Superiority of risankizumab
Both primary endpoints were met. For clinical remission at week 24, in half of the patients enrolled, rates were 58.6% (75/128) for risankizumab and 39.5% (54/137) for ustekinumab, for a difference of 18.4% [95% confidence interval, 6.6-30.3], meaning that noninferiority was met within the predefined margin of 10%. The second primary endpoint of endoscopic remission at week 48 showed rates of 31.8% (81/255) for risankizumab and 16.2% (43/265) for ustekinumab (P < .0001 for superiority).
Risankizumab was found to be superior to ustekinumab for all secondary endpoints (all with P < .0001). Steroid-free endoscopic remission at week 48 showed a 16% difference, and steroid-free clinical remission at week 48 showed a 20% difference – both in favor of risankizumab.
In addition, more participants on risankizumab completed the study (89.4%) than those on ustekinumab (74.0%), Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet reported.
Adverse event rates (events per 100 person-years) were comparable between the two drugs at 341.2 for risankizumab and 282.7 for ustekinumab. For risankizumab, no new safety risks were observed, and those recorded were consistent with the known safety profile. Serious adverse events occurred in 10% of risankizumab-treated patients, and 17% of ustekinumab-treated patients.
“We know the safety of IL-23 inhibitors is good,” said Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet. “If we look at all adverse events there was no difference across arms, and in terms of serious adverse events, it was in favor of risankizumab because a CD flare is considered a serious adverse event.”
Session comoderator, Alessandro Armuzzi, MD, head of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at the IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital in Milan, commented on the findings. “The results look in favor of risankizumab – all the endpoints were met, not only the co-endpoints but also the secondary endpoints too,” he said.
These results, showing a preference for risankizumab, have value in helping clinicians with the sequence of therapies when patients with Crohn’s disease have failed one or more TNF inhibitor, said Dr. Armuzzi.
No funding for this study was disclosed. Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet has disclosed receiving fees from Galapagos, AbbVie, Janssen, Genentech, Alimentiv, Ferring, Tillots, Celltrion, Takeda, Pfizer, Index, Sandoz, Celgene, Biogen, SamsungBioepis, Inotrem, Allergan, MSD, Roche, Arena, Gilead, Amgen, BMS, Vifor, Norgine, Mylan, Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, OSEImmunotherapeutics, Enthera, Theravance, Pandion, Gossamer, Viatris, ThermoFisher, ONOPharma, Mopac, Cytoki, Morphic, Prometheus, and Applied MolecularTransport. Dr. Armuzzi disclosed consulting/advisory board fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lionhealth, MSD, Nestlé, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, and Tillots Pharma; speaker’s fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lionhealth, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, and Takeda; and research grants from MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, and Biogen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
