Ha, Christina

Abstract Background While biologic and small molecule therapies have expanded treatment options for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC), prior research revealed that only 26% of patients in routine practice would have qualified for pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) due to stringent eligibility criteria. This study aimed to evaluate contemporary clinical trial eligibility for UC patients in a tertiary care setting based on more recently approved therapies. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with moderate to severe UC (total Mayo score ≥6) seen between January 2022 and February 2023. Inclusion and exclusion criteria from seven phase III RCTs conducted between 2012 and 2022 (eg, VARSITY, UNIFI, OCTAVE, LUCENT) were applied to determine patient eligibility and identify reasons for ineligibility. Results Of 150 patients (mean age 44.9 years; 55.7% male), only 42.7% were eligible for at least one RCT. The most common exclusion factor was current or prior medication use, followed by anemia, dysplasia, and disease extent. Trial eligibility did not significantly differ by age, gender, or disease duration. Conclusions Despite modest improvements since 2012, over half of real-world UC patients remain ineligible for current RCTs. Expanding inclusion criteria, especially regarding prior medication exposure, and adopting more inclusive trial designs may enhance external validity. Addressing disparities in trial access and participation remains essential to ensuring equitable representation and improving clinical applicability of RCT findings.

Abstract Background Etrasimod is an oral, once daily (QD), selective sphingosine 1-phosphate1,4,5 receptor modulator for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). We assessed the benefit of etrasimod monotherapy and the impact of concomitant corticosteroids (CS) and/or 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA) therapy. Methods In ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12, patients with moderately to severely active UC were randomized 2:1 to etrasimod 2 mg QD or placebo for 52 and 12 weeks, respectively. Oral CS or 5-ASA were allowed at baseline. Patients in the monotherapy subgroup received etrasimod or placebo without concomitant CS and/or 5-ASA at baseline. Predefined primary (clinical remission) and key secondary efficacy endpoints aligned with those from both trials and were assessed at Week 12 and Week 52. Safety was assessed up to Week 52. Results Clinical remission rates at Weeks 12 and 52 were significantly higher for etrasimod compared with placebo in patients receiving monotherapy (Week 12: 26.2% vs 4.8%; Week 52: 35.7% vs 4.0%). Differences vs placebo were statistically significant for all predefined endpoints at both time points in patients receiving monotherapy or etrasimod with concomitant 5-ASA only (all P < .05); numerical differences, due to small sample sizes, vs placebo were observed for all endpoints in the CS only and CS + 5-ASA subgroups. Safety was consistent with the overall population. Conclusions Etrasimod monotherapy showed consistent efficacy and safety vs placebo; no apparent benefit was observed with concomitant CS and/or 5-ASA in patients receiving etrasimod. Clinical trial registration NCT03945188; NCT03996369.

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)–associated peripheral spondyloarthritis (pSpA) decreases quality of life and remains poorly understood. Given the prevalence of this condition and its negative impact, it is surprising that evidence-based disease definitions and diagnostic strategies are lacking. This systematic review summarizes available data to facilitate development and validation of diagnostics, patient-reported outcomes, and imaging indices specific to this condition. Methods A literature search was conducted. Consensus or classification criteria, case series, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials related to diagnosis were included. Results A total of 44 studies reporting data on approximately 1500 patients with pSpA were eligible for analysis. Data quality across studies was only graded as fair to good. Due to large heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not possible. The majority of studies incorporated patient-reported outcomes and a physical examination. A total of 13 studies proposed or validated screening tools, consensus, classification, or consensus criteria. A total of 28 studies assessed the role of laboratory tests, none of which were considered sufficiently accurate for use in diagnosis. A total of 17 studies assessed the role of imaging, with the available literature insufficient to fully endorse any imaging modality as a robust diagnostic tool. Conclusions This review highlights existing inconsistency and lack of a clear diagnostic approach for IBD-associated pSpA. Given the absence of an evidence-based approach, a combination of existing criteria and physician assessment should be utilized. To address this issue comprehensively, our future efforts will be directed toward pursuit of a multidisciplinary approach aimed at standardizing evaluation and diagnosis of IBD-associated pSpA.