinib, and upadacitinib, clinicians now have powerful tools to modulate immune responses and gene expression, potentially revolutionizing the treatment algorithm for UC. Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of JAKis in inducing and maintaining remission, presenting viable options for patients who have failed conventional therapies. Real-world data support the use of JAKis not only as first-line treatments but also in subsequent lines of therapy, particularly in patients with aggressive disease phenotypes or refractory to biologic agents. The rapid onset of action and potency of JAKis have broadened the possibilities in the management strategies of UC, offering timely relief for patients with active disease and facilitating personalized treatment approaches. Despite safety concerns, including cardiovascular risks and infections, ongoing research and post-marketing surveillance will continue to refine our understanding of the risk-benefit profile of JAKis in UC management.

Biologicals for the treatment of lupus nephritis: a Bayesian network meta-regression analysis

Background

Previous studies comparing the efficacy and safety of different treatment regimens for lupus nephritis are scarce. Moreover, confounding factors such as the duration of follow-up were hardly adjusted in those studies, potentially compromising the results and their extents to clinical settings.

Objective

To rigorously investigate the efficacy and safety of biologics in patients with lupus nephritis using Bayesian network meta-regression analyses that adjust for the follow-up period, in order to provide more robust evidence for clinicians.

Methods

Databases comprising PubMed, Embase, MedlinePlus, Cochrane Library, Google Scholars, and Scopus were retrieved for eligible articles from inception to February 29, 2024. The primary endpoint was the complete response rate, the secondary endpoint was the partial response rate, the tertiary endpoints were the adverse events, and infection-related adverse events. Napierian Logarithm of hazard ratio (lnHR) and the standard error of lnHR (selnHR) were generated for dichotomous variants by STATA 18.0 MP and then put into Rstudio 4.3.2 to conduct Bayesian network meta-analysis as well as network meta-regression analysis to yield hazard ratio (HR) as pairwise effect size.

Results

Ten studies involving 2138 patients and 11 treatment regimens were ultimately included. In the original analysis, for the primary endpoint, compared to the control group, obinutuzumab (22.6 months), abatacept-30mg (20.5 months), abatacept-10mg (17.8 months), and belimumab (23.3 months) demonstrated significant superiority (HR ranged from 1.6 to 2.5), more ever, their significance regarding relative efficacy was correlated with follow up period, namely "time window" (shown in parentheses above). For the secondary endpoint, compared to the control group, obinutuzumab and abatacept-30mg showed conspicuous preponderance (HR ranged from 1.6 to 2.4), "time window" was also detected in abatacept-30mg (20.5 months), whereas obinutuzumab remained consistently obviously effective regardless of the follow-up period (shown in parentheses above). For the tertiary endpoint, there were no differences among active regimens and control.

Conclusions

Considering the efficacy and safety and "time window" phenomenon, we recommend obinutuzumab as the preferred treatment for LN. Certainly, more rigorous head-to-head clinical trials are warranted to validate those findings.

Network meta-analysis: Comparative onset of early effect of biologics and small molecules in moderately to severely active luminal Crohn's disease

INTRODUCTION

Rapidity of effect of advanced therapies for patients with Crohn's disease (CD) can be an essential decision parameter; however, comparative evaluation is lacking. We aimed to compare early response for advanced CD therapies in a network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

We searched systematically MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL up to 19 February 2024, for randomised controlled trials. The co-primary outcomes were induction of clinical remission (Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤150) and clinical response (≥100-point reduction in CDAI) within the first 6 weeks of treatment. We incorporated any assessment within this time point in a Bayesian random-effects NMA following PRISMA-NMA guidance (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022368509).

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies, comprising 7414 patients, were included. Infliximab combined with azathioprine or monotherapy ranked highest for induction of clinical remission within 6 weeks and was significantly superior to certolizumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, vedolizumab, and upadacitinib. However, superiority over risankizumab 600 mg and adalimumab 160/80 mg was non-significant. Accordingly, infliximab in combination with azathioprine and guselkumab 600 mg ranked highest in the corresponding analysis of clinical response with no statistical significance demonstrated. Among bio-exposed patients, none of whom received infliximab, upadacitinib, and risankizumab induced the highest clinical responses. On the other hand, vedolizumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab ranked lowest across the analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

We found infliximab to be ranked highest and superior to all other agents but risankizumab and adalimumab, demonstrating the highest probability of early induction of remission. Upadacitinib and risankizumab induced the highest clinical responses in bio-exposed patients. However, infliximab was not investigated in this population.

