The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on IBD Care in Alberta: Patient and Provider Perspectives.

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated changes in the delivery of ambulatory care for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including transitioning many visits to virtual formats and delaying non-urgent assessments. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on IBD patient care from health care providers' (HCP) and patients' perspectives. Methods: We administered a 42-question HCP survey and a 44-question patient survey, which evaluated HCP and patient experience and satisfaction with care delivery and delays in access to IBD care during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Surveys were completed by 19.2% (24/125) HCPs and 25.8% (408/1581) patients. Overall, 82.7% of patients with IBD maintained their care without disruption. The majority of patients were satisfied with a transition to virtual care. All HCPs were willing to use virtual care in the future; however, 60% (14/24) of HCPs reported that virtual care was not equivalent to in-person visits. Patients reported concerns around access to health resources, the uncertainty of IBD-specific care, and fear and stress due to employment uncertainty and safety. Providers also reported concerns about patient safety, patient education, adequate remuneration and challenges with providing care for new patients on virtual platforms. Conclusion: While some delays in health care delivery occurred during the first wave of the pandemic, both patients and HCPs were satisfied with a transition to new models of care delivery. These models may remain in place post-pandemic and allow for flexibility in care delivery that is acceptable to both patients and HCPs.

Innovative Care for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Use of Bedside Intestinal Ultrasound to Optimize Management.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has reduced access to endoscopy and imaging. Safe alternatives, available at the bedside, are needed for accurate, non-invasive strategies to evaluate disease activity. The aim of this study is to establish the impact of clinic-based bedside intestinal ultrasound (IUS) on decision making, reduction in reliance on endoscopy and short-term healthcare utilization. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational evaluation during the COVID-19 pandemic, of the impact of a regional comprehensive care pathway to manage IBD patients consecutively recruited with acute symptoms, or suspected new diagnosis of IBD. Clinic-based access to sigmoidoscopy and bedside intestinal ultrasound were evaluated, used to direct clinical care and avoid hospitalization or hospital-based endoscopy. Results: A total of 72 patients were seen between March 15 and June 30, 2020. Of these, 57% (41/72) were female, 64% had Crohn's disease (46/72) with 14% (10/72) presenting with symptoms requiring investigation, of which 5 new cases of IBD were identified (50%). Immediate access to ultrasound and sigmoidoscopy led to meaningful changes in management in 80.5% (58/72) of patients. Active inflammation was detected by IUS alone (72.5%, 29/40) or in combination with in-clinic sigmoidoscopy (78%, 18/23) or sigmoidoscopy alone (78% 7/9). Six patients were referred to colorectal surgery for urgent surgical intervention including two patients admitted directly. Conclusion: Implementation of IUS as part of a clinical care pathway during the COVID-19 pandemic is a useful strategy to enhance care delivery and improve clinical decisions, while sparing other important acute care resources.

