Category Archives: Gastroenterology

New IBD Medication: Guselkumab for UC (QUASAR study)

Posted on by

Previous work has established Guselkumab, a IL-23p19 subunit antagonist for Crohn’s disease (Guselkumab: Expanding the GALAXI of Treatments for Crohn’s Disease).

Peyrin-Biroulet et al now provide data showing its efficacy for ulcerative colitis (UC): Gastroenterol 2023; 165: 1443-1457. Open access! Guselkumab in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: QUASAR Phase 2b Induction Study

Background/Methods: The QUASAR Phase 2b Induction Study evaluated the efficacy and safety of guselkumab, an interleukin-23p19 subunit antagonist, in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) with prior inadequate response and/or intolerance to corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, and/or advanced therapy. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, induction study, adult patients (n=313), with median disease duration of 7.5 years, were randomized (1:1:1) to receive intravenous guselkumab 200 or 400 mg or placebo at weeks 0/4/8.

Key findings:

  • Week-12 clinical response percentage was greater with guselkumab 200 mg (61.4%) and 400 mg (60.7%) vs placebo (27.6%; both P < .001). (Patients received IV induction at 0,4, and 8 weeks)
  • Greater proportions of guselkumab-treated vs placebo-treated patients achieved all major secondary endpoints (clinical remission, symptomatic remission, endoscopic improvement, histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement, and endoscopic normalization) at week 12
  • Among guselkumab week-12 clinical nonresponders, 54.3% and 50.0% of patients in the 200- and 400-mg groups, respectively, achieved clinical response at week 24 (after another dose of guselkumab (2nd dose SC). Thus, by week 24, 80.2% (81/101) of patients in the 200 mg IV induction and 78.5% *84/107) in the 400 mg IV induction had a clinical response.
  • Clinical response was noted as early as 2 weeks (first timepoint assessed)
  • Safety was similar among guselkumab and placebo groups.

My take: This is an era with rapidly expanding medical treatments for inflammatory bowel disease; it should help reduce the problem of individuals who are refractory to available treatments.

FDA Approves Etrasimod for Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

GI & Hepatology News, November 2023: FDA OKs two new treatments for UC

An excerpt:

In October, the FDA approved etrasimod (Velsipity, Pfizer) for moderate to severe active UC in adults. Etrasimod, an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor, binds with high affinity to receptors 1, 4, and 5. It is the second agent in the S1P class approved for UC. The other agent, ozanimod (Zeposia, Bristol-Myers Squibb), which was approved for moderate to severe active UC in May 2021, is an S1P receptor modulator that is selective for the S1P1 and S1P5 receptors located on endothelial cells and oligodendrocytes, respectively.

Etrasimod’s approval was based on safety and efficacy data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials ― ELEVATE UC 52 trial, and ELEVATE UC 12 trial. The Lancet published full results from the two trials on March 2. Both trials enrolled patients with UC who had previously failed or were intolerant of at least one conventional, biologic, or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor therapy.

In ELEVATE UC 52, clinical remission at 12 weeks occurred in 27% of patients taking etrasimod, vs 7% of patients taking a placebo (20% difference; P ˂.001). At week 52, remission rates were 32% with active treatment, vs. 7% with placebo (26% difference;
P ˂ .001).

In ELEVATE UC 12, clinical remission was achieved among 26% of patients who received etrasimod, vs 15.0% of patients who received placebo (11% difference; P < .05).

The approved recommended dose is 2 mg once daily. The most common side effects of etrasimod are headache, elevated values on liver tests, worsening of UC, SARS-CoV-2 infection, dizziness, pyrexia, arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea

Reference: WJ Sandborn et al. The Lancet 2023; DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00061-2. Open Access! Etrasimod as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis (ELEVATE): two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies

My take: It is not exactly clear where etrasimod or ozanimod should be positioned for ulcerative colitis therapy as several other drug classes have much higher response rates.

