Etrasimod as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis (ELEVATE): two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies.

BACKGROUND: Etrasimod, a once-daily, oral, sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator that selectively activates S1P receptor subtypes 1, 4, and 5, with no detectable activity on S1P2,3, is in development for the treatment of immune-mediated diseases, including ulcerative colitis. In these two phase 3 trials, we aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of etrasimod in adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: In two independent randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials, ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12, adults with active moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis and an inadequate or loss of response or intolerance to at least one approved ulcerative colitis therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to once-daily oral etrasimod 2 mg or placebo. Patients in ELEVATE UC 52 were enrolled from 315 centres in 40 countries. Patients in ELEVATE UC 12 were enrolled from 407 centres in 37 countries. Randomisation was stratified by previous exposure to biologicals or Janus kinase inhibitor therapy (yes vs no), baseline corticosteroid use (yes vs no), and baseline disease activity (modified Mayo score [MMS]; 4-6 vs 7-9). ELEVATE UC 52 comprised a 12-week induction period followed by a 40-week maintenance period with a treat-through design. ELEVATE UC 12 independently assessed induction at week 12. The primary efficacy endpoints were the proportion of patients with clinical remission at weeks 12 and 52 in ELEVATE UC 52 and week 12 in ELEVATE UC 12. Safety was evaluated in both trials. ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03945188 and NCT03996369, respectively. FINDINGS: Patients in ELEVATE UC 52 were enrolled between June 13, 2019, and Jan 28, 2021. Patients in ELEVATE UC 12 were enrolled between Sept 15, 2020, and Aug 12, 2021. ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 screened 821 patients and 606 patients, respectively, with 433 and 354 subsequently undergoing random assignment. The full analysis set of ELEVATE UC 52 comprised 289 patients assigned to etrasimod and 144 to placebo. In ELEVATE UC 12, 238 patients were assigned to etrasimod and 116 to placebo. In ELEVATE UC 52, a significantly greater proportion of patients in the etrasimod group achieved clinical remission compared with patients in the placebo group at completion of the 12-week induction period (74 [27%] of 274 patients vs ten [7%] of 135 patients; p<0·0001) and at week 52 (88 [32%] of 274 patients vs nine [7%] of 135 patients; p<0·0001). In ELEVATE UC 12, 55 (25%) of 222 patients in the etrasimod group had clinical remission compared with 17 (15%) of 112 patients in the placebo group at the end of the 12-week induction period (p=0·026). Adverse events were reported in 206 (71%) of 289 patients in the etrasimod group and 81 (56%) of 144 patients in the placebo group in ELEVATE UC 52 and 112 (47%) of 238 patients in the etrasimod group and 54 (47%) of 116 patients in the placebo group in ELEVATE UC 12. No deaths or malignancies were reported. INTERPRETATION: Etrasimod was effective and well tolerated as an induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Etrasimod is a treatment option with a unique combination of attributes that might address the persistent unmet needs of patients with ulcerative colitis. FUNDING: Arena Pharmaceuticals.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID19 vaccination across eight immune-mediated inflammatory disorders: A prospective, real-life Belgian cohort study – the BELCOMID study

Background The risks and impact of COVID19 disease and vaccination in patients with Immune Mediated Inflammatory Diseases (IMID) remain incompletely understood. IMID patients and particularly patients receiving immunosuppressive treatment were excluded from the original, registrational phase-3 COVID19 vaccination efficacy and safety trials. Real-world observational data can help to fill this gap in knowledge. The BELCOMID study aims to explore the interaction between IMIDs, immune-modulating treatment modalities and SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in a real-life patient cohort. Methods A multidisciplinary, prospective, observational cohort study was set up. Consecutive patients with IMIDs of the gut, joints and skin followed at two high-volume referral centers were invited. Both patients under conventional treatment or targeted immune modulating therapies were included. Patient data and serological samples were collected at 3 predefined periods (before COVID19 vaccination, before booster vaccination, after booster vaccination). Primary endpoints were positive PCR-test and SARS-CoV-2 serology reflecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. Associations with IMID treatment modality and IMID disease activity were assessed. Results of the first two inclusion periods (before booster vaccination) are reported. Results At the first inclusion period data was assessed of 2165 IMID-patients before COVID19 vaccination. At the second inclusion period, data of 2065 patients was collected of whom 1547 had received complete baseline COVID19 vaccination and 222 were partially vaccinated. SARS-CoV-2 infection rate remained low in both groups. No significant increase in IMID flare-up rate was noted in patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Multiple logistic regression analyses did not show a significant influence of IMID-treatment modality or IMID activity on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk (based on PCR positivity or N-serology). Patients treated with conventional immunomodulators, systemic steroids, and patients on advanced therapies such as biologics or small molecules, had reduced S-antibody seroconversion. S-antibody response was also lower in patients without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and in active smokers. A subset of patients (4.1%) had no S- nor N-antibody seroconversion following complete baseline vaccination. Conclusion The BELCOMID study results confirm the benign course of COVID19 infection and vaccination in a large real-life IMID-population. However, our results underscore the need for repeated vaccination and smoking cessation in patients with IMIDs treated with immune-modulating therapies or systemic steroids during the pandemic.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID19 vaccination across eight immune-mediated inflammatory disorders: A prospective, real-life Belgian cohort study - the BELCOMID study.

