BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Adalimumab and ustekinumab are approved for the treatment of moderately to severely active Crohn's disease (CD); however, comparative data assessing the mechanism of action of tumor necrosis factor (TNFα) and interleukin (IL)-12/23p40 blockade in a head-to-head, double-blind CD trial are not available. Here we compared inflammatory serum proteins of biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active CD treated with adalimumab or ustekinumab who participated in the SEAVUE trial (NCT03464136). METHODS:Serum from CD patients receiving adalimumab (n = 195) or ustekinumab (n = 191), and from a separate cohort of healthy controls (n = 40) was evaluated with a targeted inflammation panel, and a high sensitivity IL-22 assay. Differences in temporally regulated proteins were assessed at Weeks 16 and 52 in the context of study endpoints including clinical and endoscopic response. RESULTS:Expression levels of 79 inflammatory proteins were reliably measured in serum. At Week 0, before receiving study intervention, the overall cohort had similar serum proteomic expression profiles. At Weeks 16 and 52, following treatment with adalimumab or ustekinumab, distinct changes in serum proteins associated with inflammation were observed, including broader suppression of inflammation-related proteins by adalimumab and a reduction of IL-22 observed only with ustekinumab. Reduction of interferon-γ levels by ustekinumab at Week 52 was greater than by adalimumab and associated with a decrease in fatigue. CONCLUSIONS:Although patients receiving either adalimumab or ustekinumab reached similar rates of clinical remission at Week 52, the two therapies resulted in unique serum proteomic expression profiles, reflecting mechanistic differences. Long-term treatment data are necessary to understand how differences in therapeutic mechanisms are associated with maintenance of remission and changes in patient-reported outcomes in the context of inflammatory biomarkers.

Background: Despite a wide range of available treatments, there is limited evidence as to why significant numbers of Crohn's disease (CD) patients do not achieve disease remission or continue to have residual symptom burden. We aimed to quantify the impact of this suboptimal treatment on patient symptom incidence and severity, quality of life (QoL), and work impairment. Methods: Data were derived from the Adelphi Real World CD Disease Specific Programme, a cross-sectional survey of CD patients and their treating physicians in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States between January 2020 and March 2021. Physicians reported on patients' clinical history, disease status, symptom load, and treatment. Patients reported their QoL and activity impairment using the EQ-5D-5L and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment measures. Patients were divided into remitters, partial remitters, and non-remitters. Multivariate regression models were used to assess the impact of remission status on clinical and QoL outcomes. Results: Of 1786 patients, 24.1% were remitters, 53.2% were partial remitters, and 22.7% were non-remitters. Partial remitters and non-remitters had a significantly higher symptom load than remitters (P < .05), and non-remitters were up to 15 times more likely to experience key symptoms than remitters. Both non-remitters and partial remitters were also significantly more likely to have increased symptom severity (P < .05). Non-remitters were more likely to have switched treatment and received more treatment lines, as well as having significantly worse QoL, than remitters. Conclusions: Suboptimal treatment response was associated with increased symptoms and QoL burden. Despite the increased burden experienced, partial remitters were not more likely to switch or receive more treatment lines than remitters, demonstrating the need to initiate effective therapy.

Aims: Suboptimal treatment indicators, including treatment switch, are common among patients with Crohn's disease (CD), but little is known about their associated healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs. This study assessed the impact of suboptimal treatment indicators on HRU and costs among adults with CD newly treated with a first-line biologic. Methods: Adult patients with CD were identified in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Subset (10/01/2015-03/31/2020). The index date was defined as initiation of the first-line biologic, and the study period was defined as the 12 months following the index date. Patients were classified into Suboptimal Treatment and Optimal Treatment cohorts based on observed indicators of suboptimal treatment during the study period. Patients in the Suboptimal Treatment Cohort with a treatment switch were classified into the Treatment Switch Cohort and compared to patients with no treatment switch. All-cause HRU and costs were measured during the study period and assessed for patients with suboptimal vs optimal treatment and patients with vs without a treatment switch. Results: The study included 4,006 patients (Suboptimal Treatment: 2,091, Optimal Treatment: 1,915). Treatment switch was a common indicator of suboptimal treatment (Treatment Switch: 640, No Treatment Switch: 3,366). HRU and costs were significantly higher among patients with suboptimal treatment than those with optimal treatment (annual costs: $92,043 vs $73,764; p < 0.01), and among those with a treatment switch than those with no treatment switch (annual costs: $95,689 vs $81,027; p < 0.01). Increases in the number of suboptimal treatment indicators were associated with increased costs. Limitations: Claims data were used to identify suboptimal treatment indicators based on observed treatment patterns; reasons for treatment decisions could not be assessed. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that patients with suboptimal treatment indicators, including treatment switch, incur substantially higher HRU and costs compared to patients receiving optimal treatment and those that do not switch treatments.

