A Review of Selected Presentations From DDW 2025
May 3-6, 2025 • San Diego, California
One-Year Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Upadacitinib Versus Risankizumab for CD
Two newer treatment options for patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) are the selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor upadacitinib and the interleukin-23 (IL-23) p19 monoclonal antibody risankizumab. Both agents have independently demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of CD.1-3 However, their relative efficacy and safety are unknown owing to lack of head-to-head trials.
At DDW 2025, Rahul S. Dalal, MD, MPH, and colleagues presented results of a real-world retrospective analysis comparing the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib and risankizumab in patients with CD receiving care in a large urban academic health system (Table 1).4 Investigators used statistical tools, including inverse probability of treatment-weighted Cox and logistic regression with a priori–selected covariates, to account for differences in baseline disease severity between groups.
The cohort included 219 patients who started either upadacitinib (n=67) or risankizumab (n=152) in 2023. Most baseline characteristics were similar between arms, although patients receiving upadacitinib were younger than those receiving risankizumab, with a median age of 34 years and 42 years, respectively (P<.01). Sex, median disease duration, race/ethnicity, median body mass index, smoking status, and most CD characteristics were similar between groups.
There was a trend toward a higher proportion of ileal CD in the risankizumab cohort vs the upadacitinib cohort (21.7% vs 9.0%), although this did not reach statistical significance. Patients receiving upadacitinib were more likely than patients receiving risankizumab to have received prior anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies (P<.01), prior ustekinumab (P<.01), and prior risankizumab (P<.01). Baseline corticosteroid use was similar between groups.
Rates of active endoscopic inflammation were similar between groups, as were imaging findings within the past year. In the subset of patients with data available, median C-reactive protein (CRP) was higher in the upadacitinib group vs the risankizumab group (6.2 vs 3.5 mg/L; P=.01), as was the median Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI) (9 vs 6; P=.02).
In unadjusted analyses, no significant differences between groups were noted for rates of clinical response at 12 weeks and 52 weeks, steroid-free clinical remission (SFCR; defined as HBI <5 with no use of oral corticosteroids at follow-up or physician global assessment at 52 ± 4 weeks) at 12 weeks and 52 weeks, and rates of clinical, endoscopic, and radiologic response at 52 weeks.
Investigators reported a significant difference between groups in time to treatment discontinuation within 52 weeks, with 34% of patients discontinuing upadacitinib vs 15% of patients discontinuing risankizumab (P<.01). Upadacitinib was also associated with higher rates of surgery within 52 weeks (9% vs 3%; P<.01) and adverse events (AEs) within 52 weeks (38.8% vs 19.7%; P<.01).
Treatment discontinuations through 52 weeks remained more frequent with upadacitinib vs risankizumab after adjusting for competing events; these included discontinuations owing to any cause (weighted hazard ratio [HR], 3.2; 95% CI, 1.7-6.0) and those specifically owing to nonresponse (P<.01). Exploratory Cox and logistic regression analyses found no significant difference between groups in SFCR rates at 52 weeks or in treatment discontinuation rates after excluding TNF-naive patients. Adding baseline CRP and HBI scores also did not change the findings.
AE profiles were as expected with these agents, with upadacitinib yielding higher rates of several AEs, including rash.
Investigators concluded that risankizumab and upadacitinib appeared to yield similar SFCR rates. Risankizumab may provide a more durable therapy, but residual confounding factors and higher disease severity among patients receiving upadacitinib could have contributed to this difference. Thus additional study is warranted to further compare the effectiveness of these agents.
References
1. Loftus EV Jr, Panés J, Lacerda AP, et al. Upadacitinib induction and maintenance therapy for Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(21):1966-1980.
2. D’Haens G, Panaccione R, Baert F, et al. Risankizumab as induction therapy for Crohn’s disease: results from the phase 3 ADVANCE and MOTIVATE induction trials. Lancet. 2022;399(10340):2015-2030.
3. Ferrante M, Panaccione R, Baert F, et al. Risankizumab as maintenance therapy for moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease: results from the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, withdrawal phase 3 FORTIFY maintenance trial. Lancet. 2022;399(10340):2031-2046.
