Etrasimod as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis (ELEVATE): two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies.

BACKGROUND: Etrasimod, a once-daily, oral, sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator that selectively activates S1P receptor subtypes 1, 4, and 5, with no detectable activity on S1P2,3, is in development for the treatment of immune-mediated diseases, including ulcerative colitis. In these two phase 3 trials, we aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of etrasimod in adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: In two independent randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials, ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12, adults with active moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis and an inadequate or loss of response or intolerance to at least one approved ulcerative colitis therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to once-daily oral etrasimod 2 mg or placebo. Patients in ELEVATE UC 52 were enrolled from 315 centres in 40 countries. Patients in ELEVATE UC 12 were enrolled from 407 centres in 37 countries. Randomisation was stratified by previous exposure to biologicals or Janus kinase inhibitor therapy (yes vs no), baseline corticosteroid use (yes vs no), and baseline disease activity (modified Mayo score [MMS]; 4-6 vs 7-9). ELEVATE UC 52 comprised a 12-week induction period followed by a 40-week maintenance period with a treat-through design. ELEVATE UC 12 independently assessed induction at week 12. The primary efficacy endpoints were the proportion of patients with clinical remission at weeks 12 and 52 in ELEVATE UC 52 and week 12 in ELEVATE UC 12. Safety was evaluated in both trials. ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03945188 and NCT03996369, respectively. FINDINGS: Patients in ELEVATE UC 52 were enrolled between June 13, 2019, and Jan 28, 2021. Patients in ELEVATE UC 12 were enrolled between Sept 15, 2020, and Aug 12, 2021. ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 screened 821 patients and 606 patients, respectively, with 433 and 354 subsequently undergoing random assignment. The full analysis set of ELEVATE UC 52 comprised 289 patients assigned to etrasimod and 144 to placebo. In ELEVATE UC 12, 238 patients were assigned to etrasimod and 116 to placebo. In ELEVATE UC 52, a significantly greater proportion of patients in the etrasimod group achieved clinical remission compared with patients in the placebo group at completion of the 12-week induction period (74 [27%] of 274 patients vs ten [7%] of 135 patients; p<0·0001) and at week 52 (88 [32%] of 274 patients vs nine [7%] of 135 patients; p<0·0001). In ELEVATE UC 12, 55 (25%) of 222 patients in the etrasimod group had clinical remission compared with 17 (15%) of 112 patients in the placebo group at the end of the 12-week induction period (p=0·026). Adverse events were reported in 206 (71%) of 289 patients in the etrasimod group and 81 (56%) of 144 patients in the placebo group in ELEVATE UC 52 and 112 (47%) of 238 patients in the etrasimod group and 54 (47%) of 116 patients in the placebo group in ELEVATE UC 12. No deaths or malignancies were reported. INTERPRETATION: Etrasimod was effective and well tolerated as an induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Etrasimod is a treatment option with a unique combination of attributes that might address the persistent unmet needs of patients with ulcerative colitis. FUNDING: Arena Pharmaceuticals.