Abstract BACKGROUND Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with significant patient and societal burden. Treatments for IBD have traditionally focused on symptom management. However, clinical guidelines (Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease [STRIDE] II) now recommend treat-to-target approaches. Mucosal healing on endoscopy is becoming a key prognostic parameter in the management of IBD. In light of new guidelines, we aimed to qualitatively assess patient understanding of, and perspectives on, endoscopic measures in the context of disease monitoring and assessing treatment impact. METHODS Twenty patients diagnosed with IBD across the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, and France participated in TeleWebs (web-enabled phone interviews; United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, France) or a 5-day online bulletin board exchange (United States) discussing their condition and experiences. Specific information regarding disease history, conversations with physicians, experiences with endoscopy, and reactions to information shared on endoscopy were captured over a 5-day period. All respondents were recruited from double opt-in volunteer consumer market research panels. RESULTS Patients generally link disease remission to the absence of symptoms. Knowledge and perceptions of endoscopic measurements are largely driven by their physician perspectives and explanation to patients. Some patients are aware of healthy mucosa as a key part of remission, while others have no concept of the term. Patients report they find it psychologically reassuring to know that they are “healthy inside”. Due to its value, most patients are willing (5.7 on a 1 to 7 Likert Scale) to undergo endoscopy annually, but would be reluctant to do so more frequently. Table 1 outlines barriers and drivers reported by patients on the adoption of endoscopy. CONCLUSION The insight from this study provides understanding of patient perceptions of endoscopy and its place in treating their IBD. This study demonstrates that despite the barriers to the use of endoscopy, patients recognize its clinical relevance for disease management and are willing to periodically undergo a procedure.

Abstract Background Remission off steroids is a major treatment goal in inflammatory bowel disease. In the recent CORE-IBD consensus,1 the preferred definition of “corticosteroid-free” remission in clinical trials was withdrawal ≥12 weeks before the assessment timepoint. We evaluated the rates of corticosteroid-free remission according to three different definitions (ie, cross-sectional, ≥30, and ≥90 days) in the analysis of the corticosteroid-free remission endpoint using data from the IM-UNITI and SEAVUE trials of patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) and the UNIFI trial of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods In IM-UNITI and UNIFI, patients with moderate-to-severe CD and UC, respectively, who had previously responded to ustekinumab (UST) induction were randomized to placebo (PBO), UST 90mg SC q12w, or UST 90mg SC q8w. In SEAVUE, biologic naïve patients with moderate-to-severe CD were randomized to adalimumab 160mg SC at week 0, 80mg SC at week 2, and 40mg SC q2w or UST ~6mg/kg IV at week 0 and 90mg SC q8w. Each trial included protocols for mandatory corticosteroid tapering after the induction phase unless medically inappropriate (required in IM-UNITI and UNIFI starting at week 8 and recommended in SEAVUE starting at week 8 but required starting at week 16). Corticosteroid-free remission was defined as clinical remission (CDAI<150 in IM-UNITI and SEAVUE and a Mayo score ≤2 with no individual subscore >1 in UNIFI) and not receiving steroids at the assessment timepoint or ≥30 or ≥90 days before the assessment timepoint. Corticosteroid-free remission at week 44 was a major secondary endpoint in IM-UNITI and UNIFI (both cross-sectional). Corticosteroid-free remission (≥30 days before week 52) was a major secondary endpoint in SEAVUE. Results The proportions of patients who achieved corticosteroid-free remission were consistent, regardless of the corticosteroid-free duration used in the assessment (Tables 1 and 2). The results were consistent for both ustekinumab treatment groups (q12w and q8w) and placebo in the pivotal IM-UNITI and UNIFI studies (Table 1) and for both ustekinumab and adalimumab groups in the SEAVUE study (Table 2). Conclusion In CD and UC clinical trials of ustekinumab maintenance, which included protocol-mandated corticosteroid tapering regimens, corticosteroid-free remission results at 1 year were similar regardless of the corticosteroid-free duration used in the outcome definition. References: 1) Ma C, Hanzel J, Panaccione R, et al. CORE-IBD: A Multidisciplinary International Consensus Initiative to Develop a Core Outcome Set for Randomized Controlled Trials in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Gastroenterol 2022;4:950-64.

