D'Haens, G

INTRODUCTION: Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and prior biologic failure may have reduced or delayed efficacy with subsequent advanced therapies. This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of ozanimod during the True North (TN) study and its open-label extension (OLE) in biologic-exposed patients with UC. METHODS: TN was a randomized, placebo-controlled 52-week trial (10-week induction, 42-week maintenance period). Eligible patients could enter the OLE. Clinical outcomes were assessed at TN week (W) 10 and W52 and OLE W46 and W94. Symptomatic efficacy was evaluated through induction and in the OLE until W94. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: This analysis included 376 biologic-exposed patients. In the placebo-controlled cohort, more ozanimod-treated patients achieved clinical response than placebo at W10 regardless of the number or type of prior biologics; patients who used 1 vs ≥2 prior biologics achieved higher efficacy rates. Efficacy rates were higher at W52 than W10 and were similar across subgroups regardless of the number or type of prior biologics. Significantly greater proportions of ozanimod vs placebo patients achieved symptomatic response by W5 ( P = 0.0173) and symptomatic remission by W10 ( P = 0.0207). Among biologic-exposed TN W10 ozanimod nonresponders who entered the OLE, 61% achieved symptomatic response with an extra 10 weeks of ozanimod treatment. Ozanimod efficacy was durable for ∼3 years of continuous treatment in biologic-exposed W52 clinical responders who entered the OLE. No new safety signals were observed. DISCUSSION: Ozanimod was effective and safe in biologic-exposed patients with UC, but these patients may require more time to respond to treatment. Clinical trial registry website and trial numbers: ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02435992 and NCT02531126.

Abstract Background Regulatory guidance for Crohn’s disease trials recommends coprimary efficacy end points that evaluate both symptoms and mucosal inflammation. We aimed to characterize the operating properties of commonly used disease activity assessments alone and in combination. Methods Endoscopic and clinical data were available for 129 participants from the Study of Biologic and Immunomodulator Naïve Patients in Crohn’s Disease trial. Readers scored the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease and the Crohn’s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity using standardized conventions. Index reliability was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients. Index responsiveness was assessed using standardized effect sizes based upon treatment assignment. Outcomes were evaluated for optimal sensitivity to treatment effect. Results Substantial inter-rater reliability was observed when the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease and Crohn’s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity were used as continuous measures (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.73; and 0.62 95% CI, 0.36-0.77) compared with moderate reliability when dichotomized (0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.65; and 0.51; 95% CI, 0.00-0.78). The Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease, Crohn’s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity, patient-reported outcome-2, and Crohn’s Disease Activity Index were similarly responsive (standardized effect size, 0.43, 95% CI, 0.05-0.81; 0.38, 95% CI, 0.0-0.76; 0.53, 95% CI, 0.15-0.91). A composite outcome of Crohn’s Disease Activity Index score <150 and Crohn’s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity score <6 was most sensitive to treatment effect (28.9%; 95% CI, 11.0%-46.8%; P = .003). Conclusion Endoscopic indices were more reliable as continuous measures. Composite outcomes including endoscopy improved sensitivity to treatment effect.

Summary Background Regulatory requirements for claims of mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis ( UC ) will require demonstration of both endoscopic and histologic healing. Quantifying these rates is essential for future drug development. Aims To meta‐analyse endoscopic and histologic placebo response and remission rates in UC randomised controlled trials ( RCT s) and identify factors influencing these rates. Methods MEDLINE , EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 2017 for placebo‐controlled trials of pharmacological interventions for UC . Endoscopic and histologic placebo rates were pooled by random effects. Mixed effects univariable and multivariable meta‐regression was used to evaluate the influence of patient, intervention and trial‐related study‐level covariates on these rates. Results Fifty‐six induction (placebo n = 4171) and 8 maintenance trials (placebo n = 1011) were included. Pooled placebo endoscopic remission and response rates for induction trials were 23% [95 confidence interval ( CI ) 19‐28%] and 35% [95% CI 27‐42%] respectively, and 20% [95% CI 16‐24%] for maintenance of remission. The pooled histologic placebo remission rate was 14% [95% CI 8‐22%] for induction trials. High heterogeneity was observed for all outcomes ( I 2 56.2%‐88.3%). On multivariable meta‐regression, central endoscopy reading was associated with significantly lower endoscopic placebo remission rates (16% vs 25%; OR = 0.52, [95% CI 0.29‐0.92], P = 0.03). On univariable meta‐regression, higher histologic placebo remission was associated with concomitant corticosteroids ( OR = 1.17 [95% CI 1.08‐1.26], P < 0.0001, per 10% increase in corticosteroid use). Conclusions Placebo endoscopic and histologic rates range from 14% to 35% in UC RCT s but are highly heterogeneous. Outcome standardisation may reduce heterogeneity and is needed in this field.