ABX464 (obefazimod) for moderate-to-severe, active ulcerative colitis: a phase 2b, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled induction trial and 48 week, open-label extension.

BACKGROUND: ABX464 (obefazimod) is a small molecule that selectively upregulates miR-124 in immune cells. We aimed to assess ABX464 as a treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe, active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: In this phase 2b, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled induction trial, patients were recruited from 95 centres (hospitals and health-care centres) in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years, with a diagnosis of moderate-to-severe, active ulcerative colitis and a modified Mayo Score (MMS) of 5 points or higher, and a documented non-response or intolerance to previous treatment. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) via an interactive voice and web response system to receive once daily oral ABX464 100 mg, ABX464 50 mg, ABX464 25 mg, or matched placebo. Randomisation was stratified according to study site (US vs non-US) and to whether the patient had previous exposure to second-line treatment with biologics or JAK inhibitors. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in MMS at week 8. The primary efficacy analysis was done in the full analysis set (FAS), defined as all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and had baseline data for at least one efficacy variable, and was analysed according to the principles of intention-to-treat. Safety analyses included patients who had been randomly assigned and who received at least one dose of study treatment. The 96 week open-label extension is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04023396. FINDINGS: Between Aug 13, 2019, and April 16, 2021, 254 patients were randomly allocated to ABX464 100 mg (n=64), ABX464 50 mg (n=63), ABX464 25 mg (n=63), or placebo (n=64). Two patients, both in the ABX464 25 mg group, were excluded from the FAS. In the FAS at week 8, the least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in MMS was -2·9 (95% CI -3·4 to -2·5) for the ABX464 100 mg group, -3·2 (-3·7 to -2·7) for the ABX464 50 mg group, -3·1 (-3·6 to -2·6) for the ABX464 25 mg group, and -1·9 (-2·4 to -1·5) for placebo group; the magnitude of the difference in MMS from baseline was significantly greater in all three ABX464 groups compared with placebo (p=0·0039 for ABX464 100 mg vs placebo, p=0·0003 for ABX464 50 mg vs placebo, and p=0·0010 for ABX464 25 mg vs placebo). The most frequently reported adverse event was headache, which was reported for 27 (42%) of 64 patients in the ABX464 100 mg group, 19 (30%) of 63 in the 50 mg group, 13 (21%) of 62 in the 25 mg group, and five (8%) of 64 in the placebo group. Severe (grade 3) headache was reported for three (5%) patients in the ABX464 group 100 mg group, two (3%) in the ABX464 50 mg group, one (2%) in the ABX464 25 mg group, and none in the placebo group. The only serious adverse event reported for two or more patients in any group was ulcerative colitis (one in each of the ABX464 100 mg and 50 mg groups, and three [5%] in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: All doses of ABX464 significantly improved moderate-to-severe, active ulcerative colitis compared with placebo, as measured by changes in MMS from baseline to week 8. A phase 3 clinical programme is ongoing. FUNDING: Abivax.

Once versus three times daily dosing of oral budesonide for active Crohn's disease: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral budesonide 9 mg/day represents first-line treatment of mild-to-moderately active ileocolonic Crohn's disease. However, there is no precise recommendation for budesonide dosing due to lack of comparative data. A once-daily (OD) 9 mg dose may improve adherence and thereby efficacy. METHODS: An eight-week, double-blind, double-dummy randomised trial compared budesonide 9 mg OD versus 3mg three-times daily (TID) in patients with mild-to-moderately active ileocolonic Crohn's disease. Primary endpoint was clinical remission defined as CDAI <150 at week 8 (last observation carried forward). RESULTS: The final intent-to-treat population comprised 471 patients (238 [9 mg OD], 233 [3 mg TID]). The confirmatory population for the primary endpoint analysis was the interim per protocol population (n=377; 188 [9 mg OD], 189 [3mg TID]), in which the primary endpoint was statistically non-inferior with budesonide 9 mg OD versus 3 mg TID. Clinical remission was achieved in 71.3% versus 75.1%, a difference of -3.9% (95% CI [-14.6%; 6.4%]; p=0.020 for non-inferiority). The mean (SD) time to remission was 21.9 (13.8) days versus 21.4 (14.6) days with budesonide 9 mg OD versus 3 mg TID, respectively. In a subpopulation of 122 patients with baseline SES-CD ulcer score ≥1, complete mucosal healing occurred in 32.8% (21/64) on 9 mg OD and 41.4% (24/58) on 3mg TID; deep remission (mucosal healing and clinical remission) was observed in 26.6% (17/64) and 32.8% (19/58) of patients, respectively. Treatment-emergent suspected adverse drug reactions were reported in 4.6% of 9 mg OD and 4.7% of 3 mg TID patients. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide at the recommended dose of 9 mg/day can be administered OD without impaired efficacy and safety compared to 3mg TID dosing in mild-to-moderately active Crohn's disease.

