Tag Archives: ustekinumab

CCFA 2023 (Atlanta) -Part 1

Posted on by

I recently attended a regional CCFA conference. David Rubin gave several terrific lectures. Here are some of my notes and some slides from this lecture. My notes may contain transcription errors as well as important omissions. Can get access to full set of slides here: Biologics and Their Biosimilars

“Biologics and Their Biosimilars“

What is a Biologic Therapy?

Dr. Rubin makes a point of explaining the term to patients.  It is a protein made in a living cell that targets another protein.  Term “biologic” can sound scary to patients.  Usually given IV because they cannot be absorbed through the small bowel.

IBD Treatment Revolutions

  • Steroids -overnight changed mortality in IBD
  • Anti-TNF Therapy in IBD -taught many lessons. Treat earlier –>better outcomes. 

Anti-TNF Therapy

  • Frequent loss of response.
  • Earlier treatment with biologics result in better outcomes.
  • Immunogenicity is mainly an issue with anti-TNF agents and not much of an issue with other biologics. Episodic therapy is a big risk factor for anti-drug antibodies. 
  • If staying with in-class medication, after anti-drug antibodies, need to take additional measures to prevent anti-drug antibodies (eg. Immunomodulators).
  • Combination therapy is more effective (SONIC, UC SUCCESS trials).  This is due to using multiple mechanisms of disease control, reduction in anti-drug antibodies, and elevated serum drug levels.
  • Good therapeutic levels appears to deliver similar results as combination therapy
  • Pre-week 6 level of 17 or greater, associated with good response in maintenance.  If level is low, presumption is that higher dosing will be beneficial.
  • Higher levels of infliximab trough levels needed for perianal fistula healing (improved with ciprofloxacin).  Higher levels could be causally-related to healing or could be a marker that there is less inflammation and a patient is responding.
  • Anti-TNFs do not appear to increase risk of infections (see PUCCINI study)

Anti-23 and Anti-IL-12/IL-23

  • Tissue selective targeted therapy –>excellent safety profile
  • IV loading and SC maintenance
  • Excellent for bowel and skin
  • IL-23 is not expressed in joints
  • Ustekinumab is effective for perianal disease and ulcerative colitis
  • Risankizumab is superior to ustekinumab in plaque psoriasis.  If loss of response to ustekinumab, can still respond to Risankizumab

Anti-Integrins:

  • Natalizumab (not used frequently in IBD)
  • Vedolizumab.  Affects mucosa (can explain frequent nasopharyngitis)
  • Vedolizumab -terrific safety profile.  No PML, no malignancy risk

Biosimilars:

  • If biosimilar found effective for one approved condition, extrapolation given to all indications
  • IBD switching studies have NOT shown increased loss of response.  Consider reassess prior to switch to help determine if patient truly in remission prior to switch. Switching often blamed for loss of response when many times the disease was not under good control prior to switch
  • Interchangeable indicates that the drug can be switched by pharmacists
  • Biosimilars are saving insurers money but no proof that this is saving patients money
  • Anti-drug antibodies will cross-react to biosimilars

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.

Comparative Efficacy of Biologics for Crohn’s Disease

Posted on by

S Singh et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 21: 2359-2369. Open Access! Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Biologic Therapy for Crohn’s Disease: A CA-IBD Cohort Study

There is limited head-to-head data comparing the effectiveness of the biologics used for inflammatory bowel disease. In this study, the authors used a “series of propensity score (PS)-matched cohort studies comparing TNF-α antagonists vs vedolizumab vs ustekinumab in a large, diverse, multicenter, electronic health record (EHR)-based cohort.”

This graphical abstract summarizes the findings, though the first cohort (ustekinumab vs TNFalpha population is actually 1545 not 1030):

Key findings:

  • Ustekinumab-treated patients with CD (n = 515) experienced a lower risk of serious infections (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36), without any difference in the risk of hospitalization (HR, 0.99) or surgery (HR, 1.08) -compared to patients receiving TNF alpha antagonists (n=1030)
  • Ustekinumab-treated patients with CD (n = 221) experienced a lower risk of serious infections (HR, 0.20), without significant differences in risk of hospitalization (HR, 0.76) or surgery (HR, 1.42) -compared to vedolizumab-treated patients (n=221)
  • Compared with TNF-α antagonists (n = 442), vedolizumab-treated patients with CD (n = 221) had a similar risk of serious infections (HR, 1.53), hospitalization (HR, 1.32), and surgery (HR, 0.63).

