Guselkumab Efficacy in CD Unaffected by Prior Biologic Use

VIENNA — Guselkumab has been shown to be efficacious vs placebo in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD), regardless of prior biologic therapy exposure, according to a pooled analysis of the two phase 3 double-blind GALAXI 2 and 3 studies.
We found that guselkumab was effective in both biologic-naive and biologic-inadequate subpopulations, said Co-investigator Bruce E. Sands, MD, gastroenterologist from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.
These latest results add to the primary results of these studies reported earlier this year that guselkumab was shown to be superior to both placebo and ustekinumab in the same patient population with moderately to severely active CD.
Sands reported the new data in a presentation here at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.
Guselkumab potently blocks interleukin (IL) 23 and binds to CD64, a receptor on cells that produce IL-23. The dual-acting IL-23p19 subunit inhibitor agent is currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration for moderately to severely active CD. In September, guselkumab (Tremfya, Johnson & Johnson) was approved for use in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.
GALAXI 2 and 3 Pooled Dataset
In the two independent, identically designed GALAXI 2 and 3 studies, patients were randomized to guselkumab treatment at either 200 mg intravenous (IV) induction at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by 200 mg subcutaneous maintenance every 4 weeks, starting at week 12, or 200 mg IV induction at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by 100 mg subcutaneous maintenance every 8 weeks, starting at week 16; or to ustekinumab; or to placebo.
Participants were required to remain on their treatment of initial randomization for a long-term extension study (up to 5 years) looking at clinical, endoscopic, and safety outcomes, except for participants on placebo who were allowed to switch to ustekinumab if clinical response was not met at week 12.
Inclusion criteria for the studies comprised a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index score between 220 and 450, a mean daily stool frequency count > 3 or an abdominal pain score > 1, and a simple endoscopic score for CD score ≥ 6. Participants were also required to have shown an inadequate response or intolerance to oral corticosteroids, 6-mercaptopurine/azathioprine/methotrexate, or biologic therapies.
The pooled dataset included patients on either dose of guselkumab and patients on placebo (total n = 730). Of these, 52% of participants had shown a prior inadequate response to a biologic, 42% were biologic-naive, and 6% had prior exposure to biologics but no documented failure. Patients on ustekinumab were not included in this analysis.
Almost all patients (97%) in the biologic-inadequate response group had previously received at least one antitumor necrosis factor agent, and around 15% had received vedolizumab. As expected, the biologic-inadequate responders were a lot sicker than the biologic-naive patients, Sands reported.
The composite co-primary endpoints for each guselkumab regimen vs placebo were clinical response at week 12 plus clinical remission at week 48, and clinical response at week 12 plus endoscopic response at week 48.
The major secondary endpoints comprised clinical remission at week 12 and endoscopic response also at week 12.
Short- and Long-Term Endpoints in Both Subgroups
In the biologic-naive subgroup, 54.7% of patients receiving the 200-mg dose regimen of guselkumab and 51.7% of those receiving the 100-mg dose regimen showed a clinical response at week 12 plus clinical remission at week 48, compared with 11.5% in the placebo group (P < .001 for both compared with placebo).
In the biologic-inadequate response group, 49.7% of those receiving the 200-mg dose regimen of guselkumab and 45.8% on the 100-mg dose regimen reached the composite endpoint, compared with the placebo response of 12.8% (P < .001 for both compared with placebo).
“You can see a slight decrease in response in the biologic-inadequate responders, but on the whole, the confidence intervals are highly overlapping,” said Sands.
Turning to major secondary endpoints at week 12, clinical remission was reached by 49.6% of the biologic-naive group on the 200 mg guselkumab regimen vs 16.4% on placebo, and by 46.0% of the biologic-inadequate group on the 200 mg regimen vs 19.2% on placebo (P < .001 for both subgroups). Endoscopic response was achieved by 46.3% of patients in the biologic-naive group and 29.0% in the biologic-inadequate group on the 200 mg regimen vs 18.0% and 6.4%, respectively, on placebo (P < .001 for both subgroups).
Sands noted that the drug has an excellent safety profile.
“These data show the drug works for naive patients who have failed conventional therapies, as well as for those who have failed biologic therapies,” so it could be used as a first- or second-line biologic, he added.
Sands reported potential conflicts of interest with AbbVie, Abivax, Adiso Therapeutics, Agomab, Alimentiv, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Artugen Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calibr, Celgene, Celltrion, ClostraBio, Equillium, Enthera, Evommune, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Genentech (Roche), Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Index Pharmaceuticals, Innovation Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Janssen, Kaleido, Kallyope, Lilly, Merck, Microbiotica, Mobius Care, Morphic Therapeutic, MRM Health, Pfizer, Nexus Therapeutics, Nimbus Discovery, Odyssey Therapeutics, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonist Therapeutics, Q32 Bio, Rasayana Therapeutics, Recludix Pharma, Reistone Biopharma, Sun Pharma, Surrozen, Target RWE, Takeda, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, TLL Pharmaceutical, Tr1X, UNION Therapeutics, and Ventyx Biosciences.
 
Send comments and news tips to [email protected].