Background To demonstrate treatment efficacy in Crohn's disease (CD), regulatory authorities require that trials include an endoscopic remission/response end point; however, standardized endoscopic assessment of disease activity, such as the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD), is not typically recorded by clinicians in practice or outside of clinical trials. The novel Simplified Endoscopic Mucosal Assessment for Crohn's Disease (SEMA-CD) was developed to be easy to use in routine clinical practice and as a trial end point. We conducted a study to assess and validate the reliability and feasibility of SEMA-CD as a measure of endoscopic disease activity. Methods Pre- and post-treatment ileocolonoscopy videos of pediatric (n = 36) and adult (n = 74) CD patients from 2 ustekinumab clinical trials were each scored with SEMA-CD by 2 to 3 professional central readers, blinded to clinical history and other video scorings; the correlation between SEMA-CD and SES-CD previously completed during the trials was assessed. Sensitivity to change, inter- and intrarater reliability, and comparative ease of scoring were also assessed. Results The SEMA-CD strongly correlated with SES-CD (Spearman rho = 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.92). Pre- to post-treatment changes in SEMA-CD vs in SES-CD were strongly correlated, and the correlation remained strong between the scores when compared by study population (pediatric, adult), disease severity, and video quality. Intra- and inter-rater reliability were good, and SEMA-CD was rated easier than SES-CD to score 63.0% of the time, although slightly more difficult than SES-CD to score Conclusions The SEMA-CD is reliable, reproducible, sensitive to change, and easy to use in both pediatric and adult patients with CD.

Abstract Background Ustekinumab (UST) is a monoclonal antibody specific for the p40 subunit of interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23. In a randomised phase 3 trial (UNIFI; NCT02407236) in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC), UST was shown to be more effective for inducing and maintaining clinical remission than placebo. There has yet to be a mechanistic understanding of p40 blockade in inflammatory bowel disease. Here, we investigated the underlying molecular mechanism of action of UST in UC. Methods Paired colon biopsies for transcriptomic analysis were obtained at screening and week 8 in patients who received a single intravenous induction treatment of placebo (n=145 subjects), UST 130 mg (n=155 subjects), or a weight-range-based dose (approximated to UST 6 mg/kg of body weight; n=171 subjects). Tissue transcriptional profiles were determined using Affymetrix microarrays. Transcriptional changes were analysed in the context of cell type-specific co-expression modules derived from single cell UC data. Gene set variation analysis (GSVA) was used to quantitatively assess changes in specific biologic modules in the context of endoscopic and histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement (HEMI) responder and non-responder analyses. Nichenet, which predicts ligand–target gene links, was used with single cell UC data to identify ligands that are predicted to be associated with our cell type-specific modules. Results By week 8, both UST treatment arms induced a greater magnitude of transcriptional changes associated with Th17, Th1 cytotoxicity, myeloid inflammatory, epithelial inflammatory, and inflammatory fibroblast modules compared with placebo. Ligand-target gene predictions indicate IL-12 and IL-23 are associated with changes in the Th1 cytotoxicity and Th17 module expression, respectively. Population level molecular changes in both UST treatment arms are consistent with endoscopic and HEMI response at week 8. When evaluating sub-groups stratified by endoscopic improvement or HEMI status, significant changes were observed in transcriptional modules in both UST responders and UST non-responders identifying mechanistic processes associated with dual blockade of IL-12 and IL-23 following exposure to UST. Placebo non-responders showed no significant changes. Conclusion Molecular analysis of colon biopsies from UC patients after UST induction revealed IL-12 and IL-23-related transcriptional changes associated with Th1 cytotoxicity and Th17 biology. By leveraging UC single cell derived transcriptional modules, we have identified key disease-relevant processes that significantly changed with UST treatment, regardless of response status and have extended the mechanistic understanding of p40 blockade in UC.