The increase rate of infections with vedolizumab compared to ustekinumab could be an indication of lower efficacy with vedolizumab as the medication itself has a high safety profile.

In the discussion, the authors comment further on head-to-head studies and lack of these as well. “Biemans et al23 observed that ustekinumab-treated patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission (69 patients in each arm, vs vedolizumab; 46.4% vs 29.0%; P = .04) and biochemical remission (42.1% vs 13.2%; P = .01) at 12 months, although these rates were not significant at earlier time points.”

My take: This study provides further evidence that ustekinumab is a good option for Crohn’s disease with regard to both safety and efficacy.

Related blog posts:

Comparative Efficacy: Infliximab vs. Ustekinumab

Posted on by

ECL Wong et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2023; 29: 1015-1023. Open Access! Comparative Efficacy of Infliximab vs Ustekinumab for Maintenance of Clinical Response in Biologic Naïve Crohn’s Disease

This post hoc analysis included data from separate trials examined the response of 220 biologic-naïve CD participants to either inflximab biosimilar or ustekinumab.

Key findings:

  • Clinical remission: One-year clinical remission (CR) and corticosteroid-free CR rates were similar between infliximab-treated and ustekinumab-treated patients (CR, 66 of 110 [60.0%] vs 63 of 110 [57.3%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.15), corticosteroid-free CR, 11 of 28 (39.3%) vs 27 of 51 [52.9%]; aOR, 0.58)
  • Endoscopic response/remission:  infliximab-treated participants were more likely to achieve 1-year endoscopic response (43 of 92 [46.7%] vs 6 of 30 [20.0%], aOR, 3.59) and endoscopic remission (31 of 92 [33.7%] vs 4 of 30 [13.3%]; aOR, 3.35)

In the discussion, the authors note only 1 head-to-head study in CD with ustekinumab. “The SEAVUE trial (NCT03464136) compared adalimumab and ustekinumab among biologic-naïve CD patients. Ustekinumab demonstrated similar efficacy for the achievement of clinical and endoscopic outcomes compared with adalimumab.23 Similar rates of CR at 1 year were reported in SEAVUE (64.9% ustekinumab vs 61% adalimumab) as in our analysis (57.3% ustekinumab vs 60% infliximab)…ustekinumab demonstrated longer retention and lower immunogenicity and has practical advantages over adalimumab, including less frequent dosing intervals (every 8 weeks for ustekinumab vs every 2 weeks for adalimumab) while providing similar efficacy.”

My take: This study suggests that infliximab may be a little better than ustekimumab in biologic-naive patients due to the higher endoscopic response; however, the study was unpowered to provide a definitive answer. A prior study suggested similar endoscopic healing rates (P Riviere et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2023; 29: 923-931).

Related blog posts:

Waters off the Cap d’Ail Trail (near Eze, France)

Which is a More Effective First-Line for Crohn’s Disease: Ustekinumab or anti-TNF agents?

Posted on by

P Riviere et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2023; 29: 923-931. Comparative Effectiveness of Ustekinumab and Anti-TNF Agent as First-Line Biological Therapy in Luminal Crohn’s Disease: A Retrospective Study From 2 Referral Centers

A previous study (SEAVUE) has suggested similar efficacy of ustekinumab and adalimumab in biologic-naive patients (post: SEAVUE: Head-to-Head Ustekimumab vs. Adalimumab) with ~60-65% clinical response at 52 weeks and ~30% endoscopic remission.

