Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib Induction Therapy in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Crohn’s Disease: Results From a Randomized Phase 3 U-EXCEL Study

Introduction: Eligible patients(N=526) with moderate to severe active Crohn’s Disease(CD), defined as average daily stool frequency(SF)≥4 and/or abdominal pain score(APS)≥2, and a Simple Endoscopic Score for CD(SES-CD) (excluding the narrowing component subscore) ≥6(≥4 for subjects with isolated ileal disease). PBO % [95% CI] h Co-Primary Endpoints Clinical remission, wk 12  Per CDAI a  Per SF/APS b 29.1 [22.4, 35.8] 22.2 [16.0, 28.3] 49.5 [44.2, 54.8] 50.7 [45.5, 56.0] 20.8 [12.7, 28.8]** 28.7 [20.9, 36.4]** Endoscopic response c , wk 12 13.1 [8.1, 18.0] 45.5 [40.3, 50.8] 33.0 [26.2, 39.9]** Key Secondary Endpoints Clinical Remission, wk 4  Per CDAI a  Per SF/APS b 26.7 [20.2, 33.3] 14.8 [9.5, 20.0] 37.1 [32.1, 42.2] 35.7 [30.7, 40.7] 10.8 [2.9, 18.6]* 21.2 [14.3, 28.2]** Corticosteroid-free clinical remission, wk 12  per CDAI d  per SF/APS d (N=64) 15.7 [6.8, 24.7] 12.5 [4.4, 20.6] (N=126) 42.9 [34.2, 51.5] 44.4 [35.8, 53.1] 27.7 [15.7, 39.8]** 32.6 [21.5, 43.7]** Clinical Response CR-100 e  Week 2  Week 12 20.4 [14.4, 26.5] 37.3 [30.1, 44.5] 32.2 [27.3, 37.1] 56.6 [51.4, 61.8] 11.7 [4.2, 19.2]* 19.8 [11.3, 28.4]** Endoscopic remission f , wk 12 7.4 [3.5, 11.3] 28.9 [24.2, 33.7] 21.8 [15.8, 27.8]** Patient randomization was stratified by baseline corticosteroid use, endoscopic disease severity, and the number of previously failed biologics. All patients within this dataset were included here within the ITT population. a Clinical remission per CDAI = per US, CDAI < 150. b Clinical remission per SF/APS = per EU, average daily SF ≤ 2.8 and average daily APS ≤ 1.0 and both not greater than baseline c Endoscopic response = decrease in SES-CD > 50% from baseline (or for subjects with a baseline SES-CD of 4, at least a 2-point reduction from baseline), as scored by a central reviewer. d Corticosteroid-free clinical remission = discontinuation of corticosteroid use and achievement of clinical remission per CDAI or SF/APS at wk 12 among patients on corticosteroids at baseline. e Clinical response-100 = decrease of ≥ 100 points in CDAI from baseline. f Endoscopic remission = SES-CD ≤ 4, at least a 2-point reduction versus baseline and no subscore >1 in any individual variable, as scored by a central reviewer. g Results are based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 (NRI-C). h 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for randomization strata. **P ≤ .0001 or *P ≤ .01 vs PBO;Average daily abdominal pain score, APS;Coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19;Confidence Interval, CI;Crohn’s Disease Activity Index, CDAI;Simple Endoscopic Score for CD, SES-CD, Placebo, PBO;Once daily, QD;average daily very soft/liquid stool frequency, SF;Upadacitinib, UPA.

Upadacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: results from three phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: There is a great unmet need for advanced therapies that provide rapid, robust, and sustained disease control for patients with ulcerative colitis. We assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, as induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: This phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical programme consisted of two replicate induction studies (U-ACHIEVE induction [UC1] and U-ACCOMPLISH [UC2]) and a single maintenance study (U-ACHIEVE maintenance [UC3]). The studies were conducted across Europe, North and South America, Australasia, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region at 199 clinical centres in 39 countries (UC1), 204 clinical centres in 40 countries (UC2), and 195 clinical centres in 35 countries (UC3). Patients aged 16-75 years with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Adapted Mayo score 5-9; endoscopic subscore 2 or 3) for at least 90 days were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral upadacitinib 45 mg once daily or placebo for 8 weeks (induction studies). Patients who achieved clinical response following 8-week upadacitinib induction were re-randomly assigned (1:1:1) to upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo for 52 weeks (maintenance study). All patients were randomly assigned using web-based interactive response technology. The primary endpoints were clinical remission per Adapted Mayo score at week 8 (induction) and week 52 (maintenance). The efficacy analyses in the two induction studies were based on the intent-to-treat population, which included all randomised patients who received at least one dose of treatment. In the maintenance study, the primary efficacy analyses reported in this manuscript were based on the first 450 (planned) clinical responders to 8-week induction therapy with upadacitinib 45 mg once daily. The safety analysis population in the induction studies consisted of all randomised patients who received at least one dose of treatment; in the maintenance study, this population included all patients who received at least one dose of treatment as part of the primary analysis population. These studies are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02819635 (U-ACHIEVE) and NCT03653026 (U-ACCOMPLISH). FINDINGS: Between Oct 23, 2018, and Sept 7, 2020, 474 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 45 mg once daily (n=319) or placebo (n=155) in UC1. Between Dec 6, 2018, and Jan 14, 2021, 522 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 45 mg once daily (n=345) or placebo (n=177) in UC2. In UC3, a total of 451 patients (21 from the phase 2b study, 278 from UC1, and 152 from UC2) who achieved a clinical response after 8 weeks of upadacitinib induction treatment were randomly assigned again to upadacitinib 15 mg (n=148), upadacitinib 30 mg (n=154), and placebo (n=149) in the primary analysis population. Statistically significantly more patients achieved clinical remission with upadacitinib 45 mg (83 [26%] of 319 patients in UC1 and 114 [34%] of 341 patients in UC2) than in the placebo group (seven [5%] of 154 patients in UC1 and seven [4%] of 174 patients; p<0·0001; adjusted treatment difference 21·6% [95% CI 15·8-27·4] for UC1 and 29·0% [23·2-34·7] for UC2). In the maintenance study, clinical remission was achieved by statistically significantly more patients receiving upadacitinib (15 mg 63 [42%] of 148; 30 mg 80 [52%] of 154) than those receiving placebo (18 [12%] of 149; p<0·0001; adjusted treatment difference 30·7% [21·7-39·8] for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo and 39·0% [29·7-48·2] for upadacitinib 30 mg vs placebo). The most commonly reported adverse events in UC1 were nasopharyngitis (15 [5%] of 319 in the upadacitinib 45 mg group vs six [4%] of 155 in the placebo group), creatine phosphokinase elevation (15 [4%] vs three [2%]), and acne (15 [5%] vs one [1%]). In UC2, the most frequently reported adverse event was acne (24 [7%] of 344 in the upadacitinib 45 mg group vs three [2%] of 177 in the placebo group). In both induction studies, serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment were less frequent in the upadacitinib 45 mg group than in the placebo group (serious adverse events eight [3%] vs nine (6%) in UC1 and 11 [3%] vs eight [5%] in UC2; adverse events leading to discontinuation six [2%] vs 14 [9%] in UC1 and six [2%] vs nine [5%] in UC2). In UC3, the most frequently reported adverse events (≥5%) were worsening of ulcerative colitis (19 [13%] of 148 in the upadacitinib 15 mg group vs 11 [7%] of 154 in the upadacitinib 30 mg group vs 45 [30%] of 149 in the placebo group), nasopharyngitis (18 [12%] vs 22 [14%] vs 15 [10%]), creatine phosphokinase elevation (nine [6%] vs 13 [8%] vs three [2%]), arthralgia (nine [6%] vs five [3%] vs 15 [10%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (seven [5%] vs nine [6%] vs six [4%]). The proportion of serious adverse events (ten [7%] vs nine [6%] vs 19 [13%]) and adverse events leading to discontinuation (six [4%] vs ten [6%] vs 17 [11%]) was lower in both upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group. Events of cancer, adjudicated major adverse cardiac events, or venous thromboembolism were reported infrequently. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Upadacitinib demonstrated a positive efficacy and safety profile and could be an effective treatment option for patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Role of Telemedicine in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine plays an important role in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly during a pandemic such as COVID-19. However, the effectiveness and efficiency of telemedicine in managing IBD are unclear. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the impact of telemedicine with that of standard care on the management of IBD. METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases on April 22, 2020. Randomized controlled trials comparing telemedicine with standard care in patients with IBD were included, while conference abstracts, letters, reviews, laboratory studies, and case reports were excluded. The IBD-specific quality of life (QoL), disease activity, and remission rate in patients with IBD were assessed as primary outcomes, and the number of in-person clinic visits per patient, patient satisfaction, psychological outcome, and medication adherence were assessed as secondary outcomes. Review Manage 5.3 and Stata 15.1 were used for data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 17 randomized controlled trials (2571 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. The telemedicine group had higher IBD-specific QoL than the standard care group (standard mean difference 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.34; P.03). The number of clinic visits per patient in the telemedicine group was significantly lower than that in the standard care group (standard mean difference -0.71, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.36; P<.001). Subgroup analysis showed that adolescents in the telemedicine group had significantly higher IBD-specific QoL than those in the standard care group (standard mean difference 0.42, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69; I2=0; P.002), but there was no significant difference between adults in the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in disease activity, remission rate, patient satisfaction, depression, self-efficacy, generic QoL, and medication adherence outcomes between the telemedicine and standard care groups. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine intervention showed a promising role in improving IBD-specific QoL among adolescents and decreased the number of clinic visits among patients with IBD. Further research is warranted to identify the group of patients with IBD who would most benefit from telemedicine.