Abstract Background Perianal fistulas are common and cause significant quality of life impairment in patients (pts) with Crohn’s disease (CD). In previous phase 2/3 studies, ustekinumab (UST) showed some evidence of efficacy on fistula resolution, with no clear dose-response relationship. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the role of UST in perianal fistula treatment. Here, we report fistula data from two recent studies of UST in CD, SEAVUE and STARDUST. Methods In SEAVUE, biologic-naïve pts with moderate-to-severe CD were randomized to receive blinded UST (⁓6mg/kg IV at baseline then 90mg SC q8w) or adalimumab (ADA; 160/80mg SC at baseline/W2, then 40mg SC q2w). In STARDUST, biologic-naïve and biologic-failure pts with moderate-to-severe CD received open-label UST ⁓6mg/kg IV at baseline and UST 90mg SC at W8. At W16, pts were randomized to maintenance treatment under standard of care (90mg SC q12w or q8w) or treat-to-target (90mg SC q12w or q8w with potential adjustment to q4w) regimens. In both trials, the number of open and draining perianal fistulas was evaluated at baseline and the end of maintenance (SEAVUE W52, STARDUST W48). Fistula resolution was defined as closure of all fistulas. Pts with missing data at W52/W48 were considered to not have been in fistula resolution. In SEAVUE, pts who had a prohibited CD-related surgery, discontinued for lack of efficacy or an adverse event of worsening CD, or had prohibited concomitant medication changes before W52 were considered not to be in fistula resolution. Results In SEAVUE, 7 of 13 pts (53.8%) with active perianal fistulas at baseline in the UST group had complete fistula resolution at W52, and 6 of 16 patients (37.5%) in the ADA group had fistula resolution. In STARDUST, 9 of 19 pts (47.4%) with active perianal fistulas at baseline had complete fistula resolution at W48. Of the 9 pts in fistula resolution, 2 were receiving q12w at W48, 6 were receiving q8w, and 1 was receiving q4w. Of the 10 pts without fistula resolution, 2 were receiving q12w at W48, 3 were receiving q8w, 1 was receiving q4w and 4 discontinued before W48. In both studies, among pts with evaluable samples for pharmacokinetic analysis, fistula closure at W52/48 was not associated with higher serum drug concentrations at either the early time point of W16 or at the end of maintenance (Figure). This result was consistent for UST in both studies as well as ADA in SEAVUE. Conclusion Of pts with perianal fistulas at baseline in SEAVUE and STARDUST who received UST (32 pts in total), half were in fistula resolution after ~1 year of maintenance treatment. No relationship was observed between fistula resolution and serum drug concentrations, but no definite conclusions can be drawn given the relatively small sample size.

Abstract Background Entry criteria and outcome measures of Crohn’s disease (CD) clinical trials have evolved. Patients are now required to have active inflammation on screening endoscopy, with some studies requiring moderate-severe SES-CD scores. Recent trials have endoscopic response as a co-primary endpoint and endoscopic remission (ER) and deep remission (DR) as major secondary endpoints. Pivotal CD maintenance studies typically examine only responders to induction. The SEAVUE study required ≥1 ulceration of any size (SES-CD≥3) at baseline and had a treat-through design. To examine the results in the context of these trial design characteristics, we evaluated endoscopic outcomes at wk52 in the subgroup of pts with moderate-severe baseline SES-CD scores in SEAVUE, as well as those who were in clinical response after induction. Methods Biologic-naïve pts failing or intolerant to conventional therapy with CDAI≥220/≤450 and SES-CD≥3 were eligible. Pts were randomized, 1:1 to UST (~6mg/kg IV at wk0 then, 90mg SC q8w) or ADA (SC, 160mg at wk0, 80mg at wk2, then, 40mg q2w). Endoscopic outcomes were evaluated in all pts and the subgroup with moderate-severe endoscopic disease (baseline SES-CD≥6 for ileocolonic or colonic disease or SES-CD≥4 for isolated ileal disease). Endoscopic response was a ≥50% reduction from baseline in SES-CD, SES-CD≤3, or SES-CD=0 for pts with baseline SES-CD=3. ER was SES-CD≤3 or, 0 in pts with baseline SES-CD=3. DR was CDAI<150 and ER. Results Endoscopic outcomes for the subgroup with moderate-severe endoscopic disease were similar to those of the full cohort of pts. In UST-treated pts, endoscopic response was achieved at wk52 in, 41.9% in the full cohort and, 43.1% in the moderate-severe subgroup (Table, 1). In ADA-treated pts, endoscopic responses were, 36.9% and, 35.4%, respectively. For pts who were in clinical response after induction (Table, 1), endoscopic response rates were, 48.2% in the full cohort and, 49.5% in the moderate-severe subgroup for UST and, 44.8% and, 43.1%, respectively, for ADA. ER and DR rates were generally similar between the full cohort and the moderate-severe subgroup (Table, 2; eg, ERs were UST, 28.5% and ADA, 30.7% in full cohort; UST, 27.1% and, 27.8% ADA in subgroup). ER and DR rates were, 3%-7% higher in induction responders compared with the full cohort. Of note, even among wk16 nonresponders, some pts attained endoscopic outcomes at wk52 (eg, endoscopic responses in wk16 nonresponders were UST, 21.4% and ADA 13.3%). Conclusion In SEAVUE, both the UST and ADA treatment groups achieved high endoscopic response, ER, and DR rates at wk52. Results in pts with moderate-severe endoscopic disease were similar to those of the full cohort, but clinical responders after induction had higher rates than the full cohort.