Guselkumab plus golimumab combination therapy versus guselkumab or golimumab monotherapy in patients with ulcerative colitis (VEGA): a randomised, double-blind, controlled, phase 2, proof-of-concept trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the introduction of new monoclonal antibodies and oral therapies for the treatment of ulcerative colitis, clinical remission rates remain low, underscoring the need for innovative treatment approaches. We assessed whether guselkumab plus golimumab combination therapy was more effective for ulcerative colitis than either monotherapy. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, controlled, proof-of-concept trial at 54 hospitals, academic medical centres, or private practices in nine countries. Eligible adults (aged ≥18 to 65 years) had a confirmed diagnosis of ulcerative colitis at least 3 months before screening and moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo score 6-12) with a centrally-read baseline endoscopy subscore of 2 or higher. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to combination therapy (subcutaneous golimumab 200 mg at week 0, subcutaneous golimumab 100 mg at weeks 2, 6, and 10, and intravenous guselkumab 200 mg at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by subcutaneous guselkumab monotherapy 100 mg every 8 weeks for 32 weeks), golimumab monotherapy (subcutaneous golimumab 200 mg at week 0 followed by subcutaneous golimumab 100 mg at week 2 and every 4 weeks thereafter for 34 weeks), or guselkumab monotherapy (intravenous guselkumab 200 mg at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by subcutaneous guselkumab 100 mg every 8 weeks thereafter for 32 weeks). The primary endpoint was clinical response at week 12 (defined as a ≥30% decrease from baseline in the full Mayo score and a ≥3 points absolute reduction with either a decrease in rectal bleeding score of ≥1 point or a rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1). Efficacy was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population up to week 38, which included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one (partial or complete) study intervention dose. Safety was analysed up to week 50, according to study intervention received among all patients who received at least one (partial or complete) dose of study intervention. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03662542. FINDINGS: Between Nov 20, 2018, and Nov 15, 2021, 358 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 214 patients were randomly assigned to combination therapy (n=71), golimumab monotherapy (n=72), or guselkumab monotherapy (n=71). Of the 214 patients included, 98 (46%) were women and 116 (54%) were men and the mean age was 38·4 years (SD 12·0). At week 12, 59 (83%) of 71 patients in the combination therapy group had achieved clinical response compared with 44 (61%) of 72 patients in the golimumab monotherapy group (adjusted treatment difference 22·1% [80% CI 12·9 to 31·3]; nominal p=0·0032) and 53 (75%) of 71 patients in the guselkumab monotherapy group (adjusted treatment difference 8·5% [-0·2 to 17·1; nominal p=0·2155). At week 50, 45 (63%) of 71 patients in the combination therapy group, 55 (76%) of 72 patients in the golimumab monotherapy group, and 46 (65%) of 71 patients in the guselkumab monotherapy group had reported at least one adverse event. The most common adverse events were ulcerative colitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, anaemia, nasopharyngitis, neutropenia, and pyrexia. No deaths, malignancies, or cases of tuberculosis were reported during the combination induction period. One case of tuberculosis was reported in the combination therapy group and one case of colon adenocarcinoma was reported in the guselkumab monotherapy group; both occurred after week 12. Two deaths were reported after the final dose of study intervention (poisoning in the combination therapy group and COVID-19 in the guselkumab monotherapy group). INTERPRETATION: Data from this proof-of-concept study suggest that combination therapy with guselkumab and golimumab might be more effective for ulcerative colitis than therapy with either drug alone. These findings require confirmation in larger trials. FUNDING: Janssen Research and Development.

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.

The Effect of Guselkumab Induction Therapy in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: QUASAR Phase 2b Induction Results at Week 12 by Prior Inadequate Response or Intolerance to Advanced Therapy

