Colombel, Jean‐Frédéric

SummaryBackground and aimsExtra‐intestinal manifestations (EIMs) are a common complication of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), affecting up to half of the patients. Despite their high prevalence, information on standardised definitions, diagnostic strategies, and treatment targets is limited.MethodsAs a starting point for a national EIM study network, an interdisciplinary expert panel of 12 gastroenterologists, 4 rheumatologists, 3 ophthalmologists, 6 dermatologists, and 4 patient representatives was assembled. Modified Delphi consensus methodology was used. Fifty‐four candidate items were derived from the literature review and expert opinion focusing on five major EIMs (erythema nodosum, pyoderma gangrenosum, uveitis, peripheral arthritis, and axial arthritis) were rated in three voting rounds.ResultsFor use in a clinical practice setting and as part of the creation of a prospective registry of patients with EIMs, the panel developed definitions for erythema nodosum, pyoderma gangrenosum, uveitis, peripheral arthritis, and axial arthritis; identified the appropriate and optimal subspecialists to diagnose and manage each; provided methods to monitor disease course; offered guidance regarding monitoring intervals; and defined resolution and recurrence.ConclusionsConsensus criteria for appropriate and optimal means of diagnosing and monitoring five EIMs have been developed as a starting point to inform clinical practice and future trial design. Key findings include straightforward diagnostic criteria, guidance regarding who can appropriately and optimally diagnose each, and monitoring options that include patient and physician‐reported outcomes. These findings will be used in a national multicenter study network to optimise the management of EIMs.

Abstract Background Combining biologics and small molecules could potentially overcome the plateau of drug efficacy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and effectiveness of dual biologic therapy (DBT), or small molecule combined with a biologic therapy (SBT) in IBD patients. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Clinical trials.gov until November 3, 2020, including studies with 2 or more IBD patients on DBT or SBT. Main outcome was safety assessed as pooled rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) for each combination. Effectiveness was reported as pooled rates of clinical, endoscopic, and/or radiographic response and remission. The certainty of evidence was rated according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Results Of the 3688 publications identified, 13 studies (1 clinical trial, 12 observational studies) involving 266 patients on 7 different combinations were included. Median number of prior biologics ranged from 0 to 4, and median duration of follow-up was 16–68 weeks. Most common DBT and SBT were vedolizumab (VDZ) with anti-tumor necrosis factor (aTNF, n = 56) or tofacitinib (Tofa, n = 57), respectively. Pooled rates of SAE for these were 9.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5–21.4) for VDZ-aTNF and 1.0% (95% CI, 0.0–7.6) for Tofa-VDZ. The overall certainty of evidence was very low due to the observational nature of the studies, and very serious imprecision and inconsistency. Conclusions DBT or SBT appears to be generally safe and may be effective in IBD patients, but the evidence is very uncertain.

Abstract Background Ozanimod was approved by the FDA to treat patients (pts) with moderately to severely active Ulcerative Colitis (UC) based on the results from the 52-week (wk) phase 3 True North (TN) study. We sought to evaluate long-term efficacy and safety of ozanimod. Methods We examined data from an interim analysis of pts in the TN parent study who entered the ongoing TN open-label extension (OLE). Pts entered the TN OLE from the phase 3 TN study if they were non-responders at the end of induction, lost response during maintenance, or completed maintenance treatment, or from the phase 2 Touchstone OLE if they remained at study closure and received once-daily oral ozanimod 0.92 mg (equivalent to ozanimod HCl 1 mg). Clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic improvement, and corticosteroid (CS)-free remission were evaluated at Wks 46, 94, and 142 in the TN OLE for all pts who entered the OLE from the TN parent study, and in the subset of pts in clinical response at the OLE entry. The data were analysed in the intent-to-treat population using observed cases (OC), which used the number of pts remaining in the study at the corresponding time point, and non-responder imputation (NRI), which used the number of pts remaining in the study at the corresponding time point and those who withdrew before the time point but would have reached the time point if they had stayed. Treatment-emergent adverse events were evaluated from the pooled phase 2 and phase 3 UC studies. Results A total of 823 pts from TN entered the TN OLE; as of the cut-off date (Sept 30, 2020), 64% completed Wk 46, 34% completed Wk 94, and 14% completed Wk 142 of the OLE. The most common reason for discontinuation was lack of efficacy (21%). Baseline demographics were similar as in the TN study. A total of 261 pts were in clinical response at the time of OLE entry. OC analyses showed that the percentage of pts achieving clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic improvement, and CS-free remission was maintained over time (Table). Efficacy in the responders was higher compared to the total population and was comparable within the endpoints at Wks 46 and 94. Using the more conservative NRI analysis, the proportion of pts achieving each endpoint was lower than in the OC; however, after 94 wks of OLE treatment, 34% of all pts and 55% of the responders still maintained clinical response. No new safety signals were seen with longer-term ozanimod use in the 1158 pts in the pooled population. Conclusion UC pts from the phase 3 TN study demonstrated maintenance of response with long-term ozanimod treatment. These data reflect approximately 2 years of additional ozanimod treatment, with no new safety signals identified.

