The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dual-target therapy (Ustekinumab combined with Upadacitinib) versus intensified Ustekinumab monotherapy in patients with Crohn's disease who have an inadequate response to standard doses of Ustekinumab. The main questions it aims to answer are: Is dual-target therapy more effective than intensified Ustekinumab monotherapy in achieving endoscopic remission in Crohn's disease patients? Is dual-target therapy as safe as intensified Ustekinumab monotherapy in terms of adverse events? Participants will: Receive either dual-target therapy (Ustekinumab combined with Upadacitinib) or intensified Ustekinumab monotherapy. Attend regular clinic visits for monitoring and assessments. Complete questionnaires about their symptoms and quality of life. Undergo routine blood tests and endoscopic evaluations to assess disease activity. Researchers will compare the dual-target therapy group to the intensified Ustekinumab monotherapy group to see if dual-target therapy is more effective in achieving endoscopic remission and is as safe in terms of adverse events.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
214
Participants will continue ustekinumab 90 mg administered subcutaneously every 8 weeks. In addition, upadacitinib will be administered orally once daily. During the induction period (Weeks 0-12), upadacitinib will be initiated at 15 mg or 30 mg daily, with escalation up to 45 mg daily permitted based on disease activity, clinical response, and tolerability. From Week 12 to Week 16, dose adjustment (15 0r 30 daily) will be allowed according to clinical judgment. Clinical efficacy will be assessed at Week 16.
Participants will receive an additional induction dose of Ustekinumab administered intravenously at 6 mg/kg at baseline. This will be followed by subcutaneous maintenance therapy of 90 mg every 4 weeks. Clinical efficacy will be evaluated at week 16.
Wei Wang
Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
RECRUITINGThe primary endpoint of the study is the endoscopic remission rate at week 16.
Endoscopic remission is defined as an SES-CD score of less than 3, with no individual variable subscore exceeding 1.
Time frame: Week 16
Clinical response rate at week 16
Comparison of the clinical response rate (CDAI score reduction by ≥100 points from baseline, or CDAI score \<150) between the UPA+UST group and the UST-M group at week 16.
Time frame: Week 16.
Endoscopic response rate at week 16
Comparison of the endoscopic response rate (defined as a reduction in SES-CD score by \>50% from baseline, or for ileal-limited disease with a baseline SES-CD score ≥4, a reduction of at least 50%) between the UPA+UST group and the UST-M group.
Time frame: Week 16
Deep remission rate at week 16
Comparison of the deep remission rate (defined as clinical remission and no ulcers on endoscopy, SES-CD score \<3, with no individual variable subscore exceeding 1) between the UPA+UST group and the UST-M group.
Time frame: Week 16
Biochemical remission rate at week 16
omparison of the biochemical remission rate (defined as CRP levels within the normal reference range) between the UPA+UST group and the UST-M group
Time frame: Week 16
Normalization rate of fecal calprotectin levels at week 16
Comparison of the normalization rate of fecal calprotectin levels (defined as fecal calprotectin \<200 μg/g) between the UPA+UST group and the UST-M group.
Time frame: Week 16
Normalization rate of intestinal wall thickness on ultrasound at week 16
Comparison of the normalization rate of intestinal wall thickness on ultrasound (defined as intestinal wall thickness \<3 mm) between the UPA+UST group and the UST-M group.
Time frame: Week 16
Health-related quality of life assessment using the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ)
Evaluation of health-related quality of life using the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ). Assessment of the average change in total IBDQ score from baseline at week 16 and around week 52. The IBDQ score ranges from 32 to 224, with higher scores indicating better quality of life.
Time frame: Week 16 and around Week 52
Number of participants with treatment-related adverse events as assessed by CTCAE v4.0 at week 16.
The short-term safety of the treatment regimen will be evaluated by assessing the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events. Adverse events will be categorized and graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0. The evaluation will occur at week 16.
Time frame: Week 16
Number of participants with treatment-related adverse events as assessed by CTCAE v4.0 at week 52
The long-term safety of the treatment regimen will be evaluated by assessing the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events at week 52. Adverse events will be categorized and graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0.
Time frame: Around Week 52
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.