This current retrospective study sought to obtain ‘real-world’ data comparing anti-TNF agents (95 adalimumab, 61 infliximab) to ustekinumab (n=50). In the anti-TNF group, 44% (n=68) received concomitant immunomodulator therapy. Key findings:

  •  At 3 months, clinical response rates were 86% in anti-TNF groups and 64% in the ustekinumab.
  • At 12 months, in adjusted multivariate analysis, clinical remission (based on Harvey-Bradshaw Index) was independently associated with the biological therapy received (odds ratio, 2.6 for anti-TNF agent vs ustekinumab; P = .02).
  • “In our sensitivity analysis, a significant difference in terms of efficacy was only found between infliximab and ustekinumab.”
  • In those with ileocolonoscopy, endoscopic healing was similar (between 6-18 months): 58% of anti-TNF group and 61% of ustekinumab group.
  • 2% of patients in the anti-TNF group had severe adverse events compared to none in the ustekinumab group; among patients receiving adalimumab, 1 patient had cerebral aspergillosis, 1 had a postinfectious macrophage activation syndrome, and 1 had severe folliculitis needing abscess drainage.
  • Drug persistence at 12 months was 87% in anti-TNF group and 88% in ustekinumab group.

The discussion notes that ‘real-world’ data is important as only ~30% of patients in a regular practice would fulfill the criteria to be included in clinical trials. However, in this retrospective (non-randomized) study, there were differences in the patient population that could affect response to treatment, including a higher rate of smokers in the anti-TNF group (29% compared to 12% in the ustekinumab group).

My take: While anti-TNF therapy, particularly infliximab, may be a little better based on clinical remission, the most objective marker of efficacy, endoscopic healing, was similar. Thus, it is not clear if anti-TNF therapy is more effective than ustekinumab. To achieve optimal results, many in the anti-TNF group received immunomodulator cotherapy and dose escalation.

Related blog posts:

Joel Andres, Chef & Philanthropist, World Central Kitchen

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.

Treatments for “Bad” Inflammatory Bowel Disease (Part 1)

Posted on by

Generally, in my view, “bad” inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) occurs when treatments are not working; though, many would argue that any IBD is bad IBD. Over the next few days, reviewed articles will focus on the problem of IBD that is not responding well to treatment.

A Yerushalmy-Feler et al. JPGN 2022; 75: 717-723. Safety and Potential Efficacy of Escalating Dose of Ustekinumab in Pediatric Crohn Disease (the Speed-up Study): A Multicenter Study from the Pediatric IBD Porto Group of ESPGHAN

In this retrospective study with 69 children with Crohn’s disease (CD) from 25 centers, the authors looked at the effectiveness of ustekinumab (UST) dose escalation which entailed reducing frequency to less than every 8 weeks. Most children were biologic (98.6%)- and immunomodulator (86.8%)- experienced.

Key findings:

  • Clinical response and remission were observed at 3 months after UST escalation in 46 (67%) and 29 (42%) children, respectively.
  • Fecal calprotectin level from 1100 (500–2300) to 515 (250–1469) µg/g (P = 0.012) 3 months post-escalation
  • Endoscopic and transmural healing were achieved in 3 of 19 (16%) and 2 of 15 (13%) patients, respectively

In their discussion, the authors note that UST has not received FDA approval despite the fact that it has become a common second- and third-line biologic therapy for pediatric CD.

My take: This study supports the common practice of escalation of UST for children with active CD despite treatment at every 8 weeks.

Related Ustekinumab Studies:

Related blog posts:

Deepdene Park, Atlanta. Part of Olmstead Linear Park

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.

Improving MRE Utility in Pediatric Crohn’s

Posted on by

G Focht et al. Gastroenterol 2022; 163: 1306-1320. Open Access! Development, Validation, and Evaluation of the Pediatric Inflammatory Crohn’s Magnetic Resonance Enterography Index From the ImageKids Study

In this prospective study of children (n-240) with Crohn’s disease, the authors utilized ileocolonoscopy and MREs (n=159) and followed for 18 months.

