Efficacy and safety of advanced therapies for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis at induction and maintenance: An indirect treatment comparison using Bayesian network meta-analysis

A practical guide to selecting and using new ulcerative colitis therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Several new biologics (mirizikizumab) and small molecules (upadacitinib, ozanimod, etrasimod) are approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. To date, there are no head-to-head trials to guide positioning and use of these newer agents.

RECENT FINDINGS

From phase III clinical trials, in the biologic experienced patient, induction with ozanimod, etrasimod, and mirizikizumab had lower clinical remission rates, whereas upadacitinib's clinical remission rates remained similar. Indirect evidence using network meta-analysis suggests upadacitinib may be more efficacious than other advanced therapies for the treatment of ulcerative colitis in both the bio-naive and experienced patient. Upadacitinib was found to have the highest risk for adverse events.

SUMMARY

These newer agents add novel mechanisms of action to the expanding therapeutic armamentarium of advanced therapies to treat ulcerative colitis. Based on expert opinion and available data to date, we propose a practical guide on positioning of these new agents for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. In mild-to-moderate disease, one should consider using ozanimod or etrasimod as first-line agents. In moderate-to-severe disease, we favor using mirizikizumab as first-line agent. In patients who have failed an anti-tumor necrosis factor agent, upadacitinib or mirizikizumab should be considered using patient factors and safety to guide one's decision between these two agents.

Editorial: Extending upadacitinib induction dosing in ulcerative colitis-A delicate balance of efficacy and safety. Author's reply

This article is linked to Panaccione et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17816 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17829

Costo per Number Needed to Treat (NNT) di upadacitinib nel trattamento dei pazienti bio-exposed con rettocolite ulcerosa attiva da moderata a grave

Background:

Only limited information is available on cost efficacy of the advanced therapies for the treatment of ulcerative rectocolitis. We evaluated the efficacy and the treatment costs of these advanced therapies in the treatment of bio-exposed (primary failure to a biological agent) patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative rectocolitis.

Methods:

Data from a previous network meta-analysis (NMA) in the treatment of bio-exposed patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative rectocolitis was used. The analysis involved three therapies approved in Italy for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative rectocolitis: upadacitinib (UPA), ustekinumab (UST) and vedolizumab (VDZ). According to the NMA results, the analysis was conducted considering two different timepoints: induction and maintenance. The pharmacoeconomic comparison between advanced therapies was carried out to estimate the respective cost for the NNT (Number Needed to Treat) compared to placebo using the clinical response (CRes) for the induction and clinical remission (CRem) and endoscopic improvement (EI) for the maintenance. Only the ex-factory price of each advanced therapy was considered. The cost per NNT was adopted as a cost-effectiveness indicator.

Results:

Independently of the timepoint considered (induction or maintenance) and the clinical (CRem and CRes) or endoscopic endpoint (EI) evaluated, UPA had always the lower cost per NNT than UST and VDZ. For example, considering the induction and the CRes, the cost per NNT for upadacitinib (45 mg) was € 7,862.07 compared to € 30,459.38 for ustekinumab (6 mg/kg) and to € 67,868.00 for vedolizumab.

Conclusion:

Upadacitinib is a cost-effective therapeutic option compared to ustekinumab and vedolizumab in the treatment of bio-exposed patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative rectocolitis.

Assessing the economics of biologic and small molecule therapies for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in Japan: a cost per responder analysis of upadacitinib

AIM

Patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis have an increasing number of advanced therapy options including several biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors. Though data on efficacy and safety of these advanced therapies are available, less is known about the potential economic implications of their utilization in Japan. We evaluated the relative value of these advanced therapies in Japan using a locally developed cost per responder model.

METHODS

A model was developed using relevant clinical endpoints and treatment costs to calculate cost per responder of all advanced therapies used for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis treatment in Japan. Cost per responder was assessed in biologic-naïve and biologic-exposed populations, respectively. The model incorporated induction and maintenance therapy pathways as patients progressed through based on efficacy rates (clinical response, clinical remission and endoscopic improvement). Total costs for induction and maintenance included: drug acquisition, drug administration and serious adverse event management (as necessary) for responders, with additional rescue treatment cost only for non-responders.

RESULTS

Upadacitinib showed lower cost per clinical response and cost per clinical remission across both biologic-naïve and biologic-exposed populations with only one exemption in cost per clinical remission in biologic-naïve population. In addition, upadacitinib demonstrated lower cost per endoscopic improvement in both populations. Janus kinase inhibitors outperformed with lower cost per responder than other mediations across all outcomes and patient populations with the exception of tofacitinib for clinical remission in biologic-exposed UC population.

LIMITATIONS

Comparative data used in this analysis have been derived from network meta-analysis, not from direct comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this cost per responder analysis suggest upadacitinib is a cost-effective option for the first- and second-line treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in Japan.

Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib in the Treatment of Chronic Pouchitis, Cuffitis, and Crohn's Disease of the Pouch

Upadacitinib has shown efficacy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease (CD). The use of upadacitinib in the treatment of chronic antibiotics-refractory pouchitis (CARP), as well as CD of the pouch, has not been previously reported. We treated a series of 6 patients with CARP or CD of the pouch with a minimal 6 weeks of upadacitinib. The patients showed minimal or no significant improvement in clinical and endoscopic presentations. Our findings warrant further study to validate the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in the treatment of CARP or CD of the pouch.