Related blog posts:

Next time someone says that they are receiving therapy, perhaps I will be able to say ‘me too.’

U.S. IBD Prevalence: 7 in 1000

Posted on by

JD Lewis et al. Gastroenterology 2023 Nov;165(5):1197-1205.e2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.07.003. Incidence, Prevalence, and Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the United States

This “INPUT” (INcidence, Prevalence, Treatment and OUTome in Patients with IBD) study used 4 different data sets to provide “the clearest depiction to date of IBD [epidemiology] in the U.S.

Key findings:

  • The age-, sex- and insurance-standardized prevalence of IBD was 721 per 100,000 population. This equates to estimated 2.39 million Americans with IBD.
  • Sub-category prevalence: the prevalence of IBD per 100,000 population was 812 in White, 504 in Black, 403 in Asian, and 458 in Hispanic Americans.

My take: The prevalence of IBD continues to increase and the U.S. has one of the highest rates in the world.

Related blog posts:

When is the Right Time to De-escalate Dose of Tofacitinib for Ulcerative Colitis?

Posted on by

A Yu et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 21: 3115-3124. Open Access! Real-World Experience With Tofacitinib Dose De-Escalation in Patients With Moderate and Severe Ulcerative Colitis

On May 30, 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded the indication of tofacitinib (Xeljanz; Pfizer), an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. However, the optimal dosing remains unclear.

In this “real-world” study by Yu et al, a retrospective review of 162 patients was conducted (2012-2022). 52% continued 10 mg twice daily while 48% underwent dose de-escalation to 5 mg twice daily.  The primary outcome was evidence of UC disease activity–related events: hospitalization/surgery, corticosteroid initiation, tofacitinib dose increase, or therapy switch.

Key findings:

  • Cumulative incidence rates of UC events at 12 months were similar in patients with and without dose de-escalation (56% vs 58%; P = .81)
  • An induction course with 10 mg twice daily for more than 16 weeks was protective of UC events (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37) while ongoing severe disease (Mayo 3) was associated with UC events (HR, 6.41)
  • Twenty-nine percent of patients with UC events had their dose re-escalated to 10 mg twice daily, with only 63% able to recapture clinical response at 12 months

Discussion Points:

  •  “Although the product label recommends dose de-escalation after 8 or 16 weeks, clinical practice is variable in the real-world setting… In this retrospective real-world study of moderate to severe UC patients with almost half undergoing dose de-escalation, we observed that more than half of patients experienced a UC disease activity–related event within 12 months after dose de-escalation, particularly in patients with an induction course of fewer than 16 weeks and active endoscopic disease at 6 months after induction…”
  • ” Although dose de-escalation is preferable for long-term maintenance therapy to reduce the potential lifetime risk of medication-related adverse events [eg. VTE], it must be balanced with sustained remission to prevent short- and long-term disease-related complications.”
  • “In the OCTAVE study which reported higher rates of long-term remission, patients de-escalated only after having shown clinical and endoscopic remission after 52 weeks on tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily”

My take (borrowed from authors):  “Emphasis should be placed on clinical and endoscopic evidence of improvement before consideration of dose de-escalation to ensure the highest probability of treatment success.” This advice, though, may conflict with product labelling which states that “tofacitinib induction with 10 mg twice daily beyond 16 weeks is not recommended; in fact, it is recommended to stop after 16 weeks if adequate response has not been achieved.”

Related blog posts:

Belem Tower, Lisbon

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.

