Qualitative and psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS®-Fatigue SF-7a scale to assess fatigue in patients with moderately to severely active inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the content validity and psychometric properties of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS)-Fatigue Short Form 7a (SF-7a) v1.0 scale to determine its suitability in clinical trials to assess fatigue in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: A qualitative interview assessed patients' experience living with CD (N = 20) and UC (N = 19). The contents of the SF-7a scale were cognitively debriefed to evaluate content validity. A psychometric evaluation was performed using data from clinical trials of patients with CD (N = 360) and UC (N = 214). Correlations with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ), Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI; CD only), and Mayo score (UC only) determined validity. The Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) was used to evaluate reliability and responsiveness to change. Using PGIC as an anchor, a preliminary threshold for clinically meaningful change was identified to define fatigue response in both CD and UC patients. RESULTS: All patients reported fatigue as a common symptom. Patients confirmed SF-7a items were relevant to assessing fatigue, instructions and response options were clear, and its 7-day recall period was appropriate. Higher SF-7a scores were associated with higher disease activity (CDAI and Mayo score) and lower health-related quality of life (IBDQ), confirming known groups validity. The correlation of the SF-7a scale was higher with fatigue-related items. (rs ≥ -0.70) than with items not directly associated with fatigue. Test-retest reliability was moderate to good (0.54-0.89) among patients with stable disease, and responsiveness to change in disease severity was demonstrated from baseline to Week 12. A ≥7point decrease was identified as a reasonable threshold to define clinically meaningful improvement. CONCLUSION: The SF-7a scale is a valid, reliable, and sensitive measure of fatigue in patients with moderately to severely active IBD and can be used to evaluate treatment response.

Guselkumab in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: QUASAR Phase 2b Induction Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The QUASAR Phase 2b Induction Study evaluated the efficacy and safety of guselkumab, an interleukin-23p19 subunit antagonist, in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) with prior inadequate response and/or intolerance to corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, and/or advanced therapy. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, induction study, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive intravenous guselkumab 200 or 400 mg or placebo at weeks 0/4/8. The primary endpoint was clinical response (compared with baseline, modified Mayo score decrease ≥30% and ≥2 points, rectal bleeding subscore ≥1-point decrease or subscore of 0/1) at week 12. Guselkumab and placebo week-12 clinical nonresponders received subcutaneous or intravenous guselkumab 200 mg, respectively, at weeks 12/16/20 (uncontrolled study period). RESULTS: The primary analysis population included patients with baseline modified Mayo scores ≥5 and ≤9 (intravenous guselkumab 200 mg, n = 101; 400 mg, n = 107; placebo, n = 105). Week-12 clinical response percentage was greater with guselkumab 200 mg (61.4%) and 400 mg (60.7%) vs placebo (27.6%; both P < .001). Greater proportions of guselkumab-treated vs placebo-treated patients achieved all major secondary endpoints (clinical remission, symptomatic remission, endoscopic improvement, histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement, and endoscopic normalization) at week 12. Among guselkumab week-12 clinical nonresponders, 54.3% and 50.0% of patients in the 200- and 400-mg groups, respectively, achieved clinical response at week 24. Safety was similar among guselkumab and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Guselkumab intravenous induction was effective vs placebo in patients with moderately to severely active UC. Guselkumab was safe, and efficacy and safety were similar between guselkumab dose groups. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number: NCT04033445.

Declining Enrolment and Other Challenges in IBD Clinical Trials: Causes and Potential Solutions.

BACKGROUND: Rates of enrolment in clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] have decreased dramatically in recent years. This has led to delays, increased costs and failures to develop novel treatments. AIMS: The aim of this work is to describe the current bottlenecks of IBD clinical trial enrolment and propose solutions. METHODS: A taskforce comprising experienced IBD clinical trialists from academic centres and pharmaceutical companies involved in IBD clinical research predefined the four following levels: [1] study design, [2] investigative centre, [3] physician and [4] patient. At each level, the taskforce collectively explored the reasons for declining enrolment rates and generated an inventory of potential solutions. RESULTS: The main reasons identified included the overall increased demands for trials, the high screen failure rates, particularly in Crohn's disease, partly due to the lack of correlation between clinical and endoscopic activity, and the use of complicated endoscopic scoring systems not reflective of the totality of inflammation. In addition, complex trial protocols with restrictive eligibility criteria, increasing burden of procedures and administrative tasks enhance the need for qualified resources in study coordination. At the physician level, lack of dedicated time and training is crucial. From the patients' perspective, long washout periods from previous medications and protocol requirements not reflecting clinical practice, such as prolonged steroid management and placebo exposures, limit their participation in clinical trials. CONCLUSION: This joint effort is proposed as the basis for profound clinical trial transformation triggered by investigative centres, contract research organizations, sponsors and regulatory agencies.

