Efficacy and Safety of Tulisokibart Maintenance Treatment in Tulisokibart Induction Responders Versus Tulisokibart Re-Induction and Delayed Induction Responders: Results from the Open-Label Extension of the Phase 2 Artemis-Uc Trial
No Thumbnail Available
Authors
Hoque S.
Sands B.E.
Feagan B.G.
Yen M.
Dong B.
Zhou W.
Danese, S.
Check for full-text access
Issue Date
2025
Type
Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
Introduction: Tulisokibart is a monoclonal antibody that targets tumor necrosis factor-like cytokine 1A (TL1A), a regulator of inflammation and fibrosis in inflammatory bowel disorders. In the Phase 2 ARTEMIS-UC study, a significantly higher proportion of participants on tulisokibart compared to placebo achieved clinical remission after 12 weeks of induction treatment in patients with moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis (UC) and conventional or advanced treatment failure.1 In a post hoc analysis from ARTEMIS-UC, re-induction and delayed induction treatment with tulisokibart were effective in participants who did not respond during the initial induction period.2 We explored the efficacy and safety of tulisokibart maintenance therapy up to 1 year during the open-label extension of ARTEMIS-UC among patients who responded to induction, re-induction, and delayed induction. Aims & Methods: Participants (>=18 years) were randomized to intravenous (IV) tulisokibart 1000 mg on day 1 and 500 mg at weeks 2, 6, and 10 or placebo. The study population consisted of 2 cohorts based on a genetic diagnostic test (Dx) assessing likelihood for responding to anti-TL1A treatment. Cohort 1 included participants stratified by Dx results while Cohort 2 included only Dx positive participants. Cohort 1 is the population used in this analysis. Participants were classified as induction responders (defined as reduction of >=2 points and >=30% in modified Mayo score from baseline, accompanied by a reduction >=1 in rectal bleeding subscore or absolute rectal bleeding subscore <=1 at week 12) or induction nonresponders. Induction non-responders in the tulisokibart and placebo groups were assigned to an open label 12-week re-induction with the aforementioned tulikosibart induction dosing regimen. Cohort 1 induction, re-induction, and delayed induction responders were randomized (stratified by Dx status) to open-label IV tulisokibart 100 mg or 250 mg every 4 weeks. Result(s): In Cohort 1, 47 tulisokibart induction responders, 13 re-induction responders, and 29 delayed induction responders were randomized to open-label maintenance treatment with tulisokibart 100 mg or 250 mg every 4 weeks. Maintenance of treatment effect was generally similar with a trend for higher efficacy with tulisokibart 250 mg vs 100 mg maintenance treatment observed across the 3 groups. The safety profile of tulisokibart maintenance treatment was similar across the 3 groups, with no new safety signals being observed. Conclusion(s): Tulisokibart was effective as a maintenance treatment in patients with moderate to severe UC. The effect was generally similar across Cohort 1 tulisokibart induction responders, re-induction responders, and delayed induction responders. Tulisokibart maintenance treatment was well tolerated across the 3 groups, with no identified safety signals. Altogether, this suggests that a second induction regimen in tulisokibart non-responders may result in a long-term efficacy benefit without increased safety risk. Larger trials are needed to confirm these findings.
Description
Citation
Publisher
License
Journal
United.Eur.Gastroenterol.J.