4. Dalal RS, Carlin AD, Cabral H, Clarke LM, Hardwick GB, Allegretti JR. One-year comparative effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib versus risankizumab for CD. Presented at: DDW 2025; May 3-6, 2025; San Diego, CA. Abstract 269.
Corticosteroid-Sparing Effects of Treatment With Guselkumab in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active CD: Phase 3 GRAVITI Study Results Through Week 48
The IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in March 2025 for the treatment of moderately to severely active CD after demonstrating efficacy and safety in the randomized, phase 3 GRAVITI trial.1,2 In that trial, subcutaneous (SC) guselkumab was effective in patients with moderately to severely active CD, demonstrating superiority over placebo in week 12 clinical response rate (56.1% vs 21.4%; P<.001) and endoscopic response rate (41.3% vs 21.4%; P<.001), with no increase in AE rate.2
At DDW 2025, Bruce E. Sands, MD, MS, and colleagues presented results from the GRAVITI trial through week 48 (Table 2).3 GRAVITI enrolled patients with moderately to severely active CD, defined as a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220 to 450 and either a mean daily stool frequency count of at least 4 or an abdominal pain score of at least 2, and a Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) of at least 6, or at least 4 for isolated ileal disease. Patients were also required to have an inadequate response or intolerance to oral corticosteroids, azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate, or biologic therapy (TNF antagonists or vedolizumab).
Patients were assigned 1:1:1 to guselkumab 400 mg SC every 4 weeks (q4w) for 12 weeks followed by guselkumab 200 mg SC q4w (n=115), guselkumab 400 mg q4w for 12 weeks followed by guselkumab 100 mg SC every 8 weeks (q8w) (n=115), or placebo SC q4w (n=117). Patients in the placebo arm could receive rescue guselkumab 400 mg SC q4w for 12 weeks followed by 100 mg SC q8w. Stratification was based on CDAI (≤300 or >300), SES-CD (≤12 vs >12), and response to prior biologic.
The mean age of enrolled patients was 37.5 years and 58.5% were male; the median duration of CD was 8.0 years, mean CDAI was 296.9, and mean SES-CD was 12.0. At baseline, nearly one-half of patients (46.4%) were biologic-naive; 68.3% were receiving at least 1 medication for CD, and 29.7% were receiving oral corticosteroids.
Among the subset of patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline, 81.6% of those patients in the guselkumab 200 mg q4w arm were able to stop corticosteroids by week 48, compared with 62.5% of those patients in the guselkumab 100 mg SC q8w arm and 18.2% of those patients in the placebo arm.
Week 48 clinical remission rates were also higher in the guselkumab arms, at 66.1% with 200 mg q4w and 60.0% with 100 mg q8w, compared with 17.1% with placebo. The proportion of patients attaining 90-day corticosteroid-free clinical remission was also higher in both guselkumab arms than with placebo, both in the overall population (65.2%, 58.3%, and 16.2%, respectively) and in the subgroup of patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline (71.1%, 46.9%, and 15.2%, respectively).
Week 48 endoscopic outcomes were also superior with guselkumab vs placebo, including the proportion of patients with endoscopic remission (38.3% with guselkumab 200 mg q4w, 30.4% with guselkumab 100 mg q8w, and 6.0% with placebo), the proportion of patients attaining 90-day corticosteroid-free endoscopic remission (36.5%, 30.4%, and 6.0%, respectively), and the proportion of patients attaining 90-day corticosteroid-free endoscopic remission after having received corticosteroids at baseline (39.5%, 34.4%, and 3.0%, respectively).
The proportion of patients attaining deep remission, defined as a clinical and endoscopic remission, was also higher with guselkumab (33.9% and 26.1%) vs placebo (4.3%). Finally, nearly all patients in the guselkumab arms who attained clinical remission, endoscopic response, or endoscopic remission were corticosteroid-free for at least 90 days.
The investigators concluded that SC guselkumab induction and maintenance therapy yielded corticosteroid-free clinical and endoscopic outcomes in patients with moderately to severely active CD.