Adverse Events and Serological Responses Following SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Individuals With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Introduction: The rapid development and distribution of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has raised concerns surrounding vaccine safety in immunocompromised populations, such as those with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Analysis found elevated GMT levels in those with injection site reactions compared to those without injection site reactions following all four doses, with second dose serological responses being statistically significantly different (8614/mL vs 6841 AU/mL [p< 0.05], respectively) (Figure). Participant characteristics and adverse events following first, second, third, and fourth dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine Characteristics Dose 1 (/331) Dose 2 (/331) Dose 3 (/195) Dose 4 (/100) Sex, n (%)  Male  Female 155 (46.8%) 176 (53.2%) 155 (46.8%) 176 (53.2%) 86 (44.1%) 109 (55.9%) 49 (49.0%) 51 (51.0%) Mean age (SD) 52.05 (14.52) 52.05 (14.52) 51.81 (15.20) 57.98 (14.01) IBD Type, n (%)  Crohn’s Disease  Ulcerative Colitis & IBD-U 238 (71.9%) 93 (28.1%) 238 (71.9%) 93 (28.1%) 150 (76.9%) 45 (23.1%) 75 (75.0%) 25 (25.0%) Medication, n (%)  No immunosuppressives  Anti-TNF only†  Immunomodulators only  Vedolizumab only  Ustekinumab only  Tofacitinib only  Combination therapy‡  Oral Corticosteroids 33 (10.0%) 118 (35.7%) 7 (2.1%) 37 (11.2%) 76 (23.0%) 5 (1.5%) 49 (14.8%) 6 (1.8%) 32 (9.7%) 119 (36.0%) 7 (2.1%) 39 (11.8%) 74 (22.4%) 5 (1.5%) 47 (14.2%) 8 (2.4%) 14 (7.2%) 74 (38.0%) 5 (2.6%) 19 (9.7%) 42 (21.5%) < 5 36 (18.5%) < 5 27 (27.0%) 20 (20.0%) < 5 9 (9.0%) 16 (16.0%) — 18 (18.0%) 7 (7.0%) Vaccine Type, n (%)  Pfizer  Moderna  AstraZeneca 271 (81.9%) 45 (13.6%) 15 (4.5%) 275 (83.1%) 49 (14.8%) 7 (2.1%) 179 (91.8%) 16 (8.2%) — 82 (82.0%) 18 (18.0%) — Adverse Events Dose 1 (/331) Dose 2 (/331) Dose 3 (/195) Dose 4 (/100) Injection site, n (%) 250 (75.5%) 231 (70%) 138 (70.8%) 55 (55.0%) Lymph node swelling, n (%) 1 (0.3%) 9 (2.7%) 14 (7.2%) 1 (1.0%) Gastrointestinal, n (%) 17 (5.1%) 16 (4.8%) 6 (3.1%) 2 (2.0%) Fatigue or malaise, n (%) 86 (26.0%) 87 (26.3%) 45 (23.1%) 22 (22.0%) Fever or chills, n (%) 27 (8.2%) 35 (10.6%) 19 (9.7%) 5 (5.0%) Musculoskeletal, n (%) 34 (10.3%) 41 (12.4%) 25 (12.8%) 9 (9.0%) Headache or migraine, n (%) 34 (10.3%) 46 (13.9%) 23 (11.8%) 11 (11.0%) Other, n (%) 16 (4.8%)α 14 (4.2%)β 7 (3.6%)γ 2 (2.0%)δ Any symptoms, n (%) 275 (83.3%) 261 (79.1%) 151 (77.4%) 67 (67.0%) †One of golimumab, adalimumab, or infliximab (originator or biosimilar) ‡Any combination of anti-TNF and one or more of the following therapies: vedolizumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, or methotrexate αParesthesia, chin swelling, dysgeusia, numbness, hot flashes, irritability, ennui, hyperactivity, brain fog, congestion, dry eyes, sleep trouble, testicular swelling, angioedema, sinus swelling, throat swelling βShingles, hot flashes, brain fog, sleep troubles, rapid heartbeat, forced breathing, congestion, angioedema, throat swelling, leg swelling γHot flashes, brain fog, sleep troubles, sore throat, congestion, angioedema, ITP δParesthesia, sleep troubles

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: Results From a Global Ulcerative Colitis Patient Survey

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges around disease management, lifestyle changes, and provision of care for patients (pts) with ulcerative colitis (UC). The survey aimed to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted pts with UC and assessed overall disease management, telehealth use, healthcare experience, perceived quality of care, emotional well-being, reliance on alternative support systems, and preferences for virtual/in-person interactions with doctors. Disease management before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic: reliance on alternative support systems for management of ulcerative colitis Prior to the pandemic During the pandemic Plan to do after the pandemic Have never done or plan to do Talked openly with their doctor about how their disease impacts their life 54% 54% 44% 17% Set goals with their doctor for managing their disease 48% 46% 40% 25% Communicated with a nurse at their doctor’s office between appointments 45% 40% 34% 32% Used an online patient portal to contact their doctor’s office or see lab results 31% 47% 33% 32% Used social media to connect with other patients or learn about ulcerative colitis 24% 39% 27% 46% Used symptom tracking or disease management apps 23% 31% 29% 48% Relied on information from patient advocacy groups 19% 27% 22% 54% Relied on patient support groups 15% 22% 22% 59% Had virtual appointments with their doctor 13% 55% 32% 31%

Efficacy of Upadacitinib Dose Escalation in a Phase 3 Long-Term Extension Ulcerative Colitis Study

Introduction: Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral selective and reversible JAK inhibitor, recently demonstrated significantly greater therapeutic efficacy compared to placebo (PBO) in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) during a Phase 3 program.1,2,3 We evaluated the efficacy of dose escalation to UPA 30 mg QD (UPA30) among patients who demonstrated an inadequate response to UPA 15 mg QD (UPA15) during the long-term extension (LTE) study U-ACTIVATE. Results were based on non-responder imputation (NRI-NC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated by normal approximation to binomial distribution. F020For patients enrolled from U-ACHIEVE Maintenance due to loss of response, inadequate response was defined as: SFS + RBS value that remains unchanged or has increased from wk 0 on two consecutive visits at least 7 days apart. a Non-responder imputation with no special data handling for missing due to COVID-19 was applied. 95% CI calculated by normal approximation to binomial distribution. b Clinical remission per Adapted Mayo score: SFS≤1 and not greater than baseline (of induction), RBS=0, and endoscopic subscore (ES) ≤ 1. c Clinical remission per Adapted Mayo score and CS-free clinical remission (clinical remission at wk 48 and CS-free for ≥90 days prior to wk 48 among patients with clinical remission at the end of the induction therapy). d Endoscopic improvement: ES ≤ 1 e Endoscopic remission: ES= 0.

Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: Final Results From the Phase 3 U-ACHIEVE Maintenance Study

Introduction: Upadacitinib(UPA), has shown superior efficacy to placebo(PBO) in patients with moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis(UC) in two Phase 3 induction studies .1,2 Patients demonstrating clinical response per Adapted Mayo score with UPA 45mg once daily(QD) after 8 weeks(wks) induction were enrolled to U-ACHIEVE Maintenance. Methods: U-ACHIEVE Maintenance efficacy data from the intent-to-treat(ITT) population, defined as UPA 45mg QD 8wk induction responders enrolled per protocol for 52wk maintenance, and safety data from the safety population, defined as patients who received ≥1 dose of study therapy(ITT plus patients receiving up to 44wksmaintenanceper prior versions of protocol amendments). Non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputations to handle missing data due to COVID-19 was used. a Based on adjusted Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test adjusted for strata (corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes or no), clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes or no), biologic-IR status at baseline (biologic-IR or non-biologic-IR)). b Per Adapted Mayo score ≤2: stool frequency subscore ≤1 and not greater than induction baseline, RBS=0, and ES ≤1. c Maintenance of clinical response, defined as a decrease in Adapted Mayo score ≥2 and ≥30% from induction baseline, plus a decrease in RBS ≥1 or an absolute RBS ≤1, at Week 52 among patients who achieved clinical response at the end of the induction therapy. d ES ≤1. e Maintenance of CR at Week 52 among patients with CR at the end of the induction therapy. f CR at Week 52 and corticosteroid-free for ≥90 days prior to Week 52 among patients with CR at the end of the induction therapy. g Endoscopic improvement at Week 52 among patients with endoscopic improvement at the end of the induction therapy. h ES=0. i ES ≤1 and Geboes score ≤3.1. j ES=0 and Geboes score < 2.0.

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.

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.

Innovative Care for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Use of Bedside Intestinal Ultrasound to Optimize Management

Background The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has reduced access to endoscopy and imaging. Safe alternatives, available at the bedside, are needed for accurate, non-invasive strategies to evaluate disease activity. The aim of this study is to establish the impact of clinic-based bedside intestinal ultrasound (IUS) on decision making, reduction in reliance on endoscopy and short-term healthcare utilization. Methods We conducted a prospective observational evaluation during the COVID-19 pandemic, of the impact of a regional comprehensive care pathway to manage IBD patients consecutively recruited with acute symptoms, or suspected new diagnosis of IBD. Clinic-based access to sigmoidoscopy and bedside intestinal ultrasound were evaluated, used to direct clinical care and avoid hospitalization or hospital-based endoscopy. Results A total of 72 patients were seen between March 15 and June 30, 2020. Of these, 57% (41/72) were female, 64% had Crohn’s disease (46/72) with 14% (10/72) presenting with symptoms requiring investigation, of which 5 new cases of IBD were identified (50%). Immediate access to ultrasound and sigmoidoscopy led to meaningful changes in management in 80.5% (58/72) of patients. Active inflammation was detected by IUS alone (72.5%, 29/40) or in combination with in-clinic sigmoidoscopy (78%, 18/23) or sigmoidoscopy alone (78% 7/9). Six patients were referred to colorectal surgery for urgent surgical intervention including two patients admitted directly. Conclusion Implementation of IUS as part of a clinical care pathway during the COVID-19 pandemic is a useful strategy to enhance care delivery and improve clinical decisions, while sparing other important acute care resources. A centralized clinical care pathway integrating intestinal ultrasound in the management of acutely flaring inflammatory bowel disease patients avoids unnecessary emergency department visits and facilitates timely appropriate treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on IBD Care in Alberta: Patient and Provider Perspectives