Background: The risks and impact of COVID19 disease and vaccination in patients with Immune Mediated Inflammatory Diseases (IMID) remain incompletely understood. IMID patients and particularly patients receiving immunosuppressive treatment were excluded from the original, registrational phase-3 COVID19 vaccination efficacy and safety trials. Real-world observational data can help to fill this gap in knowledge. The BELCOMID study aims to explore the interaction between IMIDs, immune-modulating treatment modalities and SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in a real-life patient cohort. Methods: A multidisciplinary, prospective, observational cohort study was set up. Consecutive patients with IMIDs of the gut, joints and skin followed at two high-volume referral centers were invited. Both patients under conventional treatment or targeted immune modulating therapies were included. Patient data and serological samples were collected at 3 predefined periods (before COVID19 vaccination, before booster vaccination, after booster vaccination). Primary endpoints were positive PCR-test and SARS-CoV-2 serology reflecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. Associations with IMID treatment modality and IMID disease activity were assessed. Results of the first two inclusion periods (before booster vaccination) are reported. Results: At the first inclusion period data was assessed of 2165 IMID-patients before COVID19 vaccination. At the second inclusion period, data of 2065 patients was collected of whom 1547 had received complete baseline COVID19 vaccination and 222 were partially vaccinated. SARS-CoV-2 infection rate remained low in both groups. No significant increase in IMID flare-up rate was noted in patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Multiple logistic regression analyses did not show a significant influence of IMID-treatment modality or IMID activity on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk (based on PCR positivity or N-serology). Patients treated with conventional immunomodulators, systemic steroids, and patients on advanced therapies such as biologics or small molecules, had reduced S-antibody seroconversion. S-antibody response was also lower in patients without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and in active smokers. A subset of patients (4.1%) had no S- nor N-antibody seroconversion following complete baseline vaccination. Conclusion: The BELCOMID study results confirm the benign course of COVID19 infection and vaccination in a large real-life IMID-population. However, our results underscore the need for repeated vaccination and smoking cessation in patients with IMIDs treated with immune-modulating therapies or systemic steroids during the pandemic.

Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: Final Results From the Phase 3 U-ACHIEVE Maintenance Study

Introduction: Upadacitinib(UPA), has shown superior efficacy to placebo(PBO) in patients with moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis(UC) in two Phase 3 induction studies .1,2 Patients demonstrating clinical response per Adapted Mayo score with UPA 45mg once daily(QD) after 8 weeks(wks) induction were enrolled to U-ACHIEVE Maintenance. Methods: U-ACHIEVE Maintenance efficacy data from the intent-to-treat(ITT) population, defined as UPA 45mg QD 8wk induction responders enrolled per protocol for 52wk maintenance, and safety data from the safety population, defined as patients who received ≥1 dose of study therapy(ITT plus patients receiving up to 44wksmaintenanceper prior versions of protocol amendments). Non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputations to handle missing data due to COVID-19 was used. a Based on adjusted Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test adjusted for strata (corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes or no), clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes or no), biologic-IR status at baseline (biologic-IR or non-biologic-IR)). b Per Adapted Mayo score ≤2: stool frequency subscore ≤1 and not greater than induction baseline, RBS=0, and ES ≤1. c Maintenance of clinical response, defined as a decrease in Adapted Mayo score ≥2 and ≥30% from induction baseline, plus a decrease in RBS ≥1 or an absolute RBS ≤1, at Week 52 among patients who achieved clinical response at the end of the induction therapy. d ES ≤1. e Maintenance of CR at Week 52 among patients with CR at the end of the induction therapy. f CR at Week 52 and corticosteroid-free for ≥90 days prior to Week 52 among patients with CR at the end of the induction therapy. g Endoscopic improvement at Week 52 among patients with endoscopic improvement at the end of the induction therapy. h ES=0. i ES ≤1 and Geboes score ≤3.1. j ES=0 and Geboes score < 2.0.

Upadacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: results from three phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: There is a great unmet need for advanced therapies that provide rapid, robust, and sustained disease control for patients with ulcerative colitis. We assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, as induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: This phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical programme consisted of two replicate induction studies (U-ACHIEVE induction [UC1] and U-ACCOMPLISH [UC2]) and a single maintenance study (U-ACHIEVE maintenance [UC3]). The studies were conducted across Europe, North and South America, Australasia, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region at 199 clinical centres in 39 countries (UC1), 204 clinical centres in 40 countries (UC2), and 195 clinical centres in 35 countries (UC3). Patients aged 16-75 years with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Adapted Mayo score 5-9; endoscopic subscore 2 or 3) for at least 90 days were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral upadacitinib 45 mg once daily or placebo for 8 weeks (induction studies). Patients who achieved clinical response following 8-week upadacitinib induction were re-randomly assigned (1:1:1) to upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo for 52 weeks (maintenance study). All patients were randomly assigned using web-based interactive response technology. The primary endpoints were clinical remission per Adapted Mayo score at week 8 (induction) and week 52 (maintenance). The efficacy analyses in the two induction studies were based on the intent-to-treat population, which included all randomised patients who received at least one dose of treatment. In the maintenance study, the primary efficacy analyses reported in this manuscript were based on the first 450 (planned) clinical responders to 8-week induction therapy with upadacitinib 45 mg once daily. The safety analysis population in the induction studies consisted of all randomised patients who received at least one dose of treatment; in the maintenance study, this population included all patients who received at least one dose of treatment as part of the primary analysis population. These studies are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02819635 (U-ACHIEVE) and NCT03653026 (U-ACCOMPLISH). FINDINGS: Between Oct 23, 2018, and Sept 7, 2020, 474 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 45 mg once daily (n=319) or placebo (n=155) in UC1. Between Dec 6, 2018, and Jan 14, 2021, 522 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 45 mg once daily (n=345) or placebo (n=177) in UC2. In UC3, a total of 451 patients (21 from the phase 2b study, 278 from UC1, and 152 from UC2) who achieved a clinical response after 8 weeks of upadacitinib induction treatment were randomly assigned again to upadacitinib 15 mg (n=148), upadacitinib 30 mg (n=154), and placebo (n=149) in the primary analysis population. Statistically significantly more patients achieved clinical remission with upadacitinib 45 mg (83 [26%] of 319 patients in UC1 and 114 [34%] of 341 patients in UC2) than in the placebo group (seven [5%] of 154 patients in UC1 and seven [4%] of 174 patients; p<0·0001; adjusted treatment difference 21·6% [95% CI 15·8-27·4] for UC1 and 29·0% [23·2-34·7] for UC2). In the maintenance study, clinical remission was achieved by statistically significantly more patients receiving upadacitinib (15 mg 63 [42%] of 148; 30 mg 80 [52%] of 154) than those receiving placebo (18 [12%] of 149; p<0·0001; adjusted treatment difference 30·7% [21·7-39·8] for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo and 39·0% [29·7-48·2] for upadacitinib 30 mg vs placebo). The most commonly reported adverse events in UC1 were nasopharyngitis (15 [5%] of 319 in the upadacitinib 45 mg group vs six [4%] of 155 in the placebo group), creatine phosphokinase elevation (15 [4%] vs three [2%]), and acne (15 [5%] vs one [1%]). In UC2, the most frequently reported adverse event was acne (24 [7%] of 344 in the upadacitinib 45 mg group vs three [2%] of 177 in the placebo group). In both induction studies, serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment were less frequent in the upadacitinib 45 mg group than in the placebo group (serious adverse events eight [3%] vs nine (6%) in UC1 and 11 [3%] vs eight [5%] in UC2; adverse events leading to discontinuation six [2%] vs 14 [9%] in UC1 and six [2%] vs nine [5%] in UC2). In UC3, the most frequently reported adverse events (≥5%) were worsening of ulcerative colitis (19 [13%] of 148 in the upadacitinib 15 mg group vs 11 [7%] of 154 in the upadacitinib 30 mg group vs 45 [30%] of 149 in the placebo group), nasopharyngitis (18 [12%] vs 22 [14%] vs 15 [10%]), creatine phosphokinase elevation (nine [6%] vs 13 [8%] vs three [2%]), arthralgia (nine [6%] vs five [3%] vs 15 [10%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (seven [5%] vs nine [6%] vs six [4%]). The proportion of serious adverse events (ten [7%] vs nine [6%] vs 19 [13%]) and adverse events leading to discontinuation (six [4%] vs ten [6%] vs 17 [11%]) was lower in both upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group. Events of cancer, adjudicated major adverse cardiac events, or venous thromboembolism were reported infrequently. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Upadacitinib demonstrated a positive efficacy and safety profile and could be an effective treatment option for patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Upadacitinib Is Effective at Inducing Clinical Remission and Response in Ulcerative Colitis Patients Regardless of Baseline Corticosteroid Use: Results From Two Phase 3 Studies