References
1. Tremfya (guselkumab) full prescribing information. Horsham, PA: Janssen Biotech, Inc; March 2025.
2. Hart A, Panaccione R, Steinwurz F, et al. Efficacy and safety of guselkumab subcutaneous induction and maintenance in participants with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease: results from the phase 3 GRAVITI study. Gastroenterology. Published online March 18, 2025.
3. Hart A, Panaccione R, Steinwurz F, et al. Corticosteroid sparing effects of treatment with guselkumab in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease: phase 3 GRAVITI study results through week 48. Presented at: DDW 2025; May 3-6, 2025; San Diego, CA. Abstract 914.
Comparative Effectiveness of Risankizumab Versus Ustekinumab in Bio-naive CD Patients: A Real-World Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study
Risankizumab and ustekinumab are both monoclonal antibodies that inhibit IL-23; ustekinumab binds the p40 subunit and risankizumab binds the p19 subunit. In the SEQUENCE trial involving patients previously treated with anti-TNF therapy, risankizumab demonstrated noninferiority to ustekinumab in week 24 clinical remission rates and superiority over ustekinumab in week 48 endoscopic remission rates.1 The relative efficacy of risankizumab and ustekinumab in anti-TNF-naive patients has not been well defined, nor has the relative efficacy of risankizumab and ustekinumab with the use of ustekinumab dose optimization.
At DDW 2025, Mohammad Aldiabat, MD, and colleagues presented results of a real-world retrospective cohort study comparing the effectiveness of risankizumab and ustekinumab in biologic-naive patients both overall and among patients receiving ustekinumab every 4 to 6 weeks (Table 3).2 The study sample included patients from the TriNetX collaborative network, a group of 68 institutions in the United States, who had started treatment with risankizumab (n=1633) or ustekinumab (n=3106) between June 17, 2022, and October 31, 2024.
Investigators used 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to adjust for differences in demographics, comorbidities, parameters of CD severity, extraintestinal manifestations, concurrent corticosteroid use, hemoglobin, and body weight between groups. After this adjustment, the study group included 1562 patients in each cohort, with 640 patients in the ustekinumab every-4-to-6-week subset.
In a Cox proportional hazards model of matched cohorts, there were no differences after 1 year in key clinical outcomes including the composite outcome of need for corticosteroids, hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and surgeries (HR, 1.11; P=.06) or in individual outcomes including corticosteroid use, CD- related surgery, hospitalization, ED visits, opioid use, or a switch to advanced therapy. Similarly, there were no differences in markers of disease progression, including CRP greater than 10 mg/L or fecal calprotectin (FCP) greater than 150 μg/g.
In the subset analysis, investigators also found no significant differences in these outcomes with risankizumab compared with ustekinumab administered every 4 to 6 weeks. Two-year outcomes similarly found no significant differences in any of these outcomes either overall or among the subset of patients receiving ustekinumab every 4 to 6 weeks.
Researchers noted multiple limitations of the analysis, including its observational nature, a lack of endoscopic or histologic healing data, a lack of data on treatment adherence or provider practice patterns, use of laboratory values to infer disease severity, lack of specificity in reasons for ED use and hospitalizations, and the lack of capturing risankizumab dose optimization to every 4 to 6 weeks.
The researchers concluded that their analysis revealed no differences in clinical remission rates or markers of CD progression in biologic-naive patients receiving risankizumab or ustekinumab, including dose-optimized ustekinumab, at either 1 or 2 years of follow-up. They added that ustekinumab remains a viable alternative in patients with CD not previously treated with advanced therapies.
References
1. Peyrin-Biroulet L, Chapman JC, Colombel JF, et al. Risankizumab versus ustekinumab for moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2024;391(3):213-223.
2. Aldiabat M, Yarur AJ, Peyrin-Biroulet L, Loftus EV, Colombel JF, Deepak P. Comparative effectiveness of risankizumab vs ustekinumab in bio-naive Crohn’s disease patients: a real-world multicenter retrospective cohort study. Presented at: DDW 2025; May 3-6, 2025; San Diego, CA. Abstract 123.