Introduction: QUASAR (NCT04033445) is a phase 2b randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that evaluates guselkumab (GUS), an interleukin-23 p19 subunit antagonist, as induction treatment in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) who had an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional (ie, thiopurines or corticosteroids) or advanced therapy (ADT;ie, tumor necrosis factor alpha antagonists, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib). Conclusion: Treatment with GUS resulted in greater improvements compared with placebo across key clinical and endoscopic/histologic outcome measures at Week 12 in patients with moderately to severely active UC with or without a history of inadequate response/intolerance to ADT. Efficacy at Week 12 by prior response/intolerance to ADT Placebo IV (N=105) GUS 200 mg IV (N=101) GUS 400 mg IV (N=107) GUS Combined(N=208) Patients with a history of inadequate response/intolerance to ADT 51 46 51 97  Clinical response a1,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 25.5% (14.3, 39.6) 54.3%* (39.0, 69.1) 47.1%* (32.9, 61.5) 50.5%* (40.2, 60.8)  Clinical remission a2,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 7.8% (2.2, 18.9) 17.4% (7.8, 31.4) 17.6% (8.4, 30.9) 17.5% (10.6, 26.6)  Symptomatic remission a3,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 17.6% (8.4, 30.9) 39.1%* (25.1, 54.6) 37.3%* (24.1, 51.9) 38.1%* (28.5, 48.6)  Endoscopic improvement a4,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 9.8% (3.3, 21.4) 23.9% (12.6, 38.8) 21.6% (11.3, 35.3) 22.7% (14.8, 32.3)  Histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement a5,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 5.9% (1.2, 16.2) 13.0% (4.9, 26.3) 19.6%* (9.8, 33.1) 16.5% (9.7, 25.4)  Endoscopic normalization a6,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 5.9% (1.2, 16.2) 10.9% (3.6, 23.6) 5.9% (1.2, 16.2) 8.2% (3.6, 15.6) Patents with no history of inadequate response/intolerance to ADT 54 55 56 111  Clinical response a1,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 29.6% (18.0, 43.6) 67.3%** (53.3, 79.3) 73.2%** (59.7, 84.2) 70.3%** (60.9, 78.6)  Clinical remission a2,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 11.1% (4.2, 22.6) 32.7%* (20.7, 46.7) 32.1%* (20.3, 46.0) 32.4%* (23.9, 42.0)  Symptomatic remission a3,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 22.2% (12.0, 35.6) 58.2%** (44.1, 71.3) 57.1%** (43.2, 70.3) 57.7%** (47.9, 67.0)  Endoscopic improvement a4,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 14.8% (6.6, 27.1) 36.4%* (23.8, 50.4) 39.3%* (26.5, 53.2) 37.8%* (28.8, 47.5)  Histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement a5,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 11.1% (4.2, 22.6) 27.3%* (16.1, 41.0) 33.9%* (21.8, 47.8) 30.6%* (22.2, 40.1)  Endoscopic normalization a6,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 7.4% (2.1, 17.9) 23.6%* (13.2, 37.0) 21.4%* (11.6, 34.4) 22.5%* (15.1, 31.4) * Nominal p-value < 0.05. ** Nominal p-value < 0.001. a1 Clinical response is defined as decrease from induction baseline in the modified Mayo score by ≥30% and ≥2 points, with either a ≥1-point decrease from baseline in the rectal bleeding subscore or a rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1. a2 Clinical remission is defined as stool frequency subscore of 0 or 1 with no increase from induction baseline, a rectal bleeding subscore of 0, and an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability present on the endoscopy. a3 Symptomatic remission is defined as a stool frequency subscore of 0 or 1 with no increase from induction baseline and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0. a4 Endoscopic improvement is defined as an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability present on the endoscopy. a5 Histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement is defined as achieving a combination of histologic improvement (neutrophil infiltration in < 5% of crypts, no crypt destruction, and no erosions, ulcerations or granulation tissue according to the Geboes grading system) and endoscopic improvement, a6 Endoscopic normalization is defined as an endoscopy subscore of 0. b Patients who had a prohibited change in UC medication, an ostomy or colectomy, or discontinued study agent due to lack of efficacy or an adverse event of worsening of UC prior to the Week 12 visit were considered not to have achieved the endpoint. c Data after discontinuation of study agent due to COVID-19 related reasons (excluding COVID-19 infection) were considered to be missing. d Patients who were issing one or more components pertaining to a specified endpoint at Week 12 were considered not to have achieved the endpoint. e The p-values were based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test.