Background Active-comparator trials are important to inform patient and physician choice. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with either ustekinumab or adalimumab in biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. Methods We conducted a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, active-comparator, phase 3b trial (SEAVUE) at 121 hospitals or private practices in 18 countries. We included biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease and a Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220-450, who had not responded to or were intolerant to conventional therapy (or were corticosteroid dependent) and had at least one ulcer of any size at baseline endoscopic evaluation. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1; via an interactive web response system) to receive ustekinumab (approximately 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 0, then 90 mg subcutaneously once every 8 weeks) or adalimumab (160 mg on day 0, 80 mg at 2 weeks, then 40 mg once every 2 weeks, subcutaneously) through week 56. Study treatments were administered as monotherapy and without dose modifications. Patients, investigators, and study site personnel were masked to treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were in clinical remission (CDAI score <150) at week 52 in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all patients who were randomly assigned to a treatment group). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03464136, and EudraCT, 2017-004209-41. Findings Between June 28, 2018, and Dec 12, 2019, 633 patients were assessed for eligibility and 386 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ustekinumab (n=191) or adalimumab (n=195). 29 (15%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and 46 (24%) of 195 in the adalimumab group discontinued study treatment before week 52. There was no significant difference between the ustekinumab and adalimumab groups in the occurrence of the primary endpoint; at week 52, 124 (65%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group versus 119 (61%) of 195 in the adalimumab group were in clinical remission (between-group difference 4%, 95% CI -6 to 14; p=0.42). Safety for both groups was consistent with previous reports. Serious infections were reported in four (2%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and five (3%) of 195 in the adalimumab group. No deaths occurred through week 52 of the study. Interpretation Both ustekinumab and adalimumab monotherapies were highly effective in this population of biologicnaive patients, with no difference in the primary outcome between the drugs. Copyright (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

IntroductionPerianal fistulas are common and cause significant quality of life impairment in patients (pts) with Crohn’s disease (CD). We report data on fistula closure from the SEAVUE and STARDUST studies.MethodsIn SEAVUE, biologic-naïve pts with moderately-to-severely active CD were randomized to blinded UST (∽6 mg/kg IV at baseline then 90mg SC q8w) or adalimumab (ADA; 160/80 mg SC at baseline/W2, then 40mg SC q2w). In STARDUST, biologic-naïve+biologic-failure pts with moderately-to-severely active CD received open-label UST ∽6 mg/kg IV at baseline then 90mg SC at W8 and responders were randomized at W16 to maintenance treatment under standard-of-care (90mg SC q12w/q8w) or treat-to-target (90mg SC q12w/q8w with potential adjustment to q4w) regimens. The number of open and draining perianal fistulas was evaluated at baseline/end of maintenance (SEAVUE W52, STARDUST W48). Fistula resolution was defined as complete fistula closure.ResultsIn SEAVUE, 7 of 13 pts (53.8%) with active perianal fistulas at baseline in the UST group and 6 of 16 pts (37.5%) in the ADA group had fistula resolution at W52. In STARDUST, 9 of 19 pts (47.4%) with active perianal fistulas at baseline had fistula resolution at W48 (fistula resolution, n=9 patients [q12w at W48: n=2, q8w: n=6 and q4w: n=1]; without fistula resolution, n=10 patients [q12w at W48: n=2, q8w: n=3, q4w: n=1 and discontinued before W48: n=4]). Among evaluable samples for PK analysis, fistula closure at W52/48 was not associated with higher serum drug concentrations at W16 or at end of maintenance (Figure). Results were consistent for UST in both studies and adalimumab in SEAVUE.ConclusionOf pts with perianal fistulas at baseline in SEAVUE and STARDUST who received UST, 50% had fistula resolution after ~1 year of maintenance treatment. There was no relationship between fistula resolution and serum drug concentrations, but no definite conclusions can be drawn given the small sample sizes. Abstract Topic: Inflammatory bowel disease Keywords: Perianal fistula, SEAVUE, STARDUST, UstekinumabDisclosuresLaurent Peyrin-Biroulet reports personal fees from AbbVie, Allergan, Alma, Amgen, Applied Molecular Transport, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Enterome, Enthera, Ferring, Fresenius, Genentech, Gilead, Hikma, Index Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Nestlé, Norgine, Oppilan