Key findings:

  • 5 MRE findings were identified to generate a PICMI (Pediatric Inflammatory Crohn’s Magnetic Resonance Enterography Index): wall thickness, wall diffusion weighted imaging, ulcerations, mesenteric edema, and comb sign
  • In the validation cohort of 81 MREs, the weighted global PICMI correlated well with the radiologist global assessment (r = 0.85; P < .001) and with the simple endoscopic score in a subsample with ileocolonic disease (r = 0.63; P < .001).
  •  Interobserver and test-retest reliability were high (interclass correlation coefficients, 0.84 and 0.81, respectively; both P < .001)
  • Transmural healing was defined as PICMI ≤10 and response as a change of >20 points with excellent discriminative validity (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.96

My take: This study identifies a specific MRI index (PICMI) that is reliable for assessing the entire bowel in pediatric CD and does not require intravenous gadolinium or rectal enema. By using a standardized tool, similar to SEMA-CD for ileocolonoscopy, this will improve the usefulness of MREs.

Also noted: Link: Clinical support tool (sponsored by AGA) that provides individualized information on 2nd line therapy effectiveness (ustekinumab and vedolizumab) with regard to probability of achieving clinical remission, how quick to expect a response, and whether therapeutic drug monitoring is needed.

Related blog posts:

IBD Updates: Dietary Patterns and Disease Activity, Ustekinumab in SUSTAIN study, INSPECT Study for Perianal Fistulas

Posted on by

BN Limketkai et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2022; 28: 1627-1636. Open Access! Dietary Patterns and Their Association With Symptoms Activity in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. This retrospective study with dietary surveys of 691 participants found the following:

  • Compared with WD1 (typical Western Diet), PB2 (Plant-based diet 2) was associated with lower odds of active symptoms for CD (odds ratio [OR], 0.32
  • PB1 (Plant-based diet 1) was associated with lower odds of active symptoms for participants with UC (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.23-0.90) but not for participants with CD (OR, 0.95

Diet PB1 (“Plant-based Diet 1”) was characterized by much higher intake of fruits, vegetables, plant-based proteins, and cooked grains than most other dietary clusters. There was low water intake in favor of juices and other beverages. There was otherwise average intake of added fats and oils, sugars, seafood, and dairy products, and modest intake of meats, eggs, mixed grains, and breads.

Diet PB2 (“Plant-based Diet 2”) was characterized by high intake of fruits, vegetables, plant proteins, and cooked grains and low intake of animal proteins (especially red and cured meats), added fats, sweetened beverages, sweet bakery products, other desserts, eggs, and breads. There was also a reduction of other beverages in favor of water. There was otherwise an average intake of seafood and dairy products.

M Chaparro et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2022; 28: 1725-1736. Open Access! Long-Term Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Ustekinumab in Crohn’s Disease Patients: The SUSTAIN Study In this retrospective study, 97% of the 463 patients had received prior biological therapy.

  • At week 16, 56% had remission, 70% had response
  • 26.1% required dose escalation or intensification
  • After a median follow-up of 15 months, 356 (77%) patients continued treatment.
  • Previous intestinal surgery and concomitant steroid treatment were associated with higher risk of ustekinumab discontinuation.
  • Neither concomitant immunosuppressants nor the number of previous biologics were associated with ustekinumab discontinuation risk

J Panes et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2022; 28: 1737-1745. Open Access! INSPECT: A Retrospective Study to Evaluate Long-term Effectiveness and Safety of Darvadstrocel in Patients With Perianal Fistulizing Crohn’s Disease Treated in the ADMIRE-CD Trial

Background: The current chart review study evaluated the longer-term effectiveness and safety of darvadstrocel (expanded allogeneic adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells).; n=43 treated patient and n=46 controls.

Key findings:

  • At 52, 104, and 156 weeks posttreatment, clinical remission was observed in 29 (67.4%) of 43, 23 (53.5%) of 43, and 23 (53.5%) of 43 darvadstrocel-treated patients, compared with 24 (52.2%) of 46, 20 (43.5%) of 46, and 21 (45.7%) of 46 control subjects, respectively.

SEAVUE: Head-to-Head Ustekimumab vs. Adalimumab

Posted on by

BE Sands et al.Lancet 2022; 399: 2200-2211. Ustekinumab versus adalimumab for induction and maintenance therapy in biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3b trial

Methods: This was  “a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, active-comparator, phase 3b trial (SEAVUE) at 121 hospitals or private practices in 18 countries. We included biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with moderately to severely active Crohn’s…Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1; via an interactive web response system) to receive ustekinumab (approximately 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 0, then 90 mg subcutaneously once every 8 weeks) or adalimumab (160 mg on day 0, 80 mg at 2 weeks, then 40 mg once every 2 weeks, subcutaneously) through week 56. Study treatments were administered as monotherapy and without dose modifications.”