BACKGROUND: Ozanimod, an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator selectively targeting S1P 1 and S1P 5 , demonstrated superior efficacy and safety vs placebo for up to 52 weeks in adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) in a phase 3 study (True North). In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of prior biologic exposure on response to ozanimod. METHODS: True North consisted of two cohorts. In cohort 1, patients with UC received double-blind treatment with once-daily ozanimod 0.92 mg (equivalent to ozanimod HCl 1 mg) or placebo. In cohort 2, patients received open-label once daily ozanimod 0.92 mg. Ozanimod responders after a 10-week induction were re-randomized to double-blind maintenance with ozanimod 0.92 mg or placebo through week 52. Outcomes based on prior biologic exposure (biologic-naïve, 1 biologic, and 2+ biologics) and prior biologic type (anti-tumor necrosis factor [TNF] agents, vedolizumab, or both) were analyzed for clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic improvement, and mucosal healing. Patients exposed to only a JAK inhibitor were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 992 patients (n = 213 placebo and n = 426 ozanimod in cohort 1, n = 353 ozanimod in cohort 2) were included in the analysis for induction; 616 were biologic-naïve, 162 had exposure to 1 biologic, and 214 were exposed to 2 or more biologics. At baseline, biologic-exposed patients had more prior corticosteroid use, longer disease duration, and more extensive disease than biologic-naïve patients. During induction, greater therapeutic effects of ozanimod were generally seen in biologic-naïve vs biologic-exposed patients, and ozanimod-treated patients had greater responses on nearly all reported endpoints at week 10 (cohort 1). Clinical remission was achieved in 23% vs 6.6% of patients on ozanimod vs placebo who were biologic naïve, 17.2% vs 8.3% on 1 prior biologic, and 3.7% vs 2.5% on 2 or more biologics. Clinical response was reached in 53% vs 28% of patients on ozanimod vs placebo who were biologic naïve, 50% vs 33% on 1 biologic, and 27% vs 15% on 2 or more biologics. During maintenance, ozanimod-treated patients had greater responses on all endpoints versus placebo, with similar proportions of patients achieving clinical response to ozanimod regardless of prior biologic exposure (61% for biologic naïve, 60% for 1 biologic, and 55% for 2 or more biologics). At week 52, the proportion of patients on ozanimod with clinical remission was similar in the 1-biologic and 2+-biologic exposure groups (28% and 26%, respectively), and proportions of patients on ozanimod with endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing were similar for the 1-biologic and biologic-naïve groups (47% and 50%, 30%, and 33%, respectively). Among patients with inadequate response to prior anti-TNF agents, vedolizumab, or both at baseline, treatment effects favored ozanimod vs placebo on these endpoints in all three groups during both induction and maintenance. CONCLUSION: Ozanimod improved clinical, endoscopic, and histologic outcomes in both biologic-exposed and -naïve patients. Patients with prior biologic use may require additional time to respond to treatment. Outcomes were improved with ozanimod regardless of prior use of anti-TNF agents and vedolizumab.

Abstract Background and Aims Tofacitinib is an oral, small molecule Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Here, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib re-treatment following treatment interruption in patients with ulcerative colitis. Methods Here, patients with clinical response to tofacitinib 10 mg b.d. induction therapy were randomised to receive placebo in OCTAVE Sustain. Those experiencing treatment failure after Week 8 of OCTAVE Sustain entered OCTAVE Open and re-initiated tofacitinib 10 mg b.d. [re-treatment subpopulation]; efficacy and safety data are presented up to Month 36 of OCTAVE Open. Results Median time to treatment failure following interruption was 169 (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.0–179.0) and 123 [95% CI, 91.0–168.0] days for induction remitters, and induction responders but non-remitters, respectively. Following re-treatment with tofacitinib, rates (non-responder imputation after a patient discontinued; latest observation carried forward imputation after a patient advanced to a subsequent study [NRI-LOCF]) of clinical response, remission, and endoscopic improvement were 74.0%, 39.0%, and 55.0% at Month 2, and 48.5%, 37.4%, and 42.4% at Month 36, respectively. Among induction remitters and induction responders but non-remitters, clinical response rates at Month 36 were 60.6% and 42.4% [NRI-LOCF], respectively. Efficacy was recaptured regardless of prior tumour necrosis factor inhibitor failure status. The safety profile of tofacitinib 10 mg b.d. re-treatment was consistent with the overall cohort and demonstrated no new safety risks associated with exposure of ≤36 months. Conclusions Median time to treatment failure was numerically higher in induction remitters versus induction responders but non-remitters. Following treatment interruption, efficacy was safely and successfully recaptured with tofacitinib 10 mg b.d. re-treatment in a substantial proportion of patients [ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01458574;NCT01470612].