Induction Combination Therapy With Guselkumab and Golimumab Followed by Guselkumab Monotherapy Maintenance: Results of the Phase 2a, Randomized, Double-Blind, Proof-of-Concept VEGA Study

GUS Clinical remission c,d 16 (22.2) 22 (31.0) 31 (43.7) 21.5 (11.9, 31.2) 0.006 12.7 (2.7, 22.7) 0.109 Clinical remission (based on mMayo) c,e 15 (20.8) 22 (31.0) 34 (47.9) 27.1 (17.7, 36.6) < 0.001 16.9 (7.0, 26.8) 0.033 Symptomatic remission c,f 43 (59.7) 49 (69.0) 49 (69.0) 9.4 (-0.6, 19.4) 0.238 0.0 (-9.7, 9.7) 1.000 Endoscopic improvementc.g 16 (22.2) 23 (32.4) 35 (49.3) 27.2 (17.6, 36.7) < 0.001 16.9 (7.0, 26.8) 0.033 Endoscopic normalization c,h 5 (6.9) 11 (15.5) 18 (25.4) 18.5 (11.1, 25.9) 0.002 9.9 (1.6, 18.2) 0.134 Histologic remission c,i 18 (25.0) 29 (40.8) 36 (50.7) 25.8 (16.1, 35.5) 0.001 9.9 (-0.4, 20.1) 0.224 Both histologic remission and endoscopic improvement c,g,i 10 (13.9) 15 (21.1) 30 (42.3) 28.5 (19.6, 37.4) < 0.001 21.1 (11.8, 30.5) 0.005 Both histologic remission and endoscopic normalization c,h,i 4 (5.6) 9 (12.7) 17 (23.9) 18.5 (11.3, 25.6) 0.002 11.3 (3.3, 19.2) 0.074 a The adjusted treatment difference between the combination therapy vs. the monotherapy groups and the confidence interval were based on the Wald statistic with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight. b The p-value was based on the 2-sided CMH chi-square test, stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (Yes, No). All P-values are nominal. c Pts who had an ostomy or colectomy, had a protocol-prohibited change in concomitant UC medications, or discontinued study intervention due to lack of a therapeutic effect or an adverse event of worsening UC, or discontinued study agent early due to COVID-19 related reasons (excluding COVID-19 infection) prior to the wk 38 visit were considered to not have achieved the binary endpoints. Pts with missing data at wk 38 were considered to not have achieved the binary endpoints. d Clinical remission is defined as Mayo score ≤2, with no individual subscore >1. e Clinical remission (based on the mMayo) is defined as a stool frequency subscore of 0 or 1, where the stool frequency subscore has not increased from baseline, a rectal bleeding subscore of 0, and an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability present on endoscopy. f Symptomatic remission is defined as Mayo stool frequency subscore of 0 or 1, where the stool frequency subscore has not increased from baseline, and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0. g Endoscopic improvement is defined as an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability present on the endoscopy. h Endoscopic normalization is defined as an endoscopy subscore of 0. i Histologic remission is defined as absence of neutrophils from the mucosa (both lamina propria and epithelium), no crypt destruction, and no erosions, ulcerations or granulation tissue according to the Geboes grading system.

52-Week Risankizumab Subcutaneous Maintenance Dosing Is Efficacious and Well Tolerated in Patients With Moderate to Severe Crohn’s Disease Who Had Delayed Response to 12-Weeks IV Risankizumab Induction