Guselkumab plus golimumab combination therapy versus guselkumab or golimumab monotherapy in patients with ulcerative colitis (VEGA): a randomised, double-blind, controlled, phase 2, proof-of-concept trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the introduction of new monoclonal antibodies and oral therapies for the treatment of ulcerative colitis, clinical remission rates remain low, underscoring the need for innovative treatment approaches. We assessed whether guselkumab plus golimumab combination therapy was more effective for ulcerative colitis than either monotherapy. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, controlled, proof-of-concept trial at 54 hospitals, academic medical centres, or private practices in nine countries. Eligible adults (aged ≥18 to 65 years) had a confirmed diagnosis of ulcerative colitis at least 3 months before screening and moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo score 6-12) with a centrally-read baseline endoscopy subscore of 2 or higher. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to combination therapy (subcutaneous golimumab 200 mg at week 0, subcutaneous golimumab 100 mg at weeks 2, 6, and 10, and intravenous guselkumab 200 mg at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by subcutaneous guselkumab monotherapy 100 mg every 8 weeks for 32 weeks), golimumab monotherapy (subcutaneous golimumab 200 mg at week 0 followed by subcutaneous golimumab 100 mg at week 2 and every 4 weeks thereafter for 34 weeks), or guselkumab monotherapy (intravenous guselkumab 200 mg at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by subcutaneous guselkumab 100 mg every 8 weeks thereafter for 32 weeks). The primary endpoint was clinical response at week 12 (defined as a ≥30% decrease from baseline in the full Mayo score and a ≥3 points absolute reduction with either a decrease in rectal bleeding score of ≥1 point or a rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1). Efficacy was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population up to week 38, which included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one (partial or complete) study intervention dose. Safety was analysed up to week 50, according to study intervention received among all patients who received at least one (partial or complete) dose of study intervention. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03662542. FINDINGS: Between Nov 20, 2018, and Nov 15, 2021, 358 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 214 patients were randomly assigned to combination therapy (n=71), golimumab monotherapy (n=72), or guselkumab monotherapy (n=71). Of the 214 patients included, 98 (46%) were women and 116 (54%) were men and the mean age was 38·4 years (SD 12·0). At week 12, 59 (83%) of 71 patients in the combination therapy group had achieved clinical response compared with 44 (61%) of 72 patients in the golimumab monotherapy group (adjusted treatment difference 22·1% [80% CI 12·9 to 31·3]; nominal p=0·0032) and 53 (75%) of 71 patients in the guselkumab monotherapy group (adjusted treatment difference 8·5% [-0·2 to 17·1; nominal p=0·2155). At week 50, 45 (63%) of 71 patients in the combination therapy group, 55 (76%) of 72 patients in the golimumab monotherapy group, and 46 (65%) of 71 patients in the guselkumab monotherapy group had reported at least one adverse event. The most common adverse events were ulcerative colitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, anaemia, nasopharyngitis, neutropenia, and pyrexia. No deaths, malignancies, or cases of tuberculosis were reported during the combination induction period. One case of tuberculosis was reported in the combination therapy group and one case of colon adenocarcinoma was reported in the guselkumab monotherapy group; both occurred after week 12. Two deaths were reported after the final dose of study intervention (poisoning in the combination therapy group and COVID-19 in the guselkumab monotherapy group). INTERPRETATION: Data from this proof-of-concept study suggest that combination therapy with guselkumab and golimumab might be more effective for ulcerative colitis than therapy with either drug alone. These findings require confirmation in larger trials. FUNDING: Janssen Research and Development.

