P1008 Efficacy and safety of retreatment with upadacitinib after treatment interruption in ulcerative colitis: Data from the phase 3 open-label extension study U-ACTIVATE

Abstract

Abstract Background Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral reversible Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor designed to preferentially inhibit JAK1 approved for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). UPA may be temporarily discontinued for many reasons including adverse events (AEs) and lack of efficacy.1 As clinical consequences of discontinuing and restarting UPA are yet to be characterised, here, we assess the efficacy and safety of UPA retreatment in patients (pts) who lost response following UPA treatment withdrawal. Methods Pts with a clinical response to 8 weeks’ (wks) UPA 45 mg once daily (QD; UPA45) induction therapy in the Phase 3 U-ACHIEVE or U-ACCOMPLISH studies were re-randomised to placebo (PBO), UPA 15 mg QD (UPA15) or UPA 30 mg QD (UPA30) for the 52-wk maintenance phase of U-ACHIEVE. Pts randomised to PBO who lost response could enter the long-term extension (LTE), U-ACTIVATE, and be retreated with UPA15. Efficacy was analysed (i) at wk 4 of the LTE and (ii) at wk 48 of the LTE among pts with an inadequate response to UPA15 who dose escalated to UPA30 between wks 2 and 36. Exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs) of treatment-emergent AE (TEAE) were assessed throughout. Results Of 223 pts with a clinical response to UPA45 induction randomised to PBO during maintenance, 112 (50.2%) lost response (mean [standard deviation (SD)] days to loss of response: 135.4 [84.6]) and 110 subsequently entered the LTE. Pts with loss of response vs those without were more likely to have a history of inadequate response, loss of response, or intolerance to ≥1 biologic (57.1% vs 46.8%, respectively) or corticosteroid use at baseline (42.0% vs 33.3%). After 4 wks of retreatment with UPA15, 75/108 (69.4%) and 39/108 (36.1%) pts achieved clinical response and remission, respectively (Figure A). In total, 38 (34.5%) pts dose escalated to UPA30 (mean [SD] days to escalation: 80.3 [57.8]); 30/31 (96.8%) and 22/31 (71.0%) achieved clinical response and remission at wk 48 of retreatment, respectively (Figure B). For safety during maintenance, 225 pts with 128.7 patient-years (PYs) of exposure (loss of response [n=112], 42.6 PYs; no loss of response [n=113], 86.1 PYs) were analysed. Generally, the EAERs of serious TEAEs were numerically lower in patients with vs without loss of response. However, patient years of exposure were low, restricting interpretation. During the LTE, EAERs were generally similar in pts who underwent dose escalation vs all pts. Conclusion In pts who experience loss of response following UPA withdrawal, efficacy can be recaptured following retreatment with UPA15 and UPA30. No new safety signals were identified. Reference 1. Sandborn WJ, et al. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(8):2139−2149.e14.