386 patients were enrolled.

Key findings:

  • 29 (15%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and 46 (24%) of 195 in the adalimumab group discontinued study treatment before week 52
  • At week 52, 124 (65%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group versus 119 (61%) of 195 in the adalimumab group were in clinical remission (CDAI <150)
  • Endoscopic remission at week 52: ustekinumab 29% and for adalimumab 29%
  • Endoscopic response at week 52: ustekinumab 42%and for adalimumab 37%
  • Rapid onset of clinical response was seen with both therapies with improvement noted as early as week 2 assessment
  • Antidrug antibodies were less frequent with ustekinumab compared to adalimumab: 2% vs 74%.
  • Infections were reported in 65 (34%) of ustekinumab group compared to 79 (41%) of adalimumab group. Serious infections were reported in four (2%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and five (3%) of 195 in the adalimumab group.
  • No deaths occurred through week 52 of the study.

My take:

  1. Both medications had a high similar response rate. Ustekinumab had fewer patients discontinue medication and lower immunogenicity which could improve efficacy/duration of response in an extended study.
  2. It is good to see a well-designed head-to-head study rather than a placebo-control arm. Placebo-based studies are hard to justify given the availability of multiple effective agents.

Near Denali, AK

Head-to-Head (Sort of): Infliximab vs Ustekinumab for Crohn’s Disease

Posted on by

N Narula et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20: 1579-1587. Comparative Efficacy and Rapidity of Action for Infliximab vs Ustekinumab in Biologic Naïve Crohn’s Disease

Using a post hoc analysis of 2 large Crohn’s disease (CD) trial with 420 biologic-naive adult patients, the authors found the following Key Findings:

  • At week 6, a comparable number of patients achieved clinical remission with infliximab compared with patients treated with ustekinumab (44.9% vs 37.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.22)
  • At week 6 the clinical response rates were not significantly different (58.4% infliximab vs 54.9% ustekinumab; aOR, 1.25)
  • At week 6, 42.3% infliximab vs 34.7% ustekinumab had fecal calprotectin level less than 250 mcg/L in those with increased values at baseline

My take: A true head-to-head trial, rather than a post-hoc analysis, would more definitively determine relative efficacy and relative time to response. This study indicates that both agents have similar efficacy by week 6.

Related blog posts:

Fountain at Forsyth Park in Savannah

Can You Give Ustekinumab Subcutaneously After IV Reaction?

Posted on by

J Sunny et al. JPGN Reports: May 2022 – Volume 3 – Issue 2 – p e205 Open Access: Hypersensitivity Reaction to Ustekinumab in Pediatric and Young Adult Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Case Series

This is a case series of six pediatric patients and young adults who developed hypersensitivity reactions during intravenous infusion with ustekinumab (UST).

Key findings:

  • Hypersensitivity reactions during intravenous (IV) induction dose of UST, ranging from mild allergic reactions to anaphylaxis, with no antibodies detected in the two who had testing
  • Reactions occurred 0-30 minutes after start of infusion
  • Management was with methylprednisolone in 5 of 6 patients, diphendyramine in 3 of 6, and epinephrine in 1. One patient was managed with IV diphenhydramine alone.
  • Four of six continued with UST subcutaneously without reactions. ***Change of formulation of UST from IV to subcutaneous was done in a controlled hospital-based setting. The other two 33% were switched to another biologic due to physician preference and were never exposed to the subcutaneous formulation
  • Although the exact pathogenesis of this infusion reaction remains unknown, it has been attributed to EDTA

My take: It appears that patients with UST hypersensitivity reactions can be changed to SC formulation. The authors recommend to trial a subcutaneous dose of UST in a controlled setting; in addition, they suggest testing with skin prick testing or specific IgE levels to EDTA done by allergy and immunology.

Related blog posts:

Sandia Mountain, near Albuquerque