Peyrin‐Biroulet, Laurent

Abstract Aims The SELECTION (NCT02914522) Induction Studies evaluated the efficacy/safety of filgotinib (FIL), a preferential JAK1 inhibitor, as induction therapy for patients (pts) with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) who were biologic-naïve but failed conventional therapy (Induction Study A) or failed prior biologics (Induction Study B). Methods Pts were randomized 2:2:1 to once–daily FIL 200mg, FIL 100mg or placebo (PBO). The primary (clinical remission), key secondary (Mayo Clinic Score [MCS] remission, endoscopic remission, and histologic remission), and exploratory endpoints (MCS response and endoscopic improvement) were assessed at Week 10. Results In both studies, baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar across treatment groups. In Study A, 659 pts were randomized and treated. Baseline mean MCS was 8.6 and 56% had a Mayo endoscopic subscore (ES)=3. A significantly higher proportion of biologic-naïve pts on FIL 200mg achieved clinical remission vs PBO and all key secondary endpoints (Table). In Study B, 689 pts were randomized and treated. Baseline mean MCS was 9.3 and 78% had ES=3. Prior treatment failures were: anti-TNF (86%), vedolizumab (52%) and both (dual-refractory; 43%). A significantly higher proportion of biologic-experienced pts on FIL 200mg achieved clinical remission vs PBO. In Studies A and B, a greater proportion of pts on FIL 200 mg achieved an MCS response and endoscopic improvement vs PBO. The rates of AEs, serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were similar across FIL and PBO groups during induction. In the PBO, FIL 100mg and FIL 200mg groups, serious infections occurred in 0.7%, 0.7% and 0.4% pts in Study A and 1.4%, 1.4% and 0.8% pts in Study B; H Zoster occurred in <1% in both groups for both cohorts. Conclusions SELECTION included a high proportion of dual-refractory pts, and pts with severe endoscopic disease. Both doses of FIL were well tolerated. Filgotinib 200mg was effective induction therapy for both biologic-naïve/-experienced pts with moderately to severely active UC. Funding Agencies None

Abstract The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]-causing coronavirus disease [COVID]-19 pandemic poses major challenges for patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] to be recruited and maintained in clinical trials. However, clinical trials offer patients who have failed multiple drugs access to study medications with alternative modes of action and the potential for relief from inflammation-mediated symptoms. Therefore, the continuation of clinical trials in IBD during the COVID-19 pandemic is important both for participants and for the community of IBD patients, due to the dire need for an expanded therapeutic armamentarium. As the safety of patients in clinical trials is the leading principle, we are providing ten specific rules to guide patients and principal investigators safely through the challenging time.

Abstract Background Adalimumab (ADA) is efficacious and well tolerated in adult patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).1,2 SERENE-UC (NCT02065622) is a study evaluating higher ADA dosing regimens from which induction study results have previously been reported3; here, we report data from the maintenance study. Methods This Phase 3, double-blind, randomised, multicentre study evaluated higher vs. standard ADA dosing regimens for induction and maintenance therapy in adult patients with moderately to severely active UC. Following completion of the induction study at Week 8, all patients were re-randomised 2:2:1 to ADA 40 mg every week (40 EW), ADA 40 mg every other week (40 EOW), or exploratory ADA 40 mg with therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) regimens, stratified by induction treatment regimen, clinical response status at Week 8, and clinical remission (CRem) status at Week 8 among Week 8 responders. Efficacy endpoints were evaluated in Week 8 responders (ITT-RP) unless indicated differently. The primary efficacy endpoint was proportion of patients achieving CRem (full Mayo Score ≤2 with no subscore >1) at Week 52. The endoscopic component of the Mayo Score was scored via central reading. Non-responder imputation was used for missing values. Comparisons between 40 EW and 40 EOW dosing regimens used the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test adjusted for stratification. Safety assessment included a collection of adverse events (AEs), vital signs, and laboratory data. Results Of 852 patients in the Global (ex-Japan) induction study, 757 were re-randomised at Week 8 and 371 were included in the ITT-RP. In the ITT-RP, induction baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally balanced across the 3 treatment arms; range across arms for mean UC disease duration was 6.2–7.8 years, 6.8–11.7% had prior infliximab use, and 62.5–63.5% were receiving corticosteroids. The overall mean ADA exposure was 252.2 days. The table displays results for efficacy endpoints. The observed safety profile was similar between maintenance treatment arms, including AEs of special interest (generally <1% across arms). Conclusion In the Global (ex-Japan) study of SERENE-UC, CRem at Week 52 was numerically higher among Week 8 responders in patients receiving ADA 40 EW compared with 40 EOW maintenance regimens (∆ = 10.5%), but not statistically significant. Higher maintenance treatment with 40 EW was generally safe and well tolerated with a similar safety profile to 40 EOW. No new long-term safety concerns were observed. References

Abstract Background Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) experience substantial impairment in quality of life (QOL). Patient QOL endpoints are important measures of treatment outcome. We evaluated the effects of intravenous vedolizumab vs. adalimumab on QOL in VARSITY, the first head-to-head trial comparing the efficacy and safety of biologics in patients with moderately to severely active UC. Methods VARSITY was a phase 3b, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial (NCT02497469; EudraCT 2015-000939-33). QOL was assessed using the inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (IBDQ) at baseline, Week (Week) 30, and Week 52. Endpoints included clinically meaningful IBDQ improvement (defined as an increase in total score of ≥16 points from baseline to Week 52), IBDQ remission (defined as a total score of >170 points at Week 52) and change from baseline in IBDQ-specific domain scores (bowel symptoms, systemic symptoms, emotional function, and social function) at Week 30 and Week 52. Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and faecal calprotectin (FCP) were also assessed as indicators of disease activity. Results Among randomised patients, 383 (vedolizumab) and 386 (adalimumab) patients received ≥1 dose of study drug (N=769). At Week 52, clinically meaningful IBDQ improvement was observed in 52.0% (vedolizumab) vs. 42.2% (adalimumab) of patients (treatment difference 9.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7% to 16.7%), while IBDQ remission was achieved by 50.1% (vedolizumab) vs. 40.4% (adalimumab) of patients (treatment difference 9.6%; 95% CI, 2.8% to 16.5%). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) changes in IBDQ total score from baseline for observed cases favoured vedolizumab over adalimumab (Week 30: 61.3 [39.8] vs. 52.6 [42.8]; Week 52: 66.1 [41.8] vs. 60.4 [42.2]; Figure 1). IBDQ subscores showed similar favourable trends for vedolizumab (Figure 2). At Week 52, mean (SD) changes from baseline in CRP for patients treated with vedolizumab vs. adalimumab were –50.9 (174.8) nmol/l vs. –37.2 (169.2) nmol/l and for FCP were –2187.3 (7440.4) µg/g vs. –1846.6 (4560.6) µg/g (Figure 3). Among patients with FCP >250 µg/g at baseline, the proportion of patients achieving FCP ≤250 µg/g was 33.9% vs. 24.5% at Week 30 and 35.2% vs. 28.9% at Week 52 for patients treated with vedolizumab vs. adalimumab, respectively. Conclusion Based on IBDQ total score and subscores, more patients with UC treated with vedolizumab than with adalimumab achieved clinically meaningful improvement and clinical remission. Reduced inflammation, as indicated by improvements in CRP and FCP, was consistent with improvements in QOL.