Endpoints presented here are the percentage of patients in clinical remission at wk 8, per Adapted Mayo score, and the percentage of patients with a clinical response at wk 2, per partial Adapted Mayo score (both defined in Table footnotes), respectively, in patients who were on concomitant CS at baseline, at a dose maintained to the end of induction and in those treated with UPA without concomitant CS. Similar results were found with the clinical response rate at wk 2, with no difference between UPA-treated patients who received baseline CS (U-ACHIEVE: 58.1%;U-ACCOMPLISH: 55.1%) and those that received UPA without CS (U-ACHIEVE: 61.4%;U-ACCOMPLISH: 67.7%). Subjects were considered "non-responder" for binary endpoints at and after the UC-related corticosteroids censoring time point through the end of the Induction Study. † Dosing for main corticosteroids were as follows: prednisone. 10-40 mg QD, budesonide, 9 mg QD;or beclomethasone, 5 mg QD. § 95% CI for response rate is the synthetic result based on Student's t-distribution from PROC MIANALYZE procedure if there were missing data due to COVID-19 or is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution if there are no missing data due to COVID-19. ‡ 95% CI for response rate difference was calculated based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution.

Intestinal Receptor of SARS-CoV-2 in Inflamed IBD Tissue Seems Downregulated by HNF4A in Ileum and Upregulated by Interferon Regulating Factors in Colon.

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] are considered immunosuppressed, but do not seem more vulnerable for COVID-19. Nevertheless, intestinal inflammation has shown to be an important risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection and prognosis. Therefore, we investigated the role of intestinal inflammation on the viral intestinal entry mechanisms, including ACE2, in IBD. METHODS: We collected inflamed and uninflamed mucosal biopsies from Crohn's disease [CD] [n = 193] and ulcerative colitis [UC] [n = 158] patients, and from 51 matched non-IBD controls for RNA sequencing, differential gene expression, and co-expression analysis. Organoids from UC patients were subjected to an inflammatory mix and processed for RNA sequencing. Transmural ileal biopsies were processed for single-cell [sc] sequencing. Publicly available colonic sc-RNA sequencing data, and microarrays from tissue pre/post anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF] therapy, were analysed. RESULTS: In inflamed CD ileum, ACE2 was significantly decreased compared with control ileum [p = 4.6E-07], whereas colonic ACE2 was higher in inflamed colon of CD/UC compared with control [p = 8.3E-03; p = 1.9E-03]. Sc-RNA sequencing confirmed this ACE2 dysregulation and exclusive epithelial ACE2 expression. Network analyses highlighted HNF4A as key regulator of ileal ACE2, and pro-inflammatory cytokines and interferon regulating factors regulated colonic ACE2. Inflammatory stimuli upregulated ACE2 in UC organoids [p = 1.7E-02], but not in non-IBD controls [p = 9.1E-01]. Anti-TNF therapy restored colonic ACE2 regulation in responders. CONCLUSIONS: Intestinal inflammation alters SARS-CoV-2 coreceptors in the intestine, with opposing dysregulations in ileum and colon. HNF4A, an IBD susceptibility gene, seems an important upstream regulator of ACE2 in ileum, whereas interferon signalling might dominate in colon.