Introduction: In patients with moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD), the ADVANCE and MOTIVATE phase 3 induction studies showed intravenous (IV) risankizumab (RZB), an anti-p19 interleukin-23 inhibitor, to be superior to placebo (PBO) for achieving clinical and endoscopic endpoints at Week (Wk) 12.1 Here, we evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of RZB during the FORTIFY maintenance study in patients with delayed clinical response to IV RZB induction. [...]patients receiving RZB SC (180 mg or 360 mg) also achieved endoscopic response (36.7%, 45.5%), endoscopic remission (40.0%, 42.4%), deep remission (40.0%, 39.4%), ulcer free endoscopy (27.6%, 24.2%), and the combined endpoint of SF/APS clinical remission + endoscopic response (23.3%, 36.4%). [...]a dose-response trend was observed, with numerically higher response rates observed with RZB 360 mg SC relative to 180 mg SC for most outcomes, including clinical remission (CDAI and SF/APS), CDAI clinical response, enhanced clinical response, endoscopic response, endoscopic remission, and the composite endpoint of SF/APS clinical remission + endoscopic response. Efficacy and Safety after 52-Weeks Maintenance SC RZB Dosing in Delayed Responders (NRI-NCa) Responder Group Treatment Group, n (%) [95% CI] CDAI Clinical Response Enhanced Clinical Response CDAI Clinical Remission SF/APS Clinical Remission Endoscopic Response Ulcer Free Endoscopy Endoscopic Remission SF/APS Clinical Remission and Endoscopic Response Deep Remission RZB 180 mg SC delayed responders, Wk 24 53.3 (6/30) [35.5, 71.2] 56.7 (17/30) [38.9, 74.4] 53.3 (16/30) [35.5, 71.2] 43.3 (13/30) [25.6, 61.1] 36.7 (11/30) [19.4, 53.9] 27.6 (8/29) [11.3, 43.9] 40.0 (12/30) [22.5, 57.5] 23.3 (7/30) [8.2, 38.5] 40.0 (12/30) [22.5, 57.5] RZB 360 mg SC delayed responders, Wk 24 75.8 (25/33) [61.1, 90.4] 66.7 (22/33) [50.6, 82.8] 66.7 (22/33) [50.6, 82.8] 54.5 (18/33) [37.6, 71.5] 45.5 (15/33) [28.5, 62.4] 24.2 (8/33) [9.6, 38.9] 42.4 (14/33) [25.6, 59.3] 36.4 (12/33) [20.0, 52.8] 39.4 (13/33) [22.7, 56.1] Responder Group Treatment Group, (E/100PYs) Deaths Serious infections All treatment emergent adverse events AE related to COVID-19 Serious AE Hepatic events Injection site reactions AE leading to discontinuation of study drug Crohn's Disease RZB 180 mg SC (N=31) (PYs=27.5) delayed responders, Wk 24 0 0 132 (479.8) 0 6 (21.8) 0 6 (21.8) 2 (7.3) 7 (25.4) RZB 360 mg SC (N=33) (PYs=32.1) delayed responders, Wk 24 0 1 (3.1) 83 (258.9) 0 4 (12.5) 1 (3.1) 2 (6.2) 0 7 (21.8)

Risankizumab as induction therapy for Crohn's disease: results from the phase 3 ADVANCE and MOTIVATE induction trials.

