Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib vs. Vedolizumab, Ustekinumab, and Tofacitinib After Induction and Maintenance for Ulcerative Colitis: Three Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons.

Evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of approved therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) during induction and maintenance, including upadacitinib (UPA), vedolizumab (VEDO), ustekinumab (UST), and tofacitinib (TOFA), is limited. Using data from phase 3 trials, three placebo (PBO)-anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of the efficacy and safety of UPA versus VEDO, UST, and TOFA (U-ACHIEVE and U-ACCOMPLISH, GEMINI-1, UNIFI, and OCTAVE induction and maintenance trials) have been conducted. Baseline characteristics from UPA trials were weighted separately to match each comparator trial. Induction responders were re-randomized to oral UPA 15 or 30 mg, VEDO 300 mg intravenously every 8 weeks (Q8W), UST 90 mg SC Q8W, or oral TOFA 5 mg, or PBO in maintenance. Treat-through efficacy outcomes at weeks 44(UST)/46(VEDO)/52(UPA/TOFA) were adjusted by the likelihood of induction response and included clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic improvement. Safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and AEs leading to discontinuation (except UPA vs. VEDO). Benefit-risk was assessed by numbers needed to treat (NNT)/harm, calculated as the inverse of the difference in proportions of patients achieving each efficacy/safety outcome for UPA versus comparator. The proportions of patients who demonstrated clinical response or endoscopic improvement was greater with UPA 15 mg versus VEDO and TOFA (p < 0.05). The proportions of patients demonstrating all treat-through efficacy outcomes were significantly greater with UPA 30 mg versus VEDO, UST, or TOFA with NNTs 3.2-8.7. No significant differences in proportions of AEs, SAEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation were observed between the two doses of UPA and comparators. In patients with active UC, greater clinical efficacy, and similar safety after 1 year of maintenance were observed with UPA versus VEDO, UST, and TOFA, suggesting a favorable benefit-risk profile for UPA. Despite matched baseline characteristics, differences in trial design and endpoints may persist.

Reinisch W ，Melmed GY ，Nakase H ，Seidelin J ，Ma C ，Xuan S ，Tran J ，Remple V ，Wegrzyn L ，Levy G ，Sanchez Gonzalez Y ，Panaccione R ... -  《-》

An economic evaluation of tofacitinib for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis: modeling the cost of treatment strategies in the United States.

Milev S ，DiBonaventura MD ，Quon P ，Wern Goh J ，Bourret J ，Peeples-Lamirande K ，Soonasra A ，Cappelleri JC ，Quirk D ... -  《-》

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons of Filgotinib vs Vedolizumab, Tofacitinib, and Ustekinumab for Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis.

Where head-to-head trials are lacking, indirect comparative effectiveness can aid treatment decisions. We conducted matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of clinical outcomes with filgotinib vs recently approved comparators (vedolizumab, tofacitinib, ustekinumab) in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). Individual patient data from the SELECTION trial (NCT02914522) for filgotinib 200 mg were weighted to match average baseline characteristics of active treatment and placebo arms in comparator trials. Efficacy outcomes were compared for biologic-naive and biologic-experienced subgroups in induction and maintenance populations, if data were available. Safety and health-related quality of life outcomes were compared in the overall maintenance population. Filgotinib had a similar effect on efficacy outcomes compared with tofacitinib, ustekinumab, and subcutaneous vedolizumab in both the induction and maintenance populations. Filgotinib showed improved clinical response vs intravenous (IV) vedolizumab (odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 5.5; P < .05) among the biologic-experienced induction population, and improved corticosteroid-free clinical remission (odds ratio, 15.2; 95% CI, 1.6 to 139.9; P < .05) among the biologic-naive maintenance population. Improved efficacy outcomes were reported with filgotinib compared with ustekinumab among the maintenance population. Higher estimates of serious adverse events were reported for filgotinib compared with vedolizumab IV 300 mg and tofacitinib 5 mg; however, imbalances were noted in their placebo groups. Health-related quality of life outcomes were similar between filgotinib and comparators. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison results suggest superiority of filgotinib 200 mg over vedolizumab IV in terms of clinical response and corticosteroid-free clinical remission in certain patient populations, noting small sample sizes and wide CIs, which may aid the selection of advanced therapies for moderately to severely active UC. A potential increased risk of serious adverse events was reported for filgotinib 200 mg vs vedolizumab IV and tofacitinib 5 mg, but findings should be interpreted with caution owing to underlying imbalances observed between the placebo groups of SELECTION and comparator trials.