Chinese Consensus Report on Family-Based Helicobacter pylori Infection Control and Management (2021 Edition).

OBJECTIVE: Helicobacter pylori infection is mostly a family-based infectious disease. To facilitate its prevention and management, a national consensus meeting was held to review current evidence and propose strategies for population-wide and family-based H. pylori infection control and management to reduce the related disease burden. METHODS: Fifty-seven experts from 41 major universities and institutions in 20 provinces/regions of mainland China were invited to review evidence and modify statements using Delphi process and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation system. The consensus level was defined as ≥80% for agreement on the proposed statements. RESULTS: Experts discussed and modified the original 23 statements on family-based H. pylori infection transmission, control and management, and reached consensus on 16 statements. The final report consists of three parts: (1) H. pylori infection and transmission among family members, (2) prevention and management of H. pylori infection in children and elderly people within households, and (3) strategies for prevention and management of H. pylori infection for family members. In addition to the 'test-and-treat' and 'screen-and-treat' strategies, this consensus also introduced a novel third 'family-based H. pylori infection control and management' strategy to prevent its intrafamilial transmission and development of related diseases. CONCLUSION: H. pylori is transmissible from person to person, and among family members. A family-based H. pylori prevention and eradication strategy would be a suitable approach to prevent its intra-familial transmission and related diseases. The notion and practice would be beneficial not only for Chinese residents but also valuable as a reference for other highly infected areas.

Down-Regulation of Colonic ACE2 Expression in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Responding to Anti-TNF Therapy: Implications for COVID-19.

Background and Aims: Angiotensin-converting enzyme II (ACE2) is the key molecule for understanding the pathophysiology of COVID-19. The risk of COVID-19 and impact of immunosuppressive treatment on disease course in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remain controversial. We aimed to determine the change of intestinal ACE2 expression before and after biologics treatment including anti-tumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNFα), anti-integrin, and anti-interleukin (IL)12/23 in IBD patients. Methods: We analyzed the ACE2 expression through the public database of paired intestinal biopsies from IBD patients before and after biologic therapy. Change of ACE2 RNA and protein expression were validated in two independent cohorts (Birmingham cohort and Guangzhou cohort). The correlation between ACE2 expression and disease activity was also analyzed. Results: Mining information from the GEO database showed that compared with healthy control, intestinal ACE2 expression was downregulated in ileum of CD patients, while upregulated in colon of both CD and UC patients. Colonic ACE2 RNA expression was decreased significantly in patients responding to anti-TNFα but not anti-integrin and anti-IL12/23, which was validated in the Birmingham cohort. Using the Guangzhou cohort including 53 patients matched by pre- and post-anti-TNFα therapy, colonic ACE2 protein expression was significantly downregulated after anti-TNFα treatment in responders (P < 0.001) rather than non-responders. Colonic ACE2 expression was significantly higher in patients with severe histologically active disease compared with those with moderate (P < 0.0001) and mild (P = 0.0002) histologically active disease. Conclusion: Intestinal inflammation influences the expression of intestinal ACE2 in IBD patients, with different alterations in the ileum and colon. Colonic ACE2 expression was downregulated after anti-TNFα therapy in IBD patients responding to treatment. This might provide new clues regarding the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the potential benefit of sustaining anti-TNFα treatment in patients with IBD.