Guselkumab for the Treatment of Crohn's Disease: Induction Results From the Phase 2 GALAXI-1 Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guselkumab, a selective p19 interleukin-23 antagonist, is approved for the treatment of plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of guselkumab in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease with inadequate response or intolerance to conventional or biologic therapy. METHODS: GALAXI-1, a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, randomized patients 1:1:1:1:1 to intravenous guselkumab 200 mg, 600 mg, or 1200 mg at weeks 0, 4, and 8; intravenous ustekinumab approximately 6 mg/kg at week 0 and 90 mg subcutaneously at week 8; or placebo. Change from baseline in Crohn's Disease Activity Index score (primary end point), clinical remission, clinical response, Patient Reported Outcomes-2 remission, clinical-biomarker response, endoscopic response (major secondary end points), and safety in guselkumab-treated patients vs placebo were evaluated through week 12. Ustekinumab was a reference arm. RESULTS: Of 309 patients evaluated, approximately 50% had disease refractory to prior biologic therapy. At week 12, significantly greater reductions in Crohn's Disease Activity Index from baseline (least squares means: 200 mg: -160.4, 600 mg: -138.9, and 1200 mg: -144.9 vs placebo: -36.2; all, P < .05) and significantly greater proportions of patients achieved clinical remission in each guselkumab group vs placebo (Crohn's Disease Activity Index <150; 57.4%, 55.6%, and 45.9% vs 16.4%; all, P < .05). Greater proportions of patients receiving guselkumab achieved clinical response, Patient Reported Outcomes-2 remission, clinical-biomarker response, and endoscopic response at week 12 vs placebo. Efficacy of ustekinumab vs placebo was also demonstrated. Safety event rates were generally similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: At week 12, all 3 dose regimens of guselkumab induced greater clinical and endoscopic improvements vs placebo, with a favorable safety profile. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT03466411.

IgE binding to linear epitopes of Ara h 2 in peanut allergic preschool children undergoing oral Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: For patients with peanut allergy, there are currently no methods to predict who will develop sustained unresponsiveness (SU) after oral immunotherapy (OIT). OBJECTIVE: Assess IgE binding to peanut (PN), Ara h 2, and specific linear epitopes of Ara h 2 as predictors of the important clinical parameters: eliciting dose threshold and attainment of SU following OIT. METHODS: Samples and clinical data were collected from children undergoing OIT. PN- and Ara h 2-sIgE were quantified by ImmunoCAP® . IgE binding to linear peptides of Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 was measured with peptide microarrays. RESULTS: Values of PN-sIgE correlated with eliciting dose (P = .001) and with a higher likelihood of achieving SU (P < .0001), but these relationships were lost at higher values for PN-sIgE (≥14 kIU for eliciting dose and ≥35 kIU/L for SU). In subjects with PN-sIgE ≥ 14 kIU/L, binding of IgE to epitopes 5 and 6 of Ara h 2 was associated with a lower eliciting dose at baseline challenge (P < .001; Pc  < .02). In subjects with PN-sIgE ≥ 35 kIU/L, a combined model of IgE binding to epitopes 1, 5 and 6 with PN-sIgE was highly predictive of attainment of SU (AUC of 0.86; P = .0067). CONCLUSION: In young patients with peanut allergy, measurement of PN-sIgE and IgE binding to specific linear epitopes of Ara h 2 in baseline samples may allow stratification of patients regarding sensitivity to challenge and outcome of OIT.

Predicting Responders to Reslizumab after 16 Weeks of Treatment Using an Algorithm Derived from Clinical Studies of Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma.

RATIONALE: Reslizumab is a humanized anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody used as add-on maintenance treatment for patients with uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. OBJECTIVES: To predict response and nonresponse to intravenous reslizumab at 52 weeks with an algorithm we developed based on clinical indicators from pivotal clinical trials. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years and older who met Global Initiative for Asthma 4 or 5 criteria and received intravenous reslizumab (n = 321) in two trials ( www.clinicaltrials.gov identifiers, NCT01287039 and NCT01285323) were selected as the data source. A mathematical model was constructed that was based on change from baseline to 16 weeks in Asthma Control Questionnaire and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores and FEV1, and number of clinical asthma exacerbations during the year before enrollment and in the first 16 weeks of treatment, and these measures were evaluated for their ability to predict the outcome at 52 weeks: responder, nonresponder, or indeterminate. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The algorithm predicted that 276 patients would be classified as responders; in 248 (89.9%), the prediction was correct. In comparison, 26 patients were predicted to be nonresponders; 50.0% of these predictions were correct. Nineteen patients were classified as indeterminate. The algorithm had 95.4-95.5% sensitivity and 40.6-54.1% specificity. Jackknife and cross-study validation confirmed the robustness of the algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithm enabled prediction at 16 weeks of treatment of the response to intravenous reslizumab treatment at 52 weeks, but it was not suitable for predicting nonresponse. A positive score at 16 weeks should encourage continued treatment, and a negative score should prompt close monitoring to determine whether discontinuation is warranted.

