DOP10 Risankizumab Versus Ustekinumab for the Achievement of Endoscopic Outcomes in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Crohn’s Disease: Results From the Phase 3b SEQUENCE Trial

Abstract Background The SEQUENCE study compared the efficacy and safety of risankizumab (RZB) and ustekinumab (UST) in patients (pts) with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease (CD) who previously failed ≥1 anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)a therapies. The second primary endpoint of SEQUENCE, week (wk) 48 endoscopic remission, demonstrated superiority of RZB versus (vs) UST.1 Here, additional endoscopic and clinical/endoscopic composite outcomes are reported. Methods SEQUENCE (NCT04524611) was an open-label, multicenter, randomised, efficacy assessment-blinded study. Pts had a baseline (BL) CD Activity Index (CDAI) of 220-450, average (avg) daily stool frequency ≥4 and/or avg daily abdominal pain score ≥2, and Simple Endoscopic Score for CD (SES-CD) ≥6 (≥4 for isolated ileal disease). Pts in the primary efficacy analysis set were randomised 1:1 to receive RZB (intravenous [IV] 600mg induction at BL, wk4 and wk8, then 360mg subcutaneous [SC] maintenance doses every 8 wks [Q8w], starting at wk12) or UST (single weight-based IV induction followed by a 90mg Q8w SC maintenance treatment starting at wk8) up to wk48. Randomisation was stratified by BL steroid use and number of failed anti-TNFa therapies. A mandatory steroid taper began at wk2. Here, we assessed at wks 24 and 48 endoscopic remission (SES-CD ≤4 and at least a 2-point reduction versus BL and no subscore >1 in any individual variable, as scored by a central reader), mucosal healing (SES-CD ulcerated surface subscore of 0 in pts with SES-CD ulcerated surface subscore ≥1 at BL, as scored by a central reader), and deep remission (endoscopic remission + clinical remission [CDAI<150]); all were prespecified, non-ranked endpoints, except for wk48 endoscopic remission (second primary endpoint). Treatment differences were adjusted for the randomisation stratification factors. Missing data were handled using non-responder imputation while incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 and/or geopolitical conflict. P values were reported as nominal, except for wk48 endoscopic remission. Results With RZB vs UST, a greater proportion of pts achieved endoscopic remission (wk24: 29.4% vs 17.4%, P= 0.001; wk48: 31.8% vs 16.2%, P<0.0001), mucosal healing (wk24: 25.1% vs 14.4%, P<0.01; wk48: 30.2% vs 12.1%, P<0.0001), and the composite endpoint of deep remission (wk24: 22.0% vs 10.2%, P< 0.001; wk48: 22.7% vs 10.9%, P<0.001) at wk24 and wk48 (Figure). The safety profiles of RZB and UST were consistent with published results.1 Conclusion Exploration of endoscopic outcomes demonstrated that pts with moderate-to-severe CD and prior anti-TNFa failure showed greater achievement of endoscopic remission, mucosal healing, and deep remission with RZB compared to UST. 1doi.org/10.1002/ueg2.12474