Impact of COVID-19 on the Healthcare of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comparison Between Epicenter vs. Non-epicenter Areas.

Background and Aims: The COVID-19 pandemic poses a great challenge to healthcare. We aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on the healthcare of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in epicenter and non-epicenter areas. Methods: Patients with IBD from Hubei province (the epicenter of COVID-19) and Guangdong province (a non-epicenter area), China were surveyed during the pandemic. The questionnaire included change of medications (steroids, immunomodulators, and biologics), procedures (lab tests, endoscopy, and elective surgery), and healthcare mode (standard healthcare vs. telemedicine) during 1 month before and after the outbreak of COVID-19. Results: In total, 324 IBD patients from Guangdong province (non-epicenter) and 149 from Hubei province (epicenter) completed the questionnaire with comparable demographic characteristics. Compared to patients in Guangdong province (non-epicenter), significantly more patients in Hubei (epicenter) had delayed lab tests/endoscopy procedures [61.1% (91/149) vs. 25.3% (82/324), p < 0.001], drug withdrawal [28.6% (43/149) vs. 9.3% (30/324), p < 0.001], delayed biologics infusions [60.4% (90/149) vs. 19.1% (62/324), p < 0.001], and postponed elective surgery [16.1% (24/149) vs. 3.7% (12/324), p < 0.001]. There was an increased use of telemedicine after the outbreak compared to before the outbreak in Hubei province [38.9% (58/149) vs. 15.4% (23/149), p < 0.001], while such a significant increase was not observed in Guangdong province [21.9% (71/324) vs. 18.8% (61/324), p = 0.38]. Approximately two-thirds of IBD patients from both sites agreed that telemedicine should be increasingly used in future medical care. Conclusions: Our patient-based survey study in a real-world setting showed that COVID-19 resulted in a great impact on the healthcare of patients with IBD, and such an impact was more obvious in the epicenter compared to the non-epicenter area of COVID-19. Telemedicine offers a good solution to counteract the challenges in an unprecedented situation such as COVID-19.

Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on the care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A comparison before and after the outbreak in South China.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Epidemics pose a great challenge to health care of patients. However, the impact of unprecedented situation of COVID-19 outbreak on health care of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients in real-world setting has seldom been investigated. METHODS: We performed an observational study in a tertiary referral IBD center in China. The mode of health care and medication use was compared before and after COVID-19 outbreak. Electronic questionnaire surveys were performed among gastroenterologists and IBD patients to investigate the impact of COVID-19 outbreak on their attitudes towards telemedicine. RESULTS: COVID-19 outbreak resulted in substantial decrease of patients participating in standard face-to-face visit during 1 month post-outbreak (n = 51) than pre-outbreak (n = 249), whereas the participation in telemedicine was significantly higher than comparable period in 2019 (414 vs 93). During the 1 month after COVID-19 outbreak, 39 (39/56, 69.6%) patients had their infliximab infusion postponed with the mean delay of 3 weeks. The immunomodulator use was similar between pre-outbreak and post-outbreak. Six elective surgeries were postponed for a median of 43 days. In post-outbreak period, 193 (193/297, 64.98%) of the surveyed physicians have used telemedicine with an increase of 18.9% compared with 46.13% (137/292) in the pre-outbreak period (P < 0.001); 331 (331/505, 65.54%) of the surveyed IBD patients supported that the use of telemedicine should be increased in future health care. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 outbreak resulted in a great change in health-care access among IBD patients including decrease in standard face-to-face visit and delay of biologics use. There was an increased use and need of telemedicine after COVID-19 outbreak.