Lu X ，Zhou ZY ，Xin Y ，Wang MJ ，Gray E ，Jairath V ，Lindsay JO ... -  《-》

Oral Janus kinase inhibitors for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor which blocks cytokine signaling involved in the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases including ulcerative colitis (UC). The etiology of UC is poorly understood, however research suggests the development and progression of the disease is due to a dysregulated immune response leading to inflammation of the colonic mucosa in genetically predisposed individuals. Additional medications are currently required since some patients do not respond to the available medications and some medications are associated with serious adverse events (SAEs). JAK inhibitors have been widely studied in diseases including rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease and may represent a promising and novel therapeutic option for the treatment of UC. The primary objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of oral JAK inhibitors for the maintenance of remission in participants with quiescent UC. We searched the following databases from inception to 20 September 2019: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, WHO trials registry and clinicaltrials.gov. References and conference abstracts were searched to identify additional studies. Randomized control trial (RCTs) in which an oral JAK inhibitor was compared with placebo or active comparator in the treatment of quiescent UC were eligible for inclusion. Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extraction. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who failed to maintain remission as defined by any included studies. Secondary outcomes included failure to maintain clinical response, failure to maintain endoscopic remission, failure to maintain endoscopic response, disease-specific quality of life, adverse events (AEs), withdrawal due to AEs and SAEs. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each dichotomous outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The overall certainty of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. One RCT (593 participants) including patients with moderately to severely active UC met the inclusion criteria. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive maintenance therapy with tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily, 10 mg twice daily or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was remission at 52 weeks and the secondary endpoints included mucosal healing at 52 weeks, sustained remission at 24 and 52 weeks and glucocorticosteroid-free remission. This study was rated as low risk of bias. The study reported on most of the pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes for this review including clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic remission, AEs, SAEs and withdrawal due to AEs. However, the included study did not report on endoscopic response or disease-specific quality of life. Sixty-three per cent (247/395) of tofacitinib participants failed to maintain clinical remission at 52 weeks compared to 89% (176/198) of placebo participants (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.77; high-certainty evidence). Forty-three per cent (171/395) of tofacitinib participants failed to maintain clinical response at 52 weeks compared to 80% (158/198) of placebo participants (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.62; high-certainty evidence). Eighty-four per cent (333/395) of tofacitinib participants failed to maintain endoscopic remission at 52 weeks compared to 96% (190/198) of placebo participants (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.92; high-certainty evidence). AEs were reported in 76% (299/394) of tofacitinib participants compared with 75% (149/198) of placebo participants (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). Commonly reported AEs included worsening UC, nasopharyngitis, arthralgia (joint pain)and headache. SAEs were reported in 5% (21/394) of tofacitinib participants compared with 7% (13/198) of placebo participants (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.59; low-certainty evidence). SAEs included non-melanoma skin cancers, cardiovascular events, cancer other than non-melanoma skin cancer, Bowen's disease, skin papilloma and uterine leiomyoma (a tumour in the uterus). There was a higher proportion of participants who withdrew due to an AE in the placebo group compared to the tofacitinib group. Nine per cent (37/394) of participants taking tofacitinib withdrew due to an AE compared to 19% (37/198) of participants taking placebo (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.77; moderate-certainty evidence). The most common reason for withdrawal due to an AE was worsening UC. The included study did not report on endoscopic response or on mean disease-specific quality of life scores. High-certainty evidence suggests that tofacitinib is superior to placebo for maintenance of clinical and endoscopic remission at 52 weeks in participants with moderate-to-severe UC in remission. The optimal dose of tofacitinib for maintenance therapy is unknown. High-certainty evidence suggests that there is no increased risk of AEs with tofacitinib compared to placebo. However, we are uncertain about the effect of tofacitinib on SAEs due to the low number of events. Further studies are required to look at the long-term effectiveness and safety of using tofacitinib and other oral JAK inhibitors as maintenance therapy in participants with moderate-to-severe UC in remission.

Davies SC ，Hussein IM ，Nguyen TM ，Parker CE ，Khanna R ，Jairath V ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Perception and clinical decisions from inflammatory bowel diseases' specialists towards positioning of new therapies in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis: A national web-based survey from the Brazilian IBD study group (GEDIIB).

In the last decade, new therapies with different mechanisms of action have been approved for the treatment of moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Due to the lack of comparative head-to-head trials, the ideal positioning of agents as the most appropriate first- or second-line therapies remains to be defined. This survey aimed to evaluate the perception and decisions of Brazilian Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) specialists in positioning of new therapies (vedolizumab [VEDO], ustekinumab [UST] and tofacitinib [TOFA]) in the management of IBD in different clinical scenarios. An anonymous national web-based questionnaire was used to determine the positioning of treatment options in different clinical scenarios (using Google Forms platform), which involved different age ranges, phenotypes, clinical situations and previous exposure to anti-TNF agents (14 scenarios for CD and 10 scenarios for UC). In CD, physicians could choose between UST or VEDO, whilst in UC, between UST, VEDO or TOFA. Six reasons for the specific choice were proposed, such as mechanism of action, safety, method of administration or onset of action. Statistical analysis was carried out with chi-square and t-tests. A total of 150 out of 672 GEDIIB IBD specialists (22.32%) responded to the survey. In CD scenarios, UST was the most dominant choice (11/14 scenarios), with VEDO dominating only 3 clinical situations. In UC scenarios, VEDO was the dominant choice (8/10), with UST being chosen for scenarios that included extraintestinal manifestations. Among the reasons for specific choices, the most commonly chosen were the higher efficacy due to the intrinsic mechanism of action and safety profile. UST was the dominant choice as compared to VEDO in CD in most scenarios, especially due to its mechanism of action and safety. VEDO was the dominant choice as compared to UST and TOFA in UC scenarios, mainly for reasons also related to its mechanism of action and safety profile. Comparative studies including patient outcomes are needed to better define the positioning of new IBD therapeutic options in our country.

Romero RK ，Magro DO ，Queiroz NSF ，Damião AOMC ，Teixeira FV ，Nones RB ，Sassaki LY ，Saad-Hossne R ，Kotze PG ... -  《Gastroenterologia y Hepatologia》