Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Gastroenterology, Nancy University Hospital, F-54500 Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France; INSERM, NGERE, University of Lorraine, F-54000 Nancy, France; INFINY Institute, Nancy University Hospital, F-54500 Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France; FHU-CURE, Nancy University Hospital, F-54500 Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France; Groupe Hospitalier privé Ambroise Paré-Hartmann, Paris IBD Center, 92200 Neuilly sur Seine, France; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • 2 Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 3 University of Chicago Medicine Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Chicago, Illinois
  • 4 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • 5 Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Spring House, Pennsylvania
  • 6 Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
  • 7 University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California
  • 8 Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, IDIBAPS, CIBERehd, Barcelona, Spain
  • 9 Kyorin University, Tokyo, Japan
  • 10 University of Pennsylvania Health System, The Raymond and Ruth Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Gastroenterology Division, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • 11 Dr. Henry D. Janowitz Division of Gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
  • 12 Department of Medicine I, Agaplesion Markus Hospital, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany. Electronic address: Axel.Dignass@agaplesion.de
Gastroenterology, 2023 Dec;165(6):1443-1457.
PMID: 37659673 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.08.038

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The QUASAR Phase 2b Induction Study evaluated the efficacy and safety of guselkumab, an interleukin-23p19 subunit antagonist, in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) with prior inadequate response and/or intolerance to corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, and/or advanced therapy.

METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, induction study, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive intravenous guselkumab 200 or 400 mg or placebo at weeks 0/4/8. The primary endpoint was clinical response (compared with baseline, modified Mayo score decrease ≥30% and ≥2 points, rectal bleeding subscore ≥1-point decrease or subscore of 0/1) at week 12. Guselkumab and placebo week-12 clinical nonresponders received subcutaneous or intravenous guselkumab 200 mg, respectively, at weeks 12/16/20 (uncontrolled study period).

RESULTS: The primary analysis population included patients with baseline modified Mayo scores ≥5 and ≤9 (intravenous guselkumab 200 mg, n = 101; 400 mg, n = 107; placebo, n = 105). Week-12 clinical response percentage was greater with guselkumab 200 mg (61.4%) and 400 mg (60.7%) vs placebo (27.6%; both P < .001). Greater proportions of guselkumab-treated vs placebo-treated patients achieved all major secondary endpoints (clinical remission, symptomatic remission, endoscopic improvement, histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement, and endoscopic normalization) at week 12. Among guselkumab week-12 clinical nonresponders, 54.3% and 50.0% of patients in the 200- and 400-mg groups, respectively, achieved clinical response at week 24. Safety was similar among guselkumab and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Guselkumab intravenous induction was effective vs placebo in patients with moderately to severely active UC. Guselkumab was safe, and efficacy and safety were similar between guselkumab dose groups.

CLINICALTRIALS: gov number: NCT04033445.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Similar publications