P650 Optimization through iv maintenance with ustekinumab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Efficacy and adjusted regimen in real world

A Mínguez,E Coello,M Gomez,P Ripoll,A Garrido,M Aguas,M Iborra,E Cerrillo,L Tortosa,V Bayarri,P Nos,G Bastida
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.0780
2024-01-01
Journal of Crohn's and Colitis
Abstract:Abstract Background Ustekinumab (UST) is an effective treatment for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). However, some patients do not respond to conventional subcutaneous (SC) doses and lose response at follow-up. The use of maintenance intravenous (IV) UST could play a role in these patients. Methods The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of IV maintenance UST in patients with failure to subcutaneous UST. Single-center study performed in consecutive patients included in a prospective database. The reduction of activity markers such as C Reactive Protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin (FC), UST trough levels pre- and post IV maintenance as well as clinical indices of activity were evaluated. IV dose adjustments and their effect on levels were collected. We defined biochemical remission as the percentage decrease FC ≥ 80% and/or final FC ≤ 250. Results Of 335 patients in our center under treatment with ustekinumab, 31 patients (9.25%) were included. Baseline characteristics of patients are shown in Table 1. Mean age at the start of UST IV 42.49 years ± 13.23. CD 77.4%; UC 22.6%. Up to 2/3 of patients with CD had a complicated phenotype (B2/B3) and 50% perianal disease (PD). All included patients were bio-exposed and 61.3% had carried ≥ 2 biologics. The major indication for initiation of UST was secondary failure to previous biologic therapy (74.2%). The most used induction IV dose was 390mg and subsequent SC maintenance was every 8 weeks in 76% (60% were later intensification cases). Re-induction was performed in 36.7% of patients. The median time from drug initiation to IV maintenance was 10.23 [IQR 30.7] months. In 54.8% a higher dose was administered in the first IV maintenance infusion. The most common maintenance regimen was 130mg (64.5%) every 4 weeks (54.8%). Baseline FC decreased significantly (Figure 1) at the end of follow-up (median [IQR]: 809 μg/g [2256] vs 333 μg/g [508], p =0.001). Basal Harvey index was reduced compared to HBI at 24 weeks (mean ± SD: 6.5 ± 4.3 vs 4.1 ± 3.1, p =0.019). Drug levels at the start of IV maintenance were 1.4 μg/ml [IQR 2.3] vs. 4.8 μg/ml [IQR 3.9] at week 24 (p< 0.001) after dose adjustment in 35.5% of patients during IV maintenance. At the end of follow-up 54% went into biochemical remission. The presence of PD was associated with lower biochemical remission (70.6% vs. 27.3%, p =0.025). The median IV UST maintenance time was 8.55 [IQR 23.9] months. 96.6% are continuing treatment. No serious infections or malignancy were documented. Conclusion The use of maintenance IV UST appears to be an effective and safe strategy that can be evaluated as a salvage treatment especially in highly bioexposed patients or with complex CD phenotype.
gastroenterology & hepatology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?