Genetic Test to Help Determine Need for Combination Therapy with Anti-TNF

Posted on by

V Solitano et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 21: 3019-3029. HLA-DQA1∗05 Genotype and Immunogenicity to Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Antagonists: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Key findings:

  • On meta-analysis of 13 studies (3756 patients; median follow-up, 12 months; 41% with variants), HLA-DQA1∗05 variants were associated with 75% higher risk of immunogenicity compared with non-carriers (relative risk, 1.75) with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 62%) (low certainty evidence).
  • In addition, patients with HLA-QQA1*05 variants had clinical loss of response (LOR) in 67% compared to 30% in those without this variant (wild-type); thus, a 124% higher risk of LOR.
  • Positive and negative predictive values of HLA-DQA1∗05 variants for predicting immunogenicity were 30% and 80%, respectively
  • Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring, but not concomitant use of IMMs, IMIDs, and TNF-α antagonist-type, modified this association.

My take:

  • The ~40% of individuals with HLA-DQA1*05 variants are at higher risk of LOR and are more likely to benefit from both therapeutic drug monitoring and probably from use of combination (with immunomodulator) therapy.
  • The positive predictive value (30%) is low indicating that the majority of patients with these variants will not develop anti-drug antibodies within 12 months.
  • In those with negative testing for HLA-DQA1*05 (~60%), the higher negative predictive value indicates a patient is more likely to do well with monotherapy.
  • HLA-DQA1*05 testing is available commercially (usually part of Celiac HLA typing).

Related blog posts:

This is the Initiation Well at Quinta da Regaleira in Sintra, Portugal.
It is pretty cool because it seems to start at ground level and then goes down many floors.
There is an exit to a number of tunnels at the lower level.

IBD Brief Updates: Anti-TNF Loss of Response, Upadacitinib for ASUC, Risk Factors for Developing IBD

Posted on by

EHJ Savelkoul et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2023; 29: 1633-1647. Open Access! Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Loss of Response and Need for Dose Escalation of Infliximab and Adalimumab in Ulcerative Colitis

Methods: A systematic search was conducted from August 1999 to July 2021 for studies (50 studies identified) reporting loss of response and dose escalation during infliximab and/or adalimumab use in ulcerative colitis patients with primary response

Key findings:

  • Annual loss of response was 10% for infliximab and 13% for adalimumab, with higher rates during the first year.
  • The annual LOR incidences were higher during the first 65 weeks of treatment for both IFX (14%) and ADA (23%).
  • Annual dose escalation rates were 14% (infliximab) and 21% (adalimumab), with clinical benefit in 72% and 52%, respectively

CH Zinger et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2023; 29: 1667-1669. Upadacitinib for Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis

Key finding: 4 patients (age 18-25 yrs) received upadacitinib for acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) after failing to respond to infliximab and IV steroids. 3 of 4 responded to treatment (45 mg/day) between 4 to 8 days. Three months later, two of these patients were in steroid-free clinical-endoscopic remission and one had maintained a clinical response.

In their discussion, the authors note a similar response rate to tofacitinib, another JAK inhibitor, for ASUC; though, the authors speculate that upadacitinib may be efficacious.

N Narula et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 21: 2649-2659. Associations of Antibiotics, Hormonal Therapies, Oral Contraceptives, and Long-Term NSAIDS With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Results From the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study

In a a prospective cohort study of 133,137 individuals between the ages of 20 and 80 from 24 countries, the authors examined the relationship between exposures to antibiotics, NSAIDs and hormonal therapies with the development of IBD over a median 11 year period.

Key findings:

  • Incident IBD was associated significantly with baseline antibiotic (aOR, 2.81; P = .0001) and hormonal medication use (aOR, 4.43; P = .001).
  • Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug users also were observed to have increased odds of IBD (aOR, 1.80 P = .002), which was driven by long-term use (aOR, 5.58; P < .001)
Near Cassis, France

Is Risankizumab More Effective for Crohn’s Disease Than Ustekinumab?

Posted on by

M Dubinsky et al. Adv Ther. 2023; 40(9): 3896–3911. Open Access! Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Between Risankizumab and Ustekinumab for Induction and Maintenance Treatment of Moderately to Severely Active Crohn’s Disease

Background/Methods: Risankizumab (RZB) and ustekinumab (UST), interleukin (IL)-23 and IL-12/23 inhibitors, respectively, are approved treatments for moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD); direct comparison between the two is ongoing. The authors indirectly compared efficacy of RZB versus UST using data from phase 3 trials (three trials for each medication):

Key findings:

Induction: Higher proportions of patients achieved clinical and endoscopic outcomes with RZB vs. UST, resulting in significantly (p ≤ 0.05) greater percent differences between groups for CDAI remission (15%) and endoscopic response (26%) and remission (9%)

Rates of response and remission following induction therapy with RZB (600 mg) or UST (6 mg/kg). *p ≤ 0.05 for RZB versus UST. Relative effect measures are shown as the percent difference between treatment groups; absolute effect measures are the proportions of patients achieving each outcome in each treatment group. BF biologic failure, CCF conventional care failure, CDAI Crohn’s Disease Activity Index, IV intravenous, PBO placebo, RZB risankizumab, UST ustekinumab

Maintenance: rates of CDAI remission were similar (range − 0.3% to − 5.0%) for RZB vs. UST; however, endoscopic response and remission rates appeared more favorable (see Figure 2 below)

Rates of response and remission following maintenance therapy with RZB (180 mg or 360 mg) or UST (90 mg Q8W). *p ≤ 0.05 for RZB versus UST. Relative effect measures are shown as the percent difference between treatment groups; absolute effect measures are the proportions of patients achieving each outcome in each treatment group. BF biologic failure, CCF conventional care failure, CDAI Crohn’s Disease Activity Index, PBO placebo, Q8W every 8 weeks, Q12W every 12 weeks, RZB risankizumab, SC subcutaneous, UST ustekinumab

My take: Since this was not a direct randomization trial, these results are not definitive. However, in this indirect analysis, risankizumab appears to be superior to utekinumab in effectiveness of for Crohn’s disease.

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.

What’s Changing in IBD Care: Hospitalization Rates and Authorizations

Posted on by

The Good News:

MJ Buie et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2023; 29: 1536-1545. Open Access! Hospitalization Rates for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Are Decreasing Over Time: A Population-based Cohort Study

This population-based administrative data cohort study provides annual IBD hospitalization rates in Alberta, Canada.

Key findings:

  • From 2002-2003 to 2018-2019, all-cause hospitalization rates decreased from 36.57 to 16.72 per 100 IBD patients (Average Annual Percentage Change (AAPC), −4.18%)
  • Inflammatory bowel disease–related hospitalization rate decreased from 26.44 to 9.24 per 100 IBD patients (AAPC, −5.54%)
  • The absolute number of hospitalizations, however, likely did not improve because this is affected by the increase in IBD prevalence. In Alberta, there was a 3-fold increase from 2002 to 2018 (general population increased 1.4 fold during this period)

“The last 2 decades have seen the introduction of several advanced therapies with novel mechanisms of action.22 The introduction of these therapies has been accompanied by changes in management strategies that include earlier introduction of advanced therapies based on risk stratification, treat-to-target, and monitoring strategies.5,23–26 These advancements include risk stratification, allowing for earlier introduction of advanced therapies; proactive clinical management algorithms to monitor disease activity; and therapeutic drug monitoring allowing for continued concentration-based dosing.23–26The net effect of these medical advances shifted IBD management from the hospital to the outpatient setting.27“

The Bad News:

DK Choi et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2023; 29: 1658-1661. Delays in Therapy Associated With Current Prior Authorization Process for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

This retrospective study of 1693 prior authorizations (PAs) from 2020-2021. Key findings:

  • 1397 PA initially approved, 209 first-level PAs approved, 23 second-level PAs approve, and 11 external review requests approved. In total 97% (1640 of 1697) were approved
  • Dose escalations had the lowest approval rate of 67.6%
  • FDA approval had favorable OR for PA approval of 4.45
  • The median time to biologic initiation was 21 days, with appeals causing further delays to initiation

Median Days to Determination by Insurance Level:

  • Prior authorization: 11 days
  • First level appeal: 29 days
  • Second level appeal: 51 days
  • External review request: 73 days

My take: The PA process usually results in few denials (if pursued) but does result in significant delays in therapy. At the same time, these newer therapies have been associated with improvement in hospitalizations rates.

