Introduction

Non-celiac gluten/wheat sensitivity (NCGWS) is characterized by gastrointestinal and extra-intestinal symptoms triggered by gluten/wheat ingestion. Symptoms of NCGWS overlap with those of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) or functional dyspepsia (FD). Due to diagnostic challenges and symptom overlap, data on the prevalence and predictors of NCGWS among patients with IBS or FD, especially those with refractory symptoms, are limited.

Aims & Methods

This was a prospective, multicentric, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial conducted from October 2021 to March 2023 in India.This was prospectivly registered with the clinical trials Registry, INDIA (CTRI/2021/10/037323). Adults aged 18–65 years with Rome IV-defined irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) or functional dyspepsia (FD) refractory to standard treatment were enrolled after excluding celiac disease, wheat allergy, and alarm features. Participants underwent a two-step diagnostic protocol. In Step I, patients adhered to a 6-week strict gluten-free diet (GFD) under dietitian supervision. Weekly assessments of gastrointestinal and extra-intestinal symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and psychological scores were performed using validated instruments. Gluten responders—defined by ≥30% reduction in one to three primary symptoms—were advanced to Step II: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled gluten challenge with crossover. Subjects received indistinguishable gluten or placebo cookies (8 g/day) for one week, followed by a one-week washout and crossover. A ≥30% symptom difference between gluten and placebo phases confirmed non-celiac gluten/wheat sensitivity (NCGWS). Primary outcome was NCGWS prevalence; secondary outcomes included symptom and HRQoL changes post-GFD and predictors of NCGWS. Statistical analyses included intention-to-treat principles and multivariable regression to identify baseline predictors.

Results

Of the 252 patients screened, 177 were enrolled for 6-week GFD (step I), and 154 patients completed this phase (mean age 41.9±14.2 years, 53.2% males). Eighty two (52.3%) patients responded to GFD, of whom 77 entered step 2 (DBPCGC). Thirty one (20.1%) patients had significant symptom worsening on blinded gluten ingestion, suggesting the presence of NCGWS. Independent predictors of NCGWS were female gender, FD-IBS overlap, headache, fatigue, and anxiety. Significant improvements in gastrointestinal symptoms, health-related quality of life, and psychological scores were observed after GFD in responders. No significant impact of diet sequence was noted.

Conclusion

Introduction

Seladelpar is a first-in-class delpar (selective PPAR-delta agonist) indicated for the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in patients (pts) with an inadequate response to UDCA or as monotherapy in pts unable to tolerate UDCA. RESPONSE was a Phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial of seladelpar in pts with inadequate response/intolerance to UDCA. Pts completing RESPONSE were eligible to roll over into ASSURE (NCT03301506), an ongoing, open-label, long-term, Phase 3 safety trial. Here, we describe data from month 18 (month 6 of ASSURE) in pts with or without prior use of fibrates or obeticholic acid (OCA) who rolled over from RESPONSE into ASSURE.

Aims & Methods

Pts received 10 mg seladelpar orally daily or placebo in RESPONSE; pts received open-label 10 mg seladelpar in ASSURE. Fibrates and OCA were prohibited during the study period and a 6-week washout was required prior to entry in RESPONSE. Data were described for pts in ASSURE with or without prior use of fibrates/OCA and based on whether they received seladelpar (continuous seladelpar pts) or placebo (crossover pts) in RESPONSE. Efficacy included the percentage of pts achieving a composite biochemical response (CBR; alkaline phosphatase [ALP] < 1.67 × upper limit of normal [ULN], ALP decrease ≥ 15%, and total bilirubin ≤ ULN). Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and laboratory parameters.

Results

Among pts who continued into ASSURE from RESPONSE (158), 16 continuous seladelpar and 11 crossover pts reported prior use of fibrates/OCA (total, n=27; 17%); 88 continuous seladelpar and 43 crossover pts reported no prior use of fibrates/OCA (total, n=131; 83%). At month 18, among continuous seladelpar pts, 9/15 (60%) pts with prior fibrate/OCA use achieved a CBR vs 54/87 (62%) pts without prior fibrate/OCA use. Among crossover pts, 7/11 (64%) pts with prior fibrate/OCA use vs 32/41 (78%) pts without prior fibrate/OCA use achieved a CBR at month 6 of ASSURE. From ASSURE initiation to month 6, incidence of AEs was similar across continuous seladelpar and crossover pts, regardless of prior OCA/fibrate use; no treatment-related serious AEs were reported.

Conclusion

In this interim analysis of continuous seladelpar and crossover pts from ASSURE, pts who reported prior use of fibrates/OCA achieved a similar sustained biochemical response with seladelpar compared with pts who reported no prior use. Seladelpar appeared safe and well tolerated in this subgroup.