3g mesalazine granules are superior to 9mg budesonide for achieving remission in active ulcerative colitis: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Budesonide may be an effective therapy for mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority for oral 9mg budesonide once daily (OD) versus 3g mesalazine granules OD. METHODS: This was an eight-week randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study in which patients with mild-to-moderately active UC, defined as Clinical Activity Index (CAI) ≥6 and Endoscopic Index (EI) ≥4, received budesonide (Budenofalk® 3mg capsules×3) or mesalazine (Salofalk® 1000mg granules×3). The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 8 (CAI ≤4 with stool frequency and rectal bleeding subscores of "0"). RESULTS: 343 patients were randomised (177 budesonide, 166 mesalazine). Fewer patients achieved the primary endpoint with budesonide versus mesalazine (70/177 [39.5%] versus 91/166 [54.8%]) with a difference in proportions of -15.3% (95% CI [-25.7%, -4.8%]; p=0.520 for non-inferiority). The median time to first resolution of symptoms was 14.0 days (budesonide) and 11.0 days (mesalazine) (hazard ratio 1.19; 95% CI [0.94, 1.51]). Mucosal healing was observed in 54/177 (30.5%) budesonide patients versus 65/166 (39.2%) mesalazine patients, a difference of -8.6% (95% CI [-18.7%, 1.4%]; p=0.093). The incidences of adverse events (budesonide 26.6%, mesalazine 25.3%) and serious adverse events (budesonide 1.7%, mesalazine 1.2%) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily 3g mesalazine administered as granules is superior to 9mg budesonide OD administered as capsules for achieving remission in mild-to-moderately active UC. However, it is noteworthy that remission of UC was attained in about 40% of budesonide-treated patients with a rapid onset of resolution.

Budesonide 9 mg is at least as effective as mesalamine 4.5 g in patients with mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Comparative data on budesonide vs mesalamine for the treatment of mild-to-moderately active Crohn's disease (CD) are sparse. We assessed the efficacy and safety of each therapy in patients with mildly to moderately active CD. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, 8-week, multicenter study in which 309 patients with mildly to moderately active CD received pH-modified-release oral budesonide (9 mg/day once daily or 3 mg/day 3 times daily) or Eudragit-L-coated oral mesalamine (4.5 g/day). RESULTS: The primary efficacy variable, clinical remission (defined as Crohn's Disease Activity Index ≤150), at the final visit occurred in 69.5% (107 of 154) of patients given budesonide vs 62.1% (95 of 153) of patients given mesalamine (difference, 7.4%; 95% repeated confidence interval, -4.6% to 18.0%; P = .001 for noninferiority). Clinical remission rates did not differ significantly between the 2 budesonide groups. Treatment response, defined as Crohn's Disease Activity Index of 150 or less and/or a decrease of 70 or more (Δ70) or 100 or more (Δ100) points from baseline to final visit, did not differ significantly between patients given budesonide vs mesalamine (Δ70, P = .11; Δ100, P = .15), or between the 2 budesonide groups (Δ70, P = .38; Δ100, P = .78). No other efficacy end points differed significantly between groups. Discontinuation because of adverse events occurred in 3% and 5% of budesonide- and mesalamine-treated patients, respectively. There were no clinically relevant differences in adverse events between the 2 budesonide groups. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide (9 mg/day) was numerically, but not statistically, more effective than Eudragit-L-coated mesalamine (4.5 g/day) in patients with mildly to moderately active CD. Budesonide (9 mg/day), administered once daily, was as effective as the standard (3 times daily) regimen.