Low Remission Recapture After Ustekinumab Dose Optimization in CD: Results of the Randomized Placebo-Controlled Double-Blind Rescue Study
Retrospective studies have shown the possibility of recapturing responses in patients with CD with a secondary loss of response to ustekinumab.1,2 However, this had not been prospectively evaluated.
At DDW 2025, Peter Bossuyt, MD, PhD, and colleagues presented results of the prospective double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled REScUE study, which evaluated 2 different ustekinumab reinduction regimens in patients with CD with a documented primary response to ustekinumab who also developed secondary loss of response, defined by Patient-Reported Outcome 2 (abdominal pain score >1 and liquid or very soft stool frequency >3) and confirmed by either a biomarker increase (CRP >5 mg/L or FCP >250 μg/mg) or endoscopic relapse (Table 4).3
A total of 108 patients received a single intravenous (IV) dose of ustekinumab reinduction (6 mg/kg), then were randomly assigned to blinded maintenance ustekinumab 90 mg SC q4w (n=54) or ustekinumab 90 mg SC q8w (n=54) for 48 weeks. The median age of enrolled patients was 40 to 41 years; 62% were female and the median disease duration was 12 to 14 years (range, 7-23 years). Prior anti-TNF treatment had been administered to 92% of patients.
The trial did not meet its primary endpoint, demonstrating no significant difference in the proportion of patients with steroid-free clinical remission at week 48 with maintenance ustekinumab q4w compared with q8w (17% vs 16%; P=.96). Other week 48 endpoints were also not significantly different with q4w vs q8w dosing, including endoscopic remission rates (SES-CD <3 [10% vs 6%; P=.52]), endoscopic response rates (>50% decrease in SES-CD from baseline [22% vs 12%; P=.23]) and biomarker remission rates (CRP <5 mg/L and FCP <250 μg/g [38% vs 26%; P=.29]). The time to first clinical remission was not significantly difference between arms (P=.82). Ustekinumab serum concentrations increased significantly after IV reinduction, but higher concentrations were not associated with more favorable outcomes.
The investigators concluded that, in patients with CD with secondary loss of response to ustekinumab, dose optimization recaptured remission in fewer than 20% of patients. Although there was no significant difference in outcomes with q4w dosing vs q8w dosing after 1 IV reinduction infusion, the q4w regimen was numerically more effective.
References
1. Ten Bokkel Huinink S, Biemans V, Duijvestein M, et al. Re-induction with intravenous ustekinumab after secondary loss of response is a valid optimization strategy in Crohn’s disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;33(1S Suppl 1):e783-e788.
2. Meserve J, Ma C, Dulai PS, Jairath V, Singh S. Effectiveness of reinduction and/or dose escalation of ustekinumab in Crohn’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20(12):2728-2740.e1.
3. Bossuyt P, Rahier F, Baert FJ, et al. Low remission recapture after ustekinumab dose optimization in Crohn’s disease: results of the randomized placebo-controlled double-blind REScUE study. Presented at: DDW 2025; May 3-6, 2025; San Diego, CA. Abstract 627.
Dual-Targeted Therapy With Risankizumab and Upadacitinib Is Clinically and Biochemically Effective in Medically Complex CD
Dual targeted therapy, in which multiple targeted agents are used that inhibit different inflammatory pathways, has been evaluated as a strategy for patients with CD that is refractory to single-agent therapy and for patients with concomitant inflammatory conditions that are not addressed with their current therapy. A small retrospective study has previously demonstrated efficacy with the combination of ustekinumab and upadacitinib in patients with medically complex CD.1 At DDW 2025, Evan N. Fear, BS, and colleagues presented results of a retrospective analysis of a prospective real-world database evaluating risankizumab plus upadacitinib in 19 patients with medically complex CD who received the combination regimen at the University of Chicago between November 2021 and September 2024 (Table 5).2
The median age of enrolled patients was 38 years (IQR, 33.5-43.5 years); 68% were female, the median disease duration at initiation of dual therapy was 14.1 years, and patients had received a median of 5 prior advanced therapies. Most patients (73.7%) had undergone prior inflammatory bowel disease surgeries, including 5 ileostomies (26.3%). CD was clinically active at baseline, as assessed by HBI, in 58.3% of patients.
Among patients with active disease, risankizumab and upadacitinib was associated with a clinical remission (HBI ≤4) rate of 71.4% and a clinical response (HBI change of ≥3 from baseline) rate of 10.5%. All 4 patients with ostomies had a clinical response, and 2 achieved clinical remission. Biochemical remissions were attained in all 5 patients with active disease determined by FCP (<150 μg/g) and in 6 of 7 patients with active disease determined by CRP (<5 mg/L). Of the 8 patients with extraintestinal manifestations at baseline, 7 had improvement and 4 had resolution of their extraintestinal manifestation. There were 3 treatment discontinuations owing to AEs, including 1 each owing to acne, fatigue, and upper respiratory tract infection.
The investigators concluded that the combination of risankizumab and upadacitinib was effective in patients with medically complex CD and was generally well tolerated.
References
1. Miyatani Y, Choi D, Choi NK, Rubin DT. Dual-targeted therapy with upadacitinib and ustekinumab in medically complex Crohn’s disease. Dig Dis Sci. 2024;69(2):355-359.
2. Fear EN, McDonald BD, McMillan RH, et al. Dual-targeted therapy with risankizumab and upadacitinib is clinically and biochemically effective in medically complex Crohn’s disease. Presented at: DDW 2025; May 3-6, 2025; San Diego, CA. Abstract Tu1912.
Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Mirikizumab Following 104 Weeks of Continuous Treatment for CD: Results From the VIVID-2 Open-Label Extension Study
Mirikizumab is an IL-23 p19 inhibitor that received FDA approval in January 2025 for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.1 The approval was based on results of the phase 3 VIVID-1 study, in which mirikizumab demonstrated a significant improvement over placebo in 2 composite endpoints: patient-reported outcome clinical response at week 12 and endoscopic response at week 52 (38.0% vs 9.0%; P<.0001), and patient-reported outcome clinical response at week 12 and CDAI clinical remission at week 52 (45.4% vs 19.6%; P<.0001).2
At DDW 2025, Edward L. Barnes, MD, MPH, and colleagues presented the long-term efficacy and safety of mirikizumab in 251 patients who were randomized to mirikizumab in VIVID-1 and continued on to the open-label extension study VIVID-2 (Table 6).3 Patients received induction therapy with mirikizumab 900 mg IV at weeks 0, 4, and 8 followed by mirikizumab SC q4w. Patients with endoscopic response at week 52 continued to receive the same dosage of mirikizumab in VIVID-2.
At 104 weeks, endoscopic response was maintained in 81.8% of patients using a modified nonresponder imputation analysis or 87.6% in an observed-case analysis; endoscopic remission rates were 54.9% and 58.7% and clinical remission by CDAI was achieved in 79.0% and 84.7%, respectively. Endoscopic remission was maintained in 72.5% and 78.6% of patients who were in endoscopic remission at the end of VIVID-1 and was attained in an additional 33.3% and 35.4%, respectively. Clinical remission by CDAI was maintained by 86.9% and 92.9% of patients and was attained in an additional 55.8% and 60.8%, respectively.
Investigators reported that the efficacy of mirikizumab was generally similar regardless of prior biologic failure. During the first year of VIVID-2 (the second year of patients receiving mirikizumab), 64.3% of patients had at least 1 treatment-emergent AE, 6.8% developed a serious AE, and 2 patients (0.8%) discontinued mirikizumab owing to an AE.
The investigators concluded that the VIVID-2 extension study demonstrated the long-term efficacy of mirikizumab by clinical and endoscopic measures in patients with moderately to severely active CD, with many patients maintaining response and remission after 2 years and others gaining remission in the second year of treatment. Moreover, the safety outcomes were consistent with the known safety profile of mirikizumab.2
References
1. Omvoh (mirikizumab-mrkz) full prescribing information. Indianapolis, IN: Eli Lilly and Company; January 2025.
2. Ferrante M, D’Haens G, Jairath V, et al. Efficacy and safety of mirikizumab in patients with moderately-to-severely active Crohn’s disease: a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled, treat-through study. Lancet. 2024;404(10470):2423-2436.
