Kuehbacher, Tanja

Abstract Background Patient age can impact the safety and efficacy of ulcerative colitis (UC) treatments. Etrasimod is an oral, once daily (QD), selective sphingosine 1-phosphate1,4,5 receptor modulator for the treatment of moderately to severely active UC. Here, we evaluate the impact of age on etrasimod safety and efficacy in patients with UC in the phase 3 ELEVATE UC clinical program. Methods Data were pooled from ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 in patients receiving etrasimod 2 mg QD or placebo. Proportions and incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient-years of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were stratified by age (<40, 40-59, and ≥60 years). With the same age stratifications, efficacy was evaluated in patients with baseline Modified Mayo scores of 5-9 and 4-9 for the primary efficacy endpoint (clinical remission) and secondary efficacy endpoints. Results Overall, 787 patients were enrolled (<40 years, n = 420 [53.4%]; 40-59 years, n = 276 [35.1%]; and ≥60 years, n = 91 [11.6%]). Arthralgia, fatigue, and hypertension IRs were higher in older patients, irrespective of treatment. Serious AEs and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were low and consistent across age groups. Significantly more patients receiving etrasimod 2 mg QD vs placebo achieved efficacy endpoints, regardless of age. Conclusions The safety profile of etrasimod 2 mg QD in the ELEVATE UC population was consistent across age groups, with no change in the incidence of AEs. Patients receiving etrasimod vs placebo showed significant clinical benefit, regardless of age. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03945188; NCT03996369.

Abstract Background Etrasimod is an oral, once-daily (QD), selective sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P)1,4,5 receptor modulator for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). Previous work has shown age can impact treatment safety and efficacy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.1 This post hoc analysis investigated the impact of age on the safety and efficacy of etrasimod in patients with UC in the phase 3 ELEVATE UC clinical programme. Methods Data pooled from the ELEVATE UC 52 (NCT03945188) and ELEVATE UC 12 (NCT03996369) trials were analysed in patients receiving etrasimod 2 mg QD and placebo. ELEVATE UC 52 had a treat-through design comprising a 12-week induction period followed by a 40-week maintenance period. ELEVATE UC 12 was a 12-week induction trial. Proportions and incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient-years from pooled data of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and events of interest were stratified by age (<40 years, 40–59 years, ≥60 years) and analysed in patients who received ≥1 dose of etrasimod or placebo. Efficacy analyses were evaluated in patients with baseline Modified Mayo score (MMS) 5–9 for the primary efficacy endpoint (clinical remission) and select secondary endpoints at Week 12 (both trials) and Week 52 (ELEVATE UC 52) stratified by age. Results There were 787 patients enrolled in the ELEVATE UC programme, of whom 420 (53.4%) were aged <40 years, 276 (35.1%) were aged 40–59 years and 91 (11.6%) were aged ≥60 years. The proportions and IRs of TEAEs and events of interest were mostly similar between age groups and treatment arms (Table). IRs of arthralgia, fatigue, hypertension and pyrexia were higher in older age groups, regardless of treatment arm. Serious AEs and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were low and consistent across all age subgroups. Serious infections and infection events of interest were balanced across age groups and treatment arms. Regardless of age subgroup, significantly more patients treated with etrasimod 2 mg QD vs placebo achieved the primary and select secondary efficacy endpoints at Week 12 and Week 52 (Figure). Conclusion The safety profile of etrasimod 2 mg QD in the UC population was consistent across age groups, and with no new risks other than the estimated risks associated with increasing age.2 Patients receiving etrasimod in the ELEVATE UC programme showed significant clinical benefit as assessed by clinical remission, symptomatic remission and endoscopic improvement compared with placebo, regardless of age. References 1. Lichtenstein GR et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2023; 29: 27–41. 2. Luo J et al. JMIR Med Inform 2016; 4: e30.

Abstract Background We studied the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab (UST) vs adalimumab (ADA) through 1 year in biologic-naïve patients (pts) with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. Methods SEAVUE was a multicenter, randomized, blinded, parallel-group, active-controlled study in adults with CD Activity Index (CDAI) scores ≥220/≤450. Biologic-naïve pts failing/intolerant to conventional therapy with any size ulcer on baseline (BL) ileocolonoscopy were eligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 to UST (⁓6mg/kg IV at BL then 90mg SC every 8 weeks [Ws]) or ADA (160/80mg SC at BL/W2, then 40mg SC every 2 Ws) per US-approved regimens (no dose modifications). Primary endpoint was clinical remission at W52 (CDAI <150). Major secondary endpoints were corticosteroid-free remission, clinical response (≥100-point CDAI decrease from BL), remission in pt-reported CDAI components (PRO-2 symptom remission: abdominal pain mean daily score ≤1 and stool frequency mean daily score ≤3), and endoscopic remission (SES-CD score ≤3/0 for pts with BL score=3) at W52 and clinical remission at W16. Results 386 pts were randomized to UST or ADA. BL demographics and disease characteristics were balanced between groups and indicative of pts with early, moderate-to-severe CD (median CD duration, 2.58 years; CDAI, 289.5; SES-CD, 8.0). At W52, 65% of UST-treated and 61% of ADA-treated pts achieved clinical remission (Δ=4.0%; 95% CI, -5.5%, 13.5%; p=0.417). Major secondary endpoints, including endoscopic remission, were similar between groups (Table 1), as were remission rates at assessment points through W52. Some other secondary endpoints showed numerical (not statistical) differences between UST and ADA (Table 1). Key safety events are summarized in Table 2. Among UST-treated and ADA-treated pts, 34.0% and 40.5% had infections, 2.6% and 7.2% had serious adverse events (AEs) of worsening CD, and 6.3% and 11.3% had AEs that led to discontinuation (DC) of study drug, respectively. One ADA-treated pt had active pulmonary TB. Injection-site reactions associated with active treatment occurred in 1.0% of UST-treated and 10.3% of ADA-treated pts. Overall, 15.2% of UST-treated and 23.6% of ADA-treated pts DC before W52. Reasons for DC were primarily lack of efficacy (UST, 2.1% vs ADA, 5.1%), AEs (UST, 5.7% vs ADA, 10.7%), and withdrawal of consent (UST, 5.8% vs ADA, 5.1%). Time to treatment DC was longer with UST vs ADA (post hoc analysis). Conclusion Both UST and ADA were highly effective in this population of biologic-naïve pts. Rates of clinical remission at W52 were not statistically significantly different between treatment groups. DC rates were numerically lower for UST. Safety results were consistent with prior experience for both treatments.