Disclosure

AV reports receiving speaker fees from Intercept Pharmaceuticals and participation on an advisory board with Novartis. DP reports receiving consulting fees from Mediar Therapeutics. AEK reports receiving grants or contracts from Gilead Sciences, Inc., Intercept Pharmaceuticals and Roche; consulting fees from AbbVie; Advanz Pharma; Alentis Therapeutics; Alfasigma; Astellas; AstraZeneca; Attovia Therapeutics; Avior Bio; Bayer; Bristol Myers Squibb; Böhringer-Ingelheim; CymaBay Therapeutics; Escient Pharmaceuticals; Falk; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; GSK; Guidepoint; Intercept Pharmaceuticals; Ipsen; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Mirum Pharma; Novo Nordisk; Rectify Pharma; Roche; and Takeda; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie; Advanz Pharma; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals; Bayer; Bristol Myers Squibb; CymaBay Therapeutics; Falk; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; GSK; Intercept Pharmaceuticals; Ipsen; Johnson & Johnson; Medscape; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Mirum Pharma; NewBridge Pharmaceuticals; Novartis; Roche; Vertex Pharmaceuticals; and Viofor; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Gilead Sciences, Inc.; participation on a data safety monitoring board with AbbVie; Advanz Pharma; Alentis Therapeutics; Alfasigma; AstraZeneca; Avior Bio; Bayer; Bristol Myers Squibb; CymaBay Therapeutics; Escient Pharmaceuticals; Falk; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; GSK; Guidepoint; Intercept Pharmaceuticals; Ipsen; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Mirum Pharma; Novo Nordisk; Roche; and Takeda; and a leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy groups (paid or unpaid) with PBC Foundation, Swiss Association for the Study of the Liver (SASL), Swiss Gastroenterology Society (SGG), Swiss Hepa, and Swiss Transplant Society (STS). VC reports receiving speaker fees from AbbVie; Advanz Pharma; Echosens; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Ipsen; and Roche; and participation on an advisory board with Advanz Pharma; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Ipsen; and Roche. EGD reports receiving consulting fees from Ipsen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Ipsen; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Advanz Pharma; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for GSK. CH, XQ, SP, WTB, and TRW are employees of Gilead Sciences, Inc., and may own stock in Gilead Sciences, Inc. SCG reports receiving grants or contracts from AbbVie, Arbutus Biopharma, CymaBay Therapeutics, GSK, Ipsen, and Mirum Pharma; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with CymaBay Therapeutics, GSK, and Ipsen.

Introduction

Pathological esophageal acid exposure may persist in patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) despite standard proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and symptom control, although current guidelines recommend at least standard-dose PPI for all patients with BE.¹

Aims & Methods

Aim was to evaluate the role of esophageal function testing in assessing acid exposure in BE patients on PPI therapy and in predicting neoplastic progression. We conducted a multicenter retrospective study including asymptomatic BE patients (defined by GerdQ total score <8 and a score of 0 on the first GerdQ item) who underwent high-resolution manometry and 24-hour pH impedance monitoring while on various PPI regimens. Maximal PPI therapy included esomeprazole 40 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg, rabeprazole 20 mg, or lansoprazole 30 mg, all administered twice daily. All other regimens were considered standard dosing. Index upper endoscopy with biopsies was performed under the same therapeutic regimen. Histologically, presence and degree of neoplasia (all confirmed by a second pathologist) was recorded. Acid exposure time (AET) <4% was defined as adequate acid control; AET >6% as pathological reflux. Predictors of pathological reflux and neoplasia were assessed using logistic regression analysis.

Results

A total of 135 patients (2016-2025) were included (mean age 58 ± 15 years; 73% male). Median BE length was C1 (range 0–3 cm) and M2 (range 1–5 cm), with 41% (n=56) classified as having long-segment BE. Sixty-seven patients (50%) were on standard-dose PPI. Pathological reflux was identified in 37 patients (27%), of whom 25 (67%) were on standard-dose therapy. Fourteen patients (10%) had borderline AET values (4–6%). Among the 84 patients (62%) with adequate acid control, 33 (39%) were taking standard-dose PPI. On multivariable analysis, standard-dose PPI (OR 3.04; 95% CI 1.34–6.89; p=0.008) and type III esophagogastric junction morphology (OR 2.52; 95% CI 1.01–5.01; p=0.047), consistent with manometric hiatal hernia, were independently associated with pathological reflux. Non-dysplastic BE was found in 112 patients, while 13 (10%) had neoplasia at index endoscopy (8 low-grade dysplasia, 3 high-grade dysplasia, 2 intramucosal adenocarcinoma). Pathological reflux was the only independent predictor of neoplasia (OR 10.41; 95% CI 2.65–41.26; p<0.001).

Table 1. Logistic regression analysis for factors associated with neoplasia on index endoscopy.

Conclusion

Nearly one-third of asymptomatic BE patients exhibit pathological reflux on pH-monitoring despite PPI treatment, predominantly among those on standard-dose and with manometric hiatal hernia. Nonetheless, adequate acid control is achieved in over one-third of patients on standard PPI therapy. Pathological reflux is associated with a 10-fold increased risk of neoplasia.

References

1. Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, et al. Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus: An Updated ACG Guideline. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022;117(4):559-587.