Related blog posts:

Atlantis Study: Possibly Best Evidence That Tricyclics May Help Irritable Bowel

Posted on by

Thanks to Ben Gold for this reference.

AC Ford et al. The Lancet 2023; DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01523-4. Open Access! Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 463 adults (median age 48 yrs), the authors compared low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily). The use of the Rome IV criteria resulted in the selection of a group of patients with higher symptom severity,50 borne out by the mean IBS-SSS scores at baseline, which were in the moderate to severe range. The median duration of IBS among participants was 10 years.

Key findings:

  • Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (–27·0, 95% CI –46·9 to –7·10; p=0·0079)
  • 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months.

In their discussion, the authors note that “this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever undertaken and the first based entirely in a primary care setting…low-dose amitriptyline met the primary outcome, with a mean decrease in IBS-SSS of almost 100 points at both months 3 and 6 compared with baseline, and also met the key secondary outcome for effectiveness, as well as other IBS symptom measures.”

“There was no effect of low-dose amitriptyline on somatoform symptom-reporting scores, or anxiety or depression scores, during 6 month follow-up, nor was there any impact on work and social activities.:

Key secondary outcome of SGA of relief of IBS symptoms at 6 months. SGA=subjective global assessment.

My take (borrowed from authors): Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated.

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.

COMBO-IBD Study -Combination Immunomodulator Use and Thresholds

Posted on by

AJ Yarur et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 21: 2908-2917. Open Access! Combination Therapy With Immunomodulators Improves the Pharmacokinetics of Infliximab But Not Vedolizumab or Ustekinumab

In this prospective cohort with 369 patients, treatment included the following 113 infliximab, 133 vedolizumab, and 123 ustekinumab. All patients received standard dosing (eg. 5 mg/kg/dose every 8 weeks with infliximab). Per Table 1, dose of thiopurine was 100 mg (range 50-150, “using a 2:1 ratio of azathioprrine and mercaptopurine”); most patients received methotrexate at a dose of 12.5 mg. Key findings:

  • Infliximab levels were much improved in patients receiving combination therapy with either a thiopurine or methotrexate. In those patients receiving a thiopurine, a threshold of 6-TGN ≥146 was considered optimal.
  • Patients receiving combination therapy with methotrexate or a thiopurine and a 6-TGN concentration ≥146 pmol per 8 × 108 RBCs, and those with baseline infliximab level ≥12.3 μg/mL had a lower rate of secondary nonresponse when compared with those on monotherapy, thiopurine with 6-TGN <146 pmol per 8 × 108 RBCs, and baseline infliximab level <12.3 μg/mL (88.2 vs 11.8% [P = .04], 71.2 vs 45.5% [P = .04])
  • Ustekinumab and vedolizumab levels were NOT increased in patients receiving an immunomodulator

My take: This study reinforces the idea that there are pharmacokinetic benefits of combination therapy with infliximab (and extrapolated to other anti-TNF agents); there is a lack of benefit for most patients receiving ustekinumab and vedolizumab. Even with ustekinumab and vedolizumab, it is possible that patients with more severe disease may still benefit independent of pharmacokinetic effects on biologic agent.

Higher doses of infliximab monotherapy with therapeutic drug monitoring may achieve similar results as combination therapy. However, patients switching from one anti-TNF to another due to immunogenicity/antidrug antibodies are particularly likely to benefit from combination therapy. In addition, a recent ImproveCareNow study showed better outcomes for pediatric patients who received methotrexate with adalimumab (see below).

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.