P1040 Comparative effectiveness of upadacitinib versus ustekinumab in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Abstract

Abstract Background Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, and ustekinumab (UST), a parenteral IL 12/23 antagonist, are effective treatments for moderately to severely active Crohn’s Disease (CD). In the absence of head-to-head data, a placebo (PBO)-anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to indirectly compare efficacy of UPA vs UST. Methods Individual patient (pt)-level data from phase 3 UPA trials and published data from phase 3 UST trials were used. For induction, pts received UPA 45mg daily or PBO for 12 weeks or UST ~6mg/kg IV or PBO IV at week 0 with 8-week follow-up. For maintenance, UPA clinical responders were re-randomized to UPA 15mg, 30mg, or PBO daily for 52 weeks. UST clinical responders were re-randomized to 90mg SC (every 8 or 12 weeks) or PBO SC for 44 weeks. UPA pts had baseline (BL) CD Activity Index (CDAI) 220-450; those with prior UST or vedolizumab exposure were excluded. Treatment effect modifiers, including BL mean CDAI, Simple Endoscopic Score for CD (SES-CD), median C-reactive protein, prior biologic(s) failure, and disease location, from UPA data were weighted to match the UST population. Outcomes assessed were CDAI response (≥100-point decrease or CDAI <150), CDAI remission (CDAI <150), endoscopic response (SES-CD ≥50% decrease), and SES-CD ≤2. Separate MAICs were conducted for induction and maintenance; data reported for induction clinical outcomes are stratified by prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). Results A greater proportion of UPA- vs UST-treated pts achieved endoscopic response (difference 26.3%, P<0.001) and SES-CD ≤2 (difference 9.9%, P<0.05) at the end of induction. In TNF-IR patients, a greater proportion of UPA- vs UST-treated pts achieved CDAI response at the end of induction (difference 18.2%, P<0.05) and at the end of Week 8 (difference 26.0%, P<0.001). CDAI remission rates were also higher at end of Week 8 for UPA- vs UST-treated pts (difference 13.3%, P<0.05). Rates of achieving CDAI response and remission were similar between UPA- and UST-treated pts at the end of induction and Week 8 among bio-naïve pts. Following maintenance treatment, similar rates of SES-CD ≤2, endoscopic response, and CDAI remission were obtained in the total population of UPA and UST-treated pts. Conclusion Pts with moderately to severely active CD treated with UPA achieved higher rates of endoscopic (total population) and clinical (TNFi-IR population) outcomes during induction compared to UST-treated pts. Outcomes at the end of maintenance were similar for UPA and UST, however, results should be interpreted with caution due to low sample size.