BackgroundWomen with chronic inflammatory diseases face uncertainty regarding the safety of biologics during breast feeding. CRADLE was the first industry-sponsored study to evaluate certolizumab pegol (CZP) concentrations in human breast milk and estimate average daily infant dose (ADID) of maternal CZP.MethodsCRADLE (NCT02154425) was a pharmacokinetic study of lactating mothers receiving CZP. After ≥3 CZP doses, breast milk samples were collected across one dosing period (14 days for 200 mg every 2 weeks [Q2W]; 28 days for 400 mg every 4 weeks [Q4W]). Optimal analytical methods were developed to determine CZP and polyethylene glycol (PEG) levels in breast milk. ADID and relative infant dose (RID) were estimated. Safety events in mothers and infants were assessed.Results19 CZP-treated mothers were screened; 17 entered the sampling period: 16 on 200 mg Q2W, 1 on 400 mg Q4W. 77/137 (56%) breast milk samples had no measurable CZP. For 4/17 mothers, all samples were below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ). Estimated ADID was 0–0.0104 mg/kg/day; median RID: 0.15%. PEG was undetectable in 134/137 samples (results could not be determined in three samples). Infants of CZP-exposed mothers had a safety profile consistent with that of unexposed similar-age infants.ConclusionWhen quantifiable, CZP concentrations were <3× LLOQ (<1% plasma concentration observed with therapeutic dose), indicating no/minimal CZP transfer from plasma to breast milk. RID was 0.15% of maternal dose; <10% is considered unlikely to be of clinical concern. No PEG transfer was observed. CZP absorption by infants via breast milk is unlikely due to its low oral bioavailability and Fc-­free molecular structure. These findings are reassuring and support continuation of CZP treatment during breast feeding.Trial registration numberNCT02154425; Results.

C urrently, 3 vaccines have been granted Emergency Use Authorization for coronavirus disease 2019 prevention in the United States. These include the messenger RNA (mRNA) platform vaccines (mRNA-1273; Moderna/National Institutes of Health) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and an adenovirus vector vaccine (Ad26.CoV2.S; Johnson & Johnson), which were 94%, 95%, and 67% effective against COVID-19 infection in their phase III registry trials against the endemic variants at the time, respectively. 1-3 All 3 vaccines target the viral spike (S) protein that facilitates severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) entry into host cells via its receptor binding domain, which interacts with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. 4 Although the mRNA platform vaccines are 2-dose vaccines administered 3-4 weeks apart, the Ad26.CoV2.S is administered as a single dose. Another adenovirus vector vaccine (ChAdOx1; Astrazeneca), not yet authorized in the United States, is intended as a 2-dose regimen with an interval of 8-12 weeks.Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on corticosteroids, immunomodulators, and advanced therapies may have normal to slightly decreased humoral responses to the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine platforms. 1 In addition, patients receiving infliximab and/or thiopurines have significantly lower rates of seroconversion than those on vedolizumab monotherapy after a single dose of either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. 2 A study of solid organ transplant recipients showed decreased humoral responses to Ad26.CoV2.S vaccine relative to both mRNA platform vaccines, although it is unknown whether these findings are generalizable to other immune compromised populations. 5 Q5 We aimed to assess for differences in serologic responses among patients with IBD who received Ad26.CoV2.S relative to those receiving mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2. Among 353 vaccine recipients with IBD participating in a prospective SARS-CoV-2 vaccine registry without prior COVID-19 infection and who had completed a full vaccine regimen, 148 (42%), 193 (55%), and 12 (3%) received mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, and Ad26.CoV2.S, respectively. Demographic and disease characteristics were similar across vaccine groups (mean age, 51 years, 62% were female) (Supplementary Table 1). Approximately 290 (83.1%) participants were on immune-modifying therapies (IMTs), as defined by receipt of advanced therapies (biologics or JAK inhibitors, 80.2%), immunomodulators (16.6%), and/or systemic corticosteroids (6.6%) at the time of initial vaccination. At least 2 weeks after completion of the vaccine regimen, positive antibody levels were detected in 121 (100%), 142 (99%), and 9 (90%) patients receiving mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, and Ad26.CoV2.S, respectively (Figure 1A). Quantitative log 10 (anti-Spike IgG

Study ObjectiveUstekinumab was recently approved by the United States U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of Crohn's disease. In this analysis, we aimed to compare the cost‐effectiveness of ustekinumab, infliximab, or adalimumab for the treatment of moderate‐severe Crohn's disease in patients who failed conventional therapy (i.e., corticosteroids and immunomodulators) but were naïve to tumor necrosis factor antagonists (i.e., biologic drugs).DesignCost‐effectiveness analysis using a hybrid model structure (decision tree and Markov model).Measurements and Main ResultsA decision tree simulated biologic induction, and a Markov model simulated biologic and conventional therapy maintenance. Cycle length was 2 weeks with a discounted 5‐year time horizon and a limited U.S. societal perspective in the base case; results from a payer perspective are also reported. Transition probabilities, direct costs, indirect costs, and utilities were obtained from the literature. To measure relative treatment value (i.e., order of treatment cost‐effectiveness), net monetary benefits were reported for a $150,000 willingness‐to‐pay threshold per quality‐adjusted life‐year in the base case. Infliximab dominated both adalimumab and ustekinumab, with a net monetary benefit (NMB) of $9943 and $29,798, respectively, in the base case. Adalimumab dominated ustekinumab, with an NMB of $19,855. All biologics yielded similar quality‐adjusted life‐years (~3.5), whereas costs varied substantially ($50,510, $54,985, and $72,921 for infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab, respectively). The payer perspective, alternate time horizons, and scenario analyses consistently showed infliximab dominance. One‐way, threshold, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results with respect to all parameters. Although biosimilars were not explicitly modeled as comparators, one‐way sensitivity analysis showed that drug acquisition costs could alter relative treatment value but would have to be varied by at least 50%.ConclusionFor moderate‐severe Crohn's disease, infliximab yields significantly more NMBs compared with both adalimumab and ustekinumab. Additional clinical (e.g., empiric dosing, biologic cycling) and quality‐of‐life (e.g., lost productivity, disutility of home injections) research is needed to allow for model frameworks and parameters that more accurately reflect the nuances of Crohn's disease treatment.

Background The safety of a third dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease is unknown. Methods We compared symptoms following a third SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose with symptoms after the second dose in IBD. Results The study group included 594 patients (70% female, 58% BNT162b2). Overall, 41% reported symptoms after a third dose. Symptom frequency and severity were lower after the third dose relative to the second dose for every organ system, except for gastrointestinal symptoms which were marginally worse. Conclusion The frequency and severity of symptoms after a third mRNA vaccine dose are generally similar or milder than after a second dose for most organ systems.

No abstract