Pharma, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Sterna, Sublimity Therapeutics, Takeda, Tillots and Vifor; grants from AbbVie, MSD and Takeda; stock options from CTMA. Remo Panaccione has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Abbott, Alimentiv (formerly Robarts), Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim Celgene, Celltrion, Cosmos Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elan, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Glaxo-Smith Kline, Janssen, Merck, Mylan, Oppilan Pharma, Pandion Therapeutics, Pfizer, Progenity, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Satisfai Health, Sandoz, Schering-Plough, Shire, Sublimity Therapeutics, Theravance, UCB, and Takeda; speaker fees from AbbVie, Arena, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Shire, and Takeda; research/educational support from AbbVie, Ferring, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda; and has served on an advisory board for AbbVie, Amgen, Arena,, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Glaxo-Smith Kline, Janssen, Merck, Mylan, Oppilan Pharma, Pandion Pharma, Pfizer, Sandoz, Shire, Sublimity Therapeutics, Theravance, and Takeda. Christopher Gasink and James L. Izanec report employment with/funding by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC., a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, and stock ownership in Johnson & Johnson. Tony Ma is a contract employee funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Timothy Hoops reports employment with/funding by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC., a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, and stock ownership in Johnson & Johnson Maciej Nazar reports employment with/funding by Janssen-Cilag, Polska Sp. z o.o, a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, and stock ownership in Johnson & Johnson. Ivana Bravata reports employment with/funding by Janssen-Cilag, Italy, a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, and stock ownership in Johnson & Johnson. Marjolein Lahaye reports employment with/funding by Janssen-Cilag, B.V., Medical Affairs, a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, and stock ownership in Johnson & Johnson. Peter M. Irving reports lecture fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Falk Pharma, Ferring, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Sapphire Medical, Sandoz, Shire, Takeda, Tillots, and Warner Chilcott; financial support for research from MSD, Pfizer, and Takeda; and advisory fees from AbbVie, Arena, Genentech, Gilead, Hospira, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Prometheus, Roche, Sandoz, Samsung Bioepis, Takeda, Topivert, VH2, Vifor Pharma, and Warner Chilcott. Edward V. Loftus, Jr. reports consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calibr, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Scopes, Janssen, Lilly, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Scipher Medicine, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB and research support from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, Pfizer, Receptos, Robarts Clinical Trials, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB. Silvio Danese consultancy fees from AbbVie, Alimentiv, Allergan, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Athos Therapeutics, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Enthera, Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc., Gilead, Hospira, Inotrem, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sublimity Therapeutics, Takeda, TiGenix, UCB Inc. and Vifor; and reports lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc., Gilead, Janssen, Mylan, Pfizer and Takeda Bruce E. Sands discloses research grants from Takeda, Pfizer, Theravance Biopharma R&D, Janssen; consulting fees from 4D Pharma, Abivax, Abbvie, Alimentiv, Allergan, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bacainn Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calibr, Capella Bioscience, Celgene, Celltrion Healthcare, ClostraBio, Enthera, F.Hoffmann-La Roche, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo SmithKline, GossamerBio, Immunic, Index Pharmaceuticals, Innovation Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Kaleido, Kallyope, Lilly, MiroBio, Morphic Therapeutic, Oppilan Pharma, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Otsuka, Palatin Technologies, Pfizer, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonist Therapeutics, Q32 Bio, Redhill Biopharma, Rheos Medicines, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Seres Therapeutics, Shire, Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma, Surrozen, Takeda, Target PharmaSolutions, Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Thelium, Theravance Biopharma R&D, TLL Pharma, USWM Enterprises, Ventyx Biosciences, Viela Bio, Vivante Health, Vivelix Pharmaceuticals; and stock for Vivante Health and Ventyx Biosciences.