"It ain't over till it's over!" Risk-mitigation strategies for patients with gastrointestinal diseases in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The available COVID-19 literature has focused on specific disease manifestations, infection control, and delivery or prioritization of services for specific patient groups in the setting of the acute COVID-19 pandemic. Local health systems aim to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and hospitals and health-care providers rush to provide the capacity for a surge of COVID-19 patients. However, the short, medium-term, and long-term outcomes of patients with gastrointestinal (GI) diseases without COVID-19 will be affected by the ability to develop locally adapted strategies to meet their service needs in the COVID-19 setting. To mitigate risks for patients with GI diseases, it is useful to differentiate three phases: (i) the acute phase, (ii) the adaptation phase, and (iii) the consolidation phase. During the acute phase, service delivery for patients with GI disease will be curtailed to meet competing health-care needs of COVID-19 patients. During the adaptation phase, GI services are calibrated towards a "new normal," and the consolidation phase is characterized by rapid introduction and ongoing refinement of services. Proactive planning with engagement of relevant stakeholders including consumer representatives is required to be prepared for a variety of scenarios that are dictated by thus far undefined long-term economic and societal impacts of the pandemic. Because substantial changes to the delivery of services are likely to occur, it is important that these changes are embedded into quality and research frameworks to ensure that data are generated that support evidence-based decision-making during the adaptation and consolidation phases.

Manifestations and prognosis of gastrointestinal and liver involvement in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and prognosis of digestive system involvement, including gastrointestinal symptoms and liver injury, in patients with COVID-19 remains largely unknown. We aimed to quantify the effects of COVID-19 on the digestive system. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published between Jan 1, 2020, and April 4, 2020. The websites of WHO, CDC, and major journals were also searched. We included studies that reported the epidemiological and clinical features of COVID-19 and the prevalence of gastrointestinal findings in infected patients, and excluded preprints, duplicate publications, reviews, editorials, single case reports, studies pertaining to other coronavirus-related illnesses, and small case series (<10 cases). Extracted data included author; date; study design; country; patient demographics; number of participants in severe and non-severe disease groups; prevalence of clinical gastrointestinal symptoms such as vomiting, nausea, diarrhoea, loss of appetite, abdominal pain, and belching; and digestive system comorbidities including liver disease and gastrointestinal diseases. Raw data from studies were pooled to determine effect estimates. FINDINGS: We analysed findings from 35 studies, including 6686 patients with COVID-19, that met inclusion criteria. 29 studies (n=6064) reported gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with COVID-19 at diagnosis, and the pooled prevalence of digestive system comorbidities was 4% (95% CI 2-5; range 0-15; I2=74%). The pooled prevalence of digestive symptoms was 15% (10-21; range: 2-57; I2=96%) with nausea or vomiting, diarrhoea, and loss of appetite being the three most common symptoms. The pooled prevalence of abnormal liver functions (12 studies, n=1267) was 19% (9-32; range 1-53; I2=96%). Subgroup analysis showed patients with severe COVID-19 had higher rates of abdominal pain (odds ratio [OR] 7·10 [95% CI 1·93-26·07]; p=0·003; I2=0%) and abnormal liver function including increased ALT (1·89 [1·30-2·76]; p=0·0009; I2=10%) and increased AST (3·08 [2·14-4·42]; p<0·00001; I2=0%) compared with those with non-severe disease. Patients in Hubei province, where the initial COVID-19 outbreak occurred, were more likely to present with abnormal liver functions (p<0·0001) compared with those outside of Hubei. Paediatric patients with COVID-19 had a similar prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms to those of adult patients. 10% (95% CI 4-19; range 3-23; I2=97%) of patients presented with gastrointestinal symptoms alone without respiratory features. Patients who presented with gastrointestinal system involvement had delayed diagnosis (standardised mean difference 2·85 [95% CI 0·22-5·48]; p=0·030; I2=73%). Patients with gastrointestinal involvement tended to have a poorer disease course (eg, acute respiratory distress syndrome OR 2·96 [95% CI 1·17-7·48]; p=0·02; I2=0%). INTERPRETATION: Our study showed that digestive symptoms and liver injury are not uncommon in patients with COVID-19. Increased attention should be paid to the care of this unique group of patients. FUNDING: None.