Effects of Reslizumab on Asthma Outcomes in a Subgroup of Eosinophilic Asthma Patients with Self-Reported Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 7% of patients with asthma have chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), and more than 80% have at least some radiographic evidence of sinonasal inflammation. Aspirin sensitivity is strongly associated with elevated blood eosinophil levels and increased asthma severity. Intravenous (IV) reslizumab has been shown to improve asthma control in patients with nasal polyps. OBJECTIVE: These post hoc analyses of pooled data from 2 BREATH phase 3 clinical trials, studies 1 and 2 (NCT01287039 and NCT01285323), examined asthma-related outcomes in patients with comorbid, self-reported CRSwNP with and without aspirin sensitivity. METHODS: Patients aged 12-75 years with elevated blood eosinophils (≥400 cells/µL) and inadequately controlled asthma were randomized to receive placebo or reslizumab (3 mg/kg IV) every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. Patients continued their background asthma maintenance therapy during the study. Information regarding the presence of CRSwNP was obtained through patient-reported medical history. RESULTS: Add-on reslizumab treatment reduced the frequency of clinical asthma exacerbations by 83% versus placebo among patients with CRSwNP. Among patients with and without aspirin sensitivity, reductions of 79% and 84%, respectively, were observed. Patients with CRSwNP (with and without aspirin sensitivity) treated with reslizumab add-on therapy also had significant improvements in lung function, as measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second, compared with placebo. Among patients with CRSwNP, reslizumab was also associated with improvements in patient-reported asthma control and asthma quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with eosinophilic asthma and self-reported CRSwNP, with and without aspirin sensitivity, are highly responsive to treatment with reslizumab for asthma-related outcomes. These findings suggest that prospective investigation of reslizumab in this patient population is warranted.

Reslizumab in patients with inadequately controlled late-onset asthma and elevated blood eosinophils.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma with adult onset and elevated blood eosinophils is a difficult-to-treat subgroup. This post hoc analysis evaluated reslizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody, in patients with late-onset eosinophilic asthma. METHODS: Data from two 52-week placebo-controlled trials of reslizumab IV 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks in patients aged 12-75 years with inadequately controlled asthma, ≥1 asthma exacerbation within 12 months, and screening blood eosinophils ≥400/µL (NCT01287039/NCT01285323) were stratified by age of asthma onset (<40 or ≥40 years). Annual clinical asthma exacerbation rates, change in lung function, and patient-reported outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: 273 patients with late-onset asthma (placebo, n = 130; reslizumab, n = 143) and 658 with early-onset asthma (placebo, n = 336; reslizumab, n = 322) were included. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. The interaction between age at onset of asthma and effect of reslizumab on asthma exacerbations was statistically significant (p = 0.0083). Compared with placebo, reslizumab produced a 75% relative reduction in asthma exacerbations in patients with late-onset asthma (rate ratio [RR] 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16, 0.40), substantially larger than the reduction in earlier onset patients (RR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44, 0.76). Similar findings were observed for other measures of asthma, including forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). The adverse event profile of reslizumab was similar in patients with early- or late-onset asthma. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, reslizumab produced larger reductions in asthma exacerbations and larger improvements in lung function in patients with late versus early-onset asthma.

Reslizumab for Inadequately Controlled Asthma With Elevated Blood Eosinophil Levels: A Randomized Phase 3 Study.

BACKGROUND: This phase 3 study further characterizes the efficacy and safety of reslizumab (a humanized anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody) in patients aged 12 to 75 years with asthma inadequately controlled by at least a medium-dose inhaled corticosteroid and with a blood eosinophil count ≥ 400 cells/µL. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive reslizumab 0.3 or 3.0 mg/kg or placebo administered once every 4 weeks for 16 weeks (total four doses). The primary end point was change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 over 16 weeks. Secondary end points included FVC, forced expiratory flow at 25% to 75% of FVC (FEF25%-75%), patient-reported control of asthma symptoms, short-acting ß-agonist (SABA) use, blood eosinophil levels, and safety. RESULTS: Reslizumab significantly improved FEV1 (difference vs placebo [reslizumab 0.3 and 3.0 mg/kg], 115 mL [95% CI, 16-215; P = .0237] and 160 mL [95% CI, 60-259; P = .0018]). Clinically meaningful increases in FVC (130 mL) and FEF25%-75% (233 mL/s) were observed with reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg. Reslizumab improved scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) vs placebo (greater effects seen with 3.0 mg/kg; P < .05). The minimally important difference was reached for the AQLQ (reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg) but not on the ACQ. Scores on the Asthma Symptom Utility Index and SABA use were improved with reslizumab. The most common adverse events were worsening of asthma, headache, and nasopharyngitis; most events were mild to moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS: Reslizumab improved lung function, asthma control and symptoms, and quality of life. It was well tolerated in patients with inadequately controlled asthma (despite standard therapy) and elevated blood eosinophil levels. Overall, the 3.0-mg/kg dose of reslizumab provided greater improvements in asthma outcomes vs the 0.3-mg/kg dose, with comparable safety. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01270464; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.