Approach to loss of response to advanced therapies in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Remarkable progress over the last decade has equipped clinicians with many options in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Clinicians now have the unique opportunity to provide individualized treatment that can achieve and sustain remission in many patients. However, issues of primary non-response (PNR) and secondary loss of response (SLOR) to non-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapies remains a common problem. Specific issues include the choice of optimization of therapy, identifying when dose optimization will recapture response, establishing optimal dose for escalation and when to switch therapy.

AIM

To explores the issues of PNR and SLOR to non-TNFi therapies.

METHODS

This review explores the current evidence and literature to elucidate management options in cases of PNR/SLOR. It will also explore potential predictors for response following SLOR/PNR to therapies including the role of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM).

RESULTS

In the setting of PNR and loss of response to alpha-beta7-integrin inhibitors and interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 inhibitors dose optimization is a reasonable option to capture response. For Janus kinase inhibitors dose optimization can be utilized to recapture response with loss of response.

CONCLUSION

The role of TDM in the setting of advanced non-TNFi therapies to identify patients who require dose optimization and as a predictor for clinical remission is not yet established and this remains an area that should be addressed in the future.

Extracellular Vesicles: Novel Potential Therapeutic Agents in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Patients affected by inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) can nowadays benefit from a growing number of pharmacological options. However, in moderate-to-severe cases, the therapeutic response is still far from optimal, and treatment changes and optimizations are often required. Thus, researchers in this field are strongly engaged in studies aiming to identify new potential therapeutic targets. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are tiny subcellular bodies with a phospholipid bilayer envelope containing bioactive molecules, which are released from different cells and are involved in intercellular communication. Recent pre-clinical data show their emerging role in the pathogenesis and treatment of IBD. In our review, we summarize current evidence about the function of EVs as active therapeutic agents in ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, analyzing the properties of EVs derived from different cellular sources and the mechanisms through which they may improve intestinal inflammation.

Does cardiovascular risk matter in IBD patients?

Cardiovascular and thromboembolic risks are increasing in the population as a whole and therefore also in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Obesity is a worldwide challenge also affecting the IBD population, and a causal association with Crohn's disease may exist. IBD itself, particularly when active, is also associated with a significant risk of thromboembolic and cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction and stroke. Cardiovascular risk is also a significant consideration when using Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors and sphingosine 1 phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators to treat IBD. JAK inhibitors - such as tofacitinib - are associated with several cardiovascular and venous thromboembolic risks, including hypertension and alterations in lipid profiles - specifically, increased LDL cholesterol and triglycerides - which may contribute to atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease. S1P receptor modulators pose a slightly different set of cardiovascular risks. Initially, these drugs can cause transient bradycardia and atrioventricular (AV) block, leading to bradycardia. Moreover, they may induce QT interval prolongation, which increases the risk of life-threatening arrhythmias such as torsades de pointes. Some patients may also experience hypertension as a side effect. In this context, IBD healthcare providers need to be alert to the assessment of cardiovascular risk - particularly as cardiovascular events appear to be confined to specific patient groups with pre-existing risk factors. In addition, the potential for S1P modulator drug interactions requires a higher level of vigilance in patients with polypharmacy compared to biologics. Cardiovascular risk is not static, and updated assessment will need to become part of the routine in many IBD units.

Precision medicine in monogenic inflammatory bowel disease: proposed mIBD REPORT standards

Owing to advances in genomics that enable differentiation of molecular aetiologies, patients with monogenic inflammatory bowel disease (mIBD) potentially have access to genotype-guided precision medicine. In this Expert Recommendation, we review the therapeutic research landscape of mIBD, the reported response to therapies, the medication-related risks and systematic bias in reporting. The mIBD field is characterized by the absence of randomized controlled trials and is dominated by retrospective observational data based on case series and case reports. More than 25 off-label therapeutics (including small-molecule inhibitors and biologics) as well as cellular therapies (including haematopoietic stem cell transplantation and gene therapy) have been reported. Heterogeneous reporting of outcomes impedes the generation of robust therapeutic evidence as the basis for clinical decision making in mIBD. We discuss therapeutic goals in mIBD and recommend standardized reporting (mIBD REPORT (monogenic Inflammatory Bowel Disease Report Extended Phenotype and Outcome of Treatments) standards) to stratify patients according to a genetic diagnosis and phenotype, to assess treatment effects and to record safety signals. Implementation of these pragmatic standards should help clinicians to assess the therapy responses of individual patients in clinical practice and improve comparability between observational retrospective studies and controlled prospective trials, supporting future meta-analysis.