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

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.

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.

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.

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.