Guidelines Endorse Earlier Use of High-Efficacy Drugs for UC

In a rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has issued updated practice guidelines for the pharmacological management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) in adult outpatients.
“These are the first living guidelines published by a GI society, highlighting the interest and need to provide timely guidance to all stakeholders in a rapidly evolving field,” first author Siddharth Singh, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology in the Department of Medicine at University of California San Diego, in La Jolla, California, told Medscape Medical News. Living guidance allows for ongoing revision of individual recommendations as new data emerge. Nearly 2 million Americans have UC.
Issued in Gastroenterology and updating the last guidance in 2020, the recommendations suggest more efficacious drugs should be used sooner. “Early use of advanced therapies including biologics and small-molecule drugs are more effective than 5-aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] or thiopurines and methotrexate for most patients with moderate to severe UC and those with poor prognostic factors,” co-author and gastroenterologist Manasi Agrawal, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine at Icahn School of medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said in an interview.
“We provide a practical guidance based on best-available evidence to make it easy for the treating clinician to make informed choices from the multiplicity of available treatments for UC,” added guidelines co-author Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
The comprehensive, patient-centered document comes with this caveat from the AGA panel: “These guidelines are meant to be broad recommendations for management of patients with moderate to severe UC and are not intended to address the intricacies of individual patients,” they wrote. “Provider experience and patient values and preferences can inform treating providers and patients to reasonably choose alternative treatment options.”
One gastroenterologist who has been eagerly awaiting these guidelines but not involved in the panel is James D. Lewis, MD, MSCE, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. “The choice of medications for moderately to severely active UC has expanded tremendously in the past few years,” he said in an interview. “This resulted in the dismantling of the historical therapeutic pyramid.” And while there are many more treatment options, knowing which medication to use for which patient and in which sequence has become much more complicated, he added. “These guidelines will be extremely helpful for clinicians trying to navigate this new era of UC care.”
The guidelines also outline implementation considerations for optimal use in different scenarios. “Key considerations include patient-related factors such as age, frailty, other health conditions, consideration for pregnancy, patient preferences, and access to healthcare,” Agrawal said.
Specifics
Overall, the guidance recommends advanced or immunomodulatory therapy after failure of 5-ASAs rather than a step-up approach. Moderate to severe disease is defined as a Mayo endoscopic severity subscore of 2 or 3.
The recommendation may also apply to mild disease in the presence of a high burden of inflammation and a poor prognosis or steroid dependence or resistance.
The AGA guideline panelists took account of differences in treatment efficacy between drugs within the same therapeutic class and made their recommendations by specific drugs rather than therapy class.
Based on varying degrees of evidence certainty, the AGA recommends or suggests the following management specifics in adult outpatients with moderate to severe disease:
Any of the following is recommended over no treatment: Infliximab (Remicade), golimumab (Simponi), vedolizumab (Entyvio), tofacitinib (Xeljanz), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), ustekinumab (Stelara), ozanimod (Zeposia), etrasimod (Velsipity), risankizumab (Skyrizi), and guselkumab (Tremfya).
Adalimumab (Humira), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and mirikizumab (Omvoh) are suggested over no treatment.
Biosimilars to infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab can be considered of equivalent efficacy to their originator drugs.
For patients naive to advanced therapies, the AGA panel proposes using a higher-efficacy medication (eg, infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, and guselkumab) or an intermediate-efficacy medication (golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, and mirikizumab) rather than a lower-efficacy medication such as adalimumab.
In patients previously exposed to advanced therapy, particularly tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha antagonists, the panel suggests using a higher-efficacy medication (tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and ustekinumab) or an intermediate-efficacy agent (filgotinib, mirikizumab, risankizumab, and guselkumab) over a lower-efficacy medication (adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, and etrasimod).
The panel suggests against the use of thiopurine monotherapy for inducing remission but suggests thiopurine monotherapy over no treatment for maintenance of (typically corticosteroid-induced) remission.
The panel suggests against the use of methotrexate monotherapy for induction or maintenance of remission.
Infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in combination with an immunomodulator are suggested over monotherapy.
The panel makes no recommendation for or against non-TNF antagonist biologics in combination with an immunomodulator over non-TNF biologics alone.
For patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission for at least 6 months on combination therapy with TNF antagonists and immunomodulators, the panel suggests against withdrawing TNF antagonists but makes no recommendation for or against withdrawing immunomodulators.
For those who have failed 5-ASAs and have escalated to immunomodulators or advanced therapies, the panel suggests stopping these agents. It suggests the early use of advanced therapies and/or immunomodulator therapy rather than gradual step-up after failure of 5-ASAs.
According to Lewis, the guidance will be useful to both community physicians and highly specialized gastroenterologists. “While few practicing physicians will be able to commit the entirety of the classifications in this guideline to memory, the tool is a quick reference resource to help providers and patients to choose between the many options,” he said.
However, he noted that not all patients and providers may have the same priorities as the guidelines. “There are a few nuances to the methods of the AGA guidelines. For example, the panel prioritized efficacy over safety because the incidence of serious adverse events secondary to medications is relatively rare.”
Lewis also noted that the way the panel classified higher-, intermediate-, and lower-efficacy medications sometimes produced surprising results. “For example, among patients naive to advanced therapies, the IL-23 inhibitors risankizumab and guselkumab were classified as higher efficacy, while the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab was considered intermediate efficacy,” he said. “These were reversed for patients with prior exposure to advanced therapies, where ustekinumab was considered higher efficacy and all three IL-23 inhibitors were considered intermediate efficacy.”
The Future
The panel identified several knowledge gaps that future studies should address. These include a paucity of head-to-head comparison trials, including active comparators to accurately inform positioning of different treatments and therapeutic mechanisms.
The panelists also noted a literature gap on the efficacy of different therapies in the setting of failure or intolerance to non-TNF antagonist advanced therapy, which could be relevant to drugs that may have a greater overlap in their therapeutic mechanisms — for instance, anti-trafficking agents.
They pointed to a paucity of data on how predictive models can inform future treatment selection in the real-world setting. “There is clearly a need for identifying biomarkers predictive of response to individual therapies, to facilitate optimal choice of therapies,” they wrote.
The panel also recognized that novel therapeutic strategies may soon be in use, including combination advanced therapy or episodic use of nonimmunogenic advanced therapies such as small molecules. “Further primary data are required to accurately inform the positioning of such strategies,” they wrote.
These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute. Singh and Agrawal are supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), and Ananthakrishnan is supported by the NIDDK, as well as by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Chleck Family Foundation. Singh disclosed Institutional research grants from Pfizer.
Agrawal reported consulting for Douglas Pharmaceuticals. Several coauthors disclosed receiving consulting fees and/or research support from various private companies in the healthcare field. One author reported stock ownership stock in Exact Sciences. Lewis reported consulting, advisory board service, or data monitoring for Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, and Sanofi. He received research funding or in-kind support from Nestle Health Science, Takeda, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly and has had educational grants from Janssen.
 
Send comments and news tips to [email protected].