3. Barnes EL, Sands BE, D’Haens G, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of mirikizumab following 104 weeks of continuous treatment for Crohn’s disease: results from the VIVID-2 open-label extension study. Presented at: DDW 2025; May 3-6, 2025; San Diego, CA. Abstract Tu1814.
Impact of Immunogenicity on 2-Year Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe CD Treated With Subcutaneous Infliximab: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Phase 3 LIBERTY-CD Study
Several studies have demonstrated that the development of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) is associated with poorer outcomes in patients with CD receiving biologics.1,2 However, in a post hoc analysis from the phase 3 LIBERTY-CD trial, although ADAs were associated with lower serum infliximab levels in patients receiving SC infliximab, they were not associated with drug persistence or clinical efficacy.3
At DDW 2025, Dr Sands and colleagues presented a post hoc analysis from LIBERTY-CD evaluating the effects of ADAs on clinical outcomes up to week 102 in patients receiving infliximab SC maintenance treatment (Table 7).4 The analysis included 231 patients with a response to infliximab IV induction therapy at week 10 who were randomly assigned to receive infliximab SC in the LIBERTY-CD trial. Patients were categorized as ADA-positive (ADAs were detected at any point after treatment initiation) or ADA-negative (ADAs were not detected at any point). PSM was used to balance the ADA-positive and ADA-negative groups 2:1. The PSM cohort included 105 patients in the ADA-positive group and 58 patients in the ADA-negative.
At week 102, there was no significant difference in any efficacy outcome between ADA-positive and ADA-negative groups, including clinical remission rate, endoscopic response rate, CDAI, or SES-CD, whether data were analyzed as observed or with missing data imputed as nonremitter or nonresponder. No differences in drug persistence between the ADA-positive and ADA-negative groups were observed up to week 102. However, mean serum infliximab levels during the maintenance phase were lower in ADA-positive vs ADA-negative patients.
Outcomes were also assessed by ADA titer level. Week 102 efficacy was comparable between ADA-positive and ADA-negative groups in patients with low-to-moderate ADA titer levels. A high ADA titer (≥1000) was associated with lower rates of endoscopic response and higher SES-CD. Drug persistence was significantly lower among patients with high ADA titers compared with patients with low ADA titers. Moreover, mean serum infliximab levels during the maintenance phase were consistently lower in the high-titer group than the ADA-negative group and other subgroups.
The investigators concluded that the development of ADAs in patients receiving infliximab SC maintenance therapy did not significantly affect clinical outcomes or drug persistence up to week 102 except in patients with an ADA titer of 1000 or greater, in whom endoscopic response rates were lower and serum drug levels were lower. They added that this analysis was based on a newly developed electrochemiluminescence affinity capture elution assay, and thus additional studies are needed to further assess absolute threshold titers that affect outcomes and to relate the findings to other ADA assay types.
References
1. Velikova T, Sekulovski M, Peshevska-Sekulovska M. Immunogenicity and loss of effectiveness of biologic therapy for inflammatory bowel disease patients due to anti-drug antibody development. Antibodies (Basel). 2024;13(1):16.
2. Baert F, Noman M, Vermeire S, et al. Influence of immunogenicity on the long-term efficacy of infliximab in Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(7):601-608.
3. Colombel JF, Danese S, Schreiber S, et al. P874 Impact of immunogenicity on clinical outcomes in patients with Crohn’s disease receiving maintenance treatment with subcutaneous infliximab: a post hoc analysis of the LIBERTY-CD study. J Crohns Colitis. 2024;18(Supplement_1):i1604-i1605.
4. Sands BE, Colombel JF, Rubin DT, et al. Impact of immunogenicity on 2-year clinical outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease treated with subcutaneous infliximab: a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 LIBERTY-CD study. Presented at: DDW 2025; May 3-6, 2025; San Diego, CA. Abstract Su1842.