BACKGROUND: Risankizumab, an interleukin (IL)-23 p19 inhibitor, was evaluated for safety and efficacy as induction therapy in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. METHODS: ADVANCE and MOTIVATE were randomised, double-masked, placebo-controlled, phase 3 induction studies. Eligible patients aged 16-80 years with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease, previously showing intolerance or inadequate response to one or more approved biologics or conventional therapy (ADVANCE) or to biologics (MOTIVATE), were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of intravenous risankizumab (600 mg or 1200 mg) or placebo (2:2:1 in ADVANCE, 1:1:1 in MOTIVATE) at weeks 0, 4, and 8. We used interactive response technology for random assignment, with stratification by number of previous failed biologics, corticosteroid use at baseline, and Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's disease (SES-CD). All patients and study personnel (excluding pharmacists who prepared intravenous solutions) were masked to treatment allocation throughout the study. Coprimary endpoints were clinical remission (defined by Crohn's disease activity index [CDAI] or patient-reported outcome criteria [average daily stool frequency and abdominal pain score]) and endoscopic response at week 12. The intention-to-treat population (all eligible patients who received at least one dose of study drug in the 12-week induction period) was analysed for efficacy outcomes. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Both trials were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03105128 (ADVANCE) and NCT03104413 (MOTIVATE), and are now complete. FINDINGS: Participants were enrolled between May 10, 2017, and Aug 24, 2020 (ADVANCE trial), and Dec 18, 2017 and Sept 9, 2020 (MOTIVATE trial). In ADVANCE, 931 patients were assigned to either risankizumab 600 mg (n=373), risankizumab 1200 mg (n=372), or placebo (n=186). In MOTIVATE, 618 patients were assigned to risankizumab 600 mg (n=206), risankizumab 1200 mg (n=205), or placebo (n=207). The primary analysis population comprised 850 participants in ADVANCE and 569 participants in MOTIVATE. All coprimary endpoints at week 12 were met in both trials with both doses of risankizumab (p values ≤0·0001). In ADVANCE, CDAI clinical remission rate was 45% (adjusted difference 21%, 95% CI 12-29; 152/336) with risankizumab 600 mg and 42% (17%, 8-25; 141/339) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 25% (43/175) with placebo; stool frequency and abdominal pain score clinical remission rate was 43% (22%, 14-30; 146/336) with risankizumab 600 mg and 41% (19%, 11-27; 139/339) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 22% (38/175) with placebo; and endoscopic response rate was 40% (28%, 21-35; 135/336) with risankizumab 600 mg and 32% (20%, 14-27; 109/339) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 12% (21/175) with placebo. In MOTIVATE, CDAI clinical remission rate was 42% (22%, 13-31; 80/191) with risankizumab 600 mg and 40% (21%, 12-29; 77/191) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 20% (37/187) with placebo; stool frequency and abdominal pain score clinical remission rate was 35% (15%, 6-24; 66/191) with risankizumab 600 mg and 40% (20%, 12-29; 76/191) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 19% (36/187) with placebo; and endoscopic response rate was 29% (18%, 10-25; 55/191) with risankizumab 600 mg and 34% (23%, 15-31; 65/191) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 11% (21/187) with placebo. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar among the treatment groups in both trials. Three deaths occurred during induction (two in the placebo group [ADVANCE] and one in the risankizumab 1200 mg group [MOTIVATE]). The death in the risankizumab-treated patient was deemed unrelated to the study drug. INTERPRETATION: Risankizumab was effective and well tolerated as induction therapy in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. FUNDING: AbbVie.

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.

A multidisciplinary registry of patients with autoimmune and immune-mediated diseases with symptomatic COVID-19 from a single center.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: There is increasing interest regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with autoimmune and immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (AI/IMID) with some discrepancies in different cohorts about their risk and outcomes. The aim was to describe a multidisciplinary cohort of patients with AI/IMID and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in a single tertiary center and analyze sociodemographic, clinical, and therapeutic factors associated with poor outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted from the 1st of March until May 29th, 2020 in a University tertiary hospital in Barcelona, Spain. Patients with an underlying AI/IMID and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified in our local SARS-CoV-2 infection database. Controls (2:1) were selected from the same database and matched by age and gender. The primary outcome was severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, which was a composite endpoint including admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), need for mechanical ventilation (MV), and/or death. Several covariates including age, sex, and comorbidities among others were combined into a multivariate model having severe SARS-CoV-2 as the dependent variable. Also, a sensitivity analysis was performed evaluating AID and IMID separately. RESULTS: The prevalence of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of AI/IMID patients was 1.3%. Eighty-five patients with AI/IMID and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 were identified, requiring hospitalization in 58 (68%) cases. A total of 175 patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2 (58 with AI/IMID and 117 matched-controls) were analyzed. In logistic regression analysis, a significant inverse association between AI/IMID group and severe SARS-CoV-2 (OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.12-0.61; p = 0.001), need of MV (OR 0.20; IC 95% 0.05-0.71; p = 0.014), and ICU admission (OR 0.25; IC 95% 0.10-0.62; p = 0.003) was found. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AI/IMID who require admission for SARS-CoV-2 infection have a lower risk of developing severe disease, including the need to stay in the ICU and MV.