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.

Impact of Inflammatory Burden on Efficacy of Upadacitinib Maintenance Therapy in Ulcerative Colitis: Results From the Phase 3 U-ACHIEVE Study

Introduction: Upadacitinib (UPA) has demonstrated superior efficacy to placebo (PBO) and a favorable safety profile in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) in trial U-ACHIEVE Maintenance, in which two maintenance doses of UPA (30mg and 15mg once daily [QD]) were evaluated.1–3 However, data are limited on the impact of inflammatory burden on the efficacy of the two maintenance doses. Endoscopic improvement c at Week 52 BL Full Mayo score ≤9 BL Full Mayo score >9 8/74 (10.8) 14/75 (18.1) 45/75 (60.4) 27/73 (36.7) 44/73 (60.6) 50/79 (62.8) 0.2 26.1 Pancolitis at BL, no Pancolitis at BL, yes 16/79 (20.3) 6/70 (8.0) 33/66 (49.6) 39/82 (47.9) 43/68 (63.7) 52/86 (59.9) 14.1 12.0 EIM at BL, no EIM at BL, yes 15/112 (13.7) 6/37 (16.9) 57/112 (50.9) 15/36 (41.7) 68/113 (60.2) 27/41 (65.4) 9.3 23.7 Data are from the ITT population, defined as the first 450 randomized and treated patients with 8-week UPA 45 mg QD induction treatment who were enrolled in Cohort 1 under the protocol for the 52-week maintenance treatment period. Non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputations was performed to handle missing data due to COVID-19 incidence. a Not part of the predefined statistical analyses. b Adapted Mayo score ≤2, with stool frequency subscore ≤1 (and not greater than induction baseline), rectal bleeding subscore of 0, and endoscopic subscore ≤1. c Endoscopic subscore ≤1.

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.

Addressing HCV Elimination Barriers in Italy: Healthcare Resource Utilization and Cost Impact Using 8 Weeks' Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: In Italy, hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination is achievable; however, barriers remain to achieving the World Health Organization's elimination targets, and have become more pronounced with the spread of COVID-19. Glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (G/P) is a direct-acting antiviral therapy for HCV, approved for 8-week treatment in patients without cirrhosis, and with compensated cirrhosis (CC). Previously, 12 weeks of therapy was recommended for patients with CC. Shortened treatment may reduce the burden on healthcare resources, allowing more patients to be treated. This study presents the benefits that 8-week vs 12-week treatment with G/P may have in Italy. METHODS: A multicohort Markov model was used to assess the collective number of healthcare visits and time on treatment with 8-week vs 12-week G/P in the HCV-infected population of Italy from 2019 to 2030, using healthcare resource data from post-marketing observational studies of G/P. Increased treatment capacity and downstream clinical and economic benefits were also assessed assuming the reallocation of saved healthcare visits to treat more patients. RESULTS: Modeled outcomes showed that by 2030, 8-week treatment saved 27,006 years on therapy compared with 12-week treatment, with 21,065 fewer hepatologist visits. Reallocating these resources to treat more patients could increase capacity to treat 5064 (1.4%) more patients with 8 weeks of G/P, all with CC. This increased treatment capacity would further avoid 2257 cases of end-stage liver disease, 893 liver-related deaths, and provide net savings to the healthcare system of nearly €70 million. CONCLUSION: The modeled comparisons between 8- and 12-week treatment with G/P show that shorter treatment duration can lead to greater time and resource savings, both in terms of healthcare visits and downstream costs. These benefits have the potential to enable the treatment of more patients to overcome elimination barriers in Italy through programs aimed to engage and treat targeted HCV populations.