Objective The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated changes in the delivery of ambulatory care for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including transitioning many visits to virtual formats and delaying non-urgent assessments. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on IBD patient care from health care providers’ (HCP) and patients’ perspectives. Methods We administered a 42-question HCP survey and a 44-question patient survey, which evaluated HCP and patient experience and satisfaction with care delivery and delays in access to IBD care during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results Surveys were completed by 19.2% (24/125) HCPs and 25.8% (408/1581) patients. Overall, 82.7% of patients with IBD maintained their care without disruption. The majority of patients were satisfied with a transition to virtual care. All HCPs were willing to use virtual care in the future;however, 60% (14/24) of HCPs reported that virtual care was not equivalent to in-person visits. Patients reported concerns around access to health resources, the uncertainty of IBD-specific care, and fear and stress due to employment uncertainty and safety. Providers also reported concerns about patient safety, patient education, adequate remuneration and challenges with providing care for new patients on virtual platforms. Conclusion While some delays in health care delivery occurred during the first wave of the pandemic, both patients and HCPs were satisfied with a transition to new models of care delivery. These models may remain in place post-pandemic and allow for flexibility in care delivery that is acceptable to both patients and HCPs.

Crohn's and Colitis Canada's 2021 Impact of COVID-19 and Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Canada: COVID-19 Vaccines-Biology, Current Evidence and Recommendations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has ushered a globally focused vaccine development program that produced multiple successful vaccines within a year. Four SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been approved for use in Canada, using two different technologies, all of which have shown excellent efficacy in reducing the rate of symptomatic COVID-19 infection and 100% efficacy in preventing death from COVID-19. People with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), like many others with immune-mediated chronic diseases, were excluded from the pivotal trials of these vaccines, leading to early hesitancy by regulatory bodies to endorse administering the vaccines to these groups. However, recent data has shown that the adverse event rate to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine among people with IBD is similar to the general population. Early data has further shown that people with IBD are capable of mounting a robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, particularly following a second dose, whereas the response to the first dose is blunted in those receiving anti-TNF therapy or conventional immunosuppressants (azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate). Based on these data and evidence from previous vaccine programs among people with IBD, multiple national and international expert panels have recommended that individuals with IBD receive complete vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible.

Crohn's and Colitis Canada's 2021 Impact of COVID-19 and Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Canada: Risk Factors and Medications.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a disease that results from dysregulation of the immune system and frequently requires medications that can affect the immune response to infections; therefore, it was imperative to quickly understand the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection on persons living with IBD and how that risk may be increased by commonly used IBD medications. The IBD research community in Canada and beyond quickly established collaborative efforts to better understand the specific risk posed by COVID-19 on persons with IBD. We learned that IBD itself was not a risk factor for death or serious complications of COVID-19, and that most commonly used drug classes (with the notable exception of corticosteroids) do not increase the risk of COVID-19-related adverse outcomes. The risk factors for serious complications and death from COVID-19 appear to be similar to those identified in the wider population; those being advanced age, having pre-existing heart or lung disease, and smoking. We recommend that persons with IBD do not alter their course of therapy to avoid complications of COVID-19, though the indiscriminate use of corticosteroids should be avoided. Persons with IBD should follow the same public health recommendations as the general population to reduce their personal risk of acquiring COVID-19.

Crohn's and Colitis Canada's 2021 Impact of COVID-19 & Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Canada: A Knowledge Translation Strategy.

The prevalence of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, in Canada, is over 0.75% in 2021. Many individuals with IBD are immunocompromised. Consequently, the World Health Organization's declaration of a global pandemic uniquely impacted those with IBD. Crohn's and Colitis Canada (CCC) formed the COVID-19 and IBD Taskforce to provide evidence-based guidance during the pandemic to individuals with IBD and their families. The Taskforce met regularly through the course of the pandemic, synthesizing available information on the impact of COVID-19 on IBD. At first, the information was extrapolated from expert consensus guidelines, but eventually, recommendations were adapted for an international registry of worldwide cases of COVID-19 in people with IBD. The task force launched a knowledge translation initiative consisting of a webinar series and online resources to communicate information directly to the IBD community. Taskforce recommendations were posted to CCC's website and included guidance such as risk stratification, management of immunosuppressant medications, physical distancing, and mental health. A weekly webinar series communicated critical information directly to the IBD community. During the pandemic, traffic to CCC's website increased with 484,755 unique views of the COVID-19 webpages and 126,187 views of the 23 webinars, including their video clips. CCC's COVID-19 and IBD Taskforce provided critical guidance to the IBD community as the pandemic emerged, the nation underwent a lockdown, the economy reopened, and the second wave ensued. By integrating public health guidance through the unique prism of a vulnerable population, CCC's knowledge translation platform informed and protected the IBD community.