Abstract:Abstract Background Clinical associations between initial response and long-term outcome are well established for IV IFX in IBD.1,2 In 2020, SC IFX was approved in Europe for treating moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC), based on a pivotal randomised trial (NCT02883452) comparing SC and IV IFX.3 This post hoc analysis investigated clinical outcomes in patients (pts) treated with SC or IV IFX, by response to IV IFX induction. Methods In the pivotal trial, adults with active CD or UC received IV IFX induction (5 mg/kg; Week [W] 0 and W2), before randomisation to SC (n=66) or IV (n=65) arms. W6 clinical response (≥70-point decrease in Crohn’s Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score [CD]; ≥2-point decrease in partial Mayo score with ≥1-point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore or an absolute rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1 [UC]) was a stratification factor. The SC arm received SC IFX (120/240 mg for pts weighing <80/≥80 kg) every 2 weeks from W6–54; the IV arm received IV IFX 5 mg/kg every 8 weeks (W6–22), then switched to SC IFX (W30–54). Rates of clinical remission (CDAI score <150 [CD]; partial Mayo score ≤1 [UC]) and trough IFX concentrations (Ctrough) were assessed at W6, W30 and W54. Analyses were descriptive. Results There were 101 induction responders (IRs) to IV IFX, who were randomised to the SC arm (n=49, 74.2%; SC-IR subset) or the IV arm (n=52, 80.0%; IV-IR subset). Correspondingly, there were 17 (25.8%) and 13 (20.0%) induction non-responders (INRs; SC-INR and IV-INR subsets, respectively). In both study arms, IRs had higher clinical remission rates than INRs at both W30 and W54 (Figure A). Comparing by formulation, the SC-INR subset had nearly twice the W30 clinical remission rate of the IV-INR subset (58.8% vs. 30.8%; p=0.159 [Fisher exact test]). In addition, IV-INR subset clinical remission rates numerically increased after pts switched to SC IFX (W30: 30.8% vs. W54: 46.2%; p=0.476 [McNemar test]). These observations were generally consistent with Ctrough findings (Figure B); median Ctrough in the IV-INR subset increased from 1.5 to 18.3 μg/mL (p=0.005 [Wilcoxon signe-drank test]) after switching to SC IFX. Conclusion Findings suggested associations between initial response to IFX induction therapy and positive long-term outcomes for both SC and IV IFX, and supported potential benefits with SC IFX maintenance therapy for INRs, compared with the option of IV IFX maintenance. Given the post hoc nature of the analysis and the small analysis population (thus statistical inconclusiveness), investigation in larger studies is warranted. 1Murthy SK et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015;21:2090–6. 2Wong ECL et al. J Crohns Colitis 2021;15:1114–9. 3Schreiber S et al. Gastroenterology 2021;160:2340–53.

Intravenous Versus Subcutaneous Infliximab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Systematic review with meta-analysis of the effectiveness of subcutaneous biologics versus intravenous biologics in inflammatory bowel diseases

Effectiveness of Switching From Intravenous to Subcutaneous Infliximab in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: the REMSWITCH Study

P893 Transition from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab: effectiveness in a cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Effectiveness of switching to subcutaneous infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease patients with inadequate biochemical response during intravenous administration

P921 Maintenance of clinical, biochemical and transmural remission in inflammatory bowel disease patients switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab

P712 Effectiveness of switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease patients: A combined analysis of real-world evidence

P960 Comparison of clinical outcomes by induction therapy response status in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) treated with subcutaneous (SC) versus intravenous (IV) infliximab (IFX): Post hoc analysis of a pivotal, randomised controlled trial

Safety and efficacy of transitioning inflammatory bowel disease patients from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab: a single-center real-world experience

P1015 Subcutaneous infliximab effectively manages clinical outcomes of Inflammatory Bowel Disease independently of various confounding factors

P652 Transitioning Inflammatory Bowel Disease patients from an intravenous to a subcutaneous infliximab protocol: a single centre experience and patient satisfaction survey

P532 1-Year Clinical Outcome of Subcutaneous Infliximab compared with Intravenous Infliximab in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease During Maintenance Therapy

P585 Effectiveness of Switching to Subcutaneous Infliximab in Ulcerative Colitis Patients Experiencing Intravenous Infliximab Failure

Switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab maintenance therapy in inflammatory bowel disease: Post hoc longitudinal analysis of a randomized trial

P733 Long-term effectiveness and acceptability of switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases treated with intensified doses: the REMSWITCH-LT study

P890 Usefulness of subcutaneous Infliximab in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease in clinical practice: are increased levels associated with clinical benefit?

P786 Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the use of subcutaneous infliximab in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease in naïve patients

Subcutaneous Infliximab Monotherapy Versus Combination Therapy with Immunosuppressants in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomised Clinical Trial

Long-term effectiveness and acceptability of switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with intensified doses: The REMSWITCH-LT study

P513 Clinical efficacy and durability of subcutaneous infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease after switching from intravenous in a Korean multicenter prospective cohort study

P805 The persistence of subcutaneous infliximab is equivalent to intravenous form in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases