Introduction

Vedolizumab is one of the current treatments for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The efficacy and safety, along with its gut specificity, make this drug an appealing therapeutic option for IBD patients with moderate to severe disease. However, as observed for other biologic treatments, a significant proportion of patients do not have an initial response to vedolizumab treatment. Currently, there is a lack of reliable predictive tools for vedolizumab treatment response, although this would help to alleviate the socioeconomic costs derived from this disease.

Aims & Methods

The primary aim of this study is to show putative transcriptional signatures associated with vedolizumab treatment response.
Methods: For the realization of this study, we used RNA-seq datasets from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database: GSE191328. This dataset includes samples from peripheral blood cells from responder and non-responder ulcerative colitis (UC) patients treated with vedolizumab and infliximab at baseline. Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) was performed to compare the differential expression and the enrichment analysis was calculated using ssGSEA of the different groups under study.

Results

The analysis of the transcriptome of peripheral blood cells from responder (R) and non-responder (NR) vedolizumab-treated patients at baseline revealed interesting enrichment results. We found 20 gene sets positively enriched in NR versus R and only 9 gene sets negatively enriched in the same phenotypes. In order to find vedolizumab specific transcriptional signatures, we performed a similar analysis in samples from infliximab-treated patients. After that second round of analysis, we observed that around 50% of the enriched gene sets were similar for both biological treatments. Nevertheless, several interesting biological functions such as peroxisome function, reactive oxygen function or beta-catenin signalling are specifically enriched in NR patients to vedolizumab treatment.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that vedolizumab NR patients specifically show a transcriptional enrichment profile, which differs from vedolizumab R patients. Also, the comparative analysis with infliximab-treated patients reveals that those specific transcripts are modulated in response to this α4β7 integrin antibodies in peripheral blood cells. Therefore, we found a solid system to search for vedolizumab therapy predictive response markers using low invasive techniques.

Introduction

OZA is approved in multiple countries for treatment of moderately to severely active UC in adults. In the phase 3 TN study, OZA was efficacious for up to 52 wk in pts with moderately to severely active UC. CRP is a widely used serum indicator of inflammation and prognosis in inflammatory bowel disease.

Aims & Methods

The effect of OZA on CRP levels and the association of CRP levels with OZA efficacy were assessed in all TN pts. During the 10-wk induction period, pts in Cohort 1 were randomized to OZA 0.92 mg or placebo (PBO) or received open-label OZA 0.92 mg in Cohort 2. Pts with clinical response to OZA at Week (W) 10 were rerandomized to OZA or PBO for maintenance through W52. Serum CRP levels were assessed at baseline (BL) through W52. Disease activity scores (rectal bleeding subscore [RBS], stool frequency subscore, Physician’s Global Assessment subscore, endoscopy subscore, and partial and total Mayo scores) were assessed at BL and W10. Efficacy endpoints (clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic improvement, mucosal healing, and histologic remission) were assessed at W10. Associations of CRP levels with disease activity and efficacy endpoints were assessed using Spearman’s correlation and logistic regression, respectively.

Results

645 pts were randomized to OZA (n=429) or PBO (n=216) and 367 pts received open-label OZA for 10 wk; 230 and 227 OZA-treated pts who responded were rerandomized to OZA and PBO, respectively, for maintenance through W52 (69 PBO-treated pts who responded continued on PBO). Pts on OZA showed reductions from BL in CRP levels at W10, which was significant vs PBO (P<0.001, both cohorts) (Table). Reductions in CRP levels were significantly greater in pts with vs without clinical response at W10 in all treatment groups (P<0.001, all groups) (Table). Significantly greater reductions in CRP levels occurred with OZA vs PBO at W10 regardless of prior biologic or anti–tumor necrosis factor exposure (P<0.05, all groups). Reductions in CRP levels were maintained through W52; pts who continued OZA had similar reductions at W52 as pts who switched to PBO (Table). Decreases in CRP levels in W52 responders were maintained through W52 of treatment, while W52 nonresponder CRP levels started to rise following induction toward BL values (Table). BL CRP levels were significantly positively correlated with most BL disease activity scores (Spearman’s rho 0.2–0.3, P<0.05, all scores) except RBS. BL CRP levels and change in CRP levels at W5 were prognostic for W10 response. Higher BL CRP levels were associated with lower endoscopic improvement, mucosal healing, and histologic remission at W10 and greater reductions in CRP levels at W5 were associated with better clinical response at W10, independent of treatment. Change in CRP levels at W10 was significantly positively correlated with change in most disease activity scores at W10 with OZA and PBO (Spearman’s rho 0.1–0.3, P<0.05, all scores in both groups) except endoscopy with PBO.

Conclusion

In moderately to severely active UC pts, OZA led to reductions in CRP levels. Higher BL CRP levels were associated with worse disease outcomes and greater reductions in CRP levels were associated with better disease outcomes regardless of treatment, supporting CRP levels as a prognostic biomarker for UC.

Disclosure

This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA
SH, RM, CW, YH, and AP: employees and/or shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb.
DTR: received grant support from Takeda; consulted for AbbVie, AltruBio, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Athos Therapeutics, Bellatrix Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chronicles, ClostraBio, Connect BioPharma, EcoR1, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Iterative Health, Janssen, Kaleido Biosciences, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Reistone, Seres Therapeutics, Syneos, Takeda, Target RWE, and Trellus Health.

Introduction

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is an idiopathic and chronic disorder that includes ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD). Both diseases are different but show an uncontrolled intestinal immune response that generates tissue inflammation. Dendritic cells (DC) are phagocytic professional antigen presenting cells that link the innate and adaptive immune systems. Indeed, they are the only cell type able to stimulate naïve T cells generating an antigen-specific immune response. In humans, DC can be divided into plasmacytoid (pDC) and c conventional type 1 and 2 (cDC1, cDC2). Although cDC migration towards the GI mucosa is enhanced in IBD, the mechanisms underlying these migrations and whether biological drugs can modulate them are currently unknown.

Aims & Methods

This study aimed to analyze DC migratory capacity towards the GI mucosa, and whether biological drugs with different mechanisms of action can modulate this process in health and IBD.This is a cross-sectional observational postmarketing study where the modulatory effect of different biological treatments on samples from patients with an endoscopic diagnosis of IBD and healthy controls was studied ex vivo. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were obtained from 15 patients per group and were cultured in presence of golimumab or ustekinumab. Following culture, surface markers expression was determined, assessing the differential effect of biological drugs (if any) over the DC subsets in the different groups. After that, the migratory capacity of circulating DC towards CCL2, CCL25, and MadCam1 from the different study groups was determined. Finally, we evaluated the DC migratory capacities in presence of biological drugs or with culture media alone.

Results

The cDC2 subset showed higher expression levels of β7 and CCR5 compared to cDC1. Golimumab and ustekinumab did not modify the expression of the homing markers in any studied subset in pDC and cDC2.On the contrary, in cDC1 both golimumab and ustekinumab increased CCR6 expression in qCD patients and CCR9 in aUC patients. Regarding to the migratory capacities of the different DC subsets toward intestinal chemoattractants ustekinumab decreased the migratory capacity of cDC2 from CD patients towards a medium supplemented with MadCam1 and increases toward CCL2 in case of cDC1 from CU. In the case of migratory capacities of cDC2 from HC were increased by ustekinumab and golimumab toward CCL2 and CCL25 just in case of golimumab.

Conclusion

cDC2 showed more migratory profile markers than other DC populations. Golimumab and ustekinumab modify the expression of the homing markers just in cDC1 subset. Nevertheless, ustekinumab and golimumab modify the migratory capacities of cDC in IBD patients and HC, but do not exert any effect on pDC. These effects occur in a different manner in CD and UC indicates that the behavior of cDC is different in CD and UC, and that the migration capacity of this subset is not dependent exclusively on homing markers.

Introduction

Mirikizumab [(miri), a p19-directed IL-23 antibody] has been shown to be effective in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) in Phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (LUCENT-1 NCT03518086; LUCENT-2 NCT03524092).¹ Given the importance of understanding treat-to-target strategies, the relationship between improved histologic and endoscopic endpoints and improvement of the inflammatory biomarkers faecal calprotectin (fCal) and C-reactive protein (CRP) was studied within miri-treated patients enrolled in the programme.

Aims & Methods

This analysis focused on miri-treated patients (n=868) from the induction study receiving intravenous (IV) every 4 weeks (Q4W) until week (W)12 and miri induction responders at week W12, who were rerandomised for the maintenance period, receiving subcutaneous miri (n=365) Q4W up to W52. The relationship between achieving histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement (HEMI), histologic-endoscopic mucosal remission (HEMR) (definitions in Tables) and improvement of fCal (≤250µg/g) and CRP (≤6mg/L) levels at W12 and W52 was explored using Fisher’s exact tests.

Results

At W12, a significantly higher percentage of miri-treated patients achieving HEMI (n=235/868) had normalised fCal and CRP values (76.2% and 88.5%), compared to miri-treated patients who did not achieve HEMI (n=633/868) (21.8% and 72.7%, both p<0.001; Table). Similarly, a higher proportion of patients achieving HEMR (n=193/868) had normalised fCal and CRP values (79.3% and 89.6%), compared to those who did not achieve HEMR (n=675/868) (24.3% and 73.3%, both p<0.001; Table). At W52, a significantly higher percentage of the miri induction responder patients rerandomised to miri achieving HEMI (174/365) had normalised fCal and CRP values (74.1% and 87.9%), compared to patients not achieving HEMI (191/365) (32.5% and 61.3%; both p<0.001). Similarly, at W52, a higher proportion of patients achieving HEMR (n=158/365) had normalised fCal and CRP values (76.6% and 88.0%), versus patients not achieving HEMR (n=207/365) (33.8% and 63.3%; both p<0.001, Table).

Conclusion

At both W12 and W52, patients treated with miri who achieved HEMI or HEMR showed statistically significant improvements in fCal and CRP levels. This suggests that CRP and fCal may be useful markers of histology and endoscopy outcomes after induction and maintenance with miri.

References

1. Magro et al., MP245 Efficacy of mirikizumab in resolving active histologic inflammation in Ulcerative Colitis in Lucent-1 induction and Lucent-2 maintenance trials (2022), UEG Week Moderated Posters. United European Gastroenterol J, 10: 185-472.

Disclosure

R. Panaccione has received speaker fees and/or served as a consultant and/or advisory board member for: Abbott, AbbVie, Alimentiv, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elan Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Galapagos NV, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Mylan, Oppilan Pharma, Pandion Therapeutics, Pfizer, Progenity, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Sandoz, Satisfai Health, Shire, Sublimity Therapeutics, Takeda, Theravance Biopharma and UCB Pharma; and has received research and/or educational support from: AbbVie, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Pfizer and Takeda; C. Sapin, F. Chan-Diehl and R. Moses are employees and shareholders of: Eli Lilly and Company;
B. Siegmund has served as a consultant and/or speaker for: AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, CED Service GmbH, Celgene, Dr Falk Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Galapagos NV, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Prometheus Therapeutics and Takeda;
A. Walsh has received grant and/or research support from: AbbVie and Pfizer; and has received consultancy fees from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis and UCB Pharma;
T. Kobayashi has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory board member for: AbbVie, Ajinomoto Bio-Pharma, Alfresa Pharma, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Covidien, EA Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Galapagos NV, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, JIMRO, Kyorin, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mochida Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kayaku, Pfizer, Takeda, Thermo Fisher Scientific and Zeria Pharmaceutical; and has received research funding from: AbbVie, ActivAid, Alfresa Pharma, Asahi Kasei Pharma, EA Pharma, Google, JMDC, Kyorin, Mochida Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kayaku, Otsuka, Sekisui Medical, Thermo Fisher Scientific and Zeria Pharmaceutical;
P. S. Dulai has served as a consultant for: AbbVie, Abivax, Addiso, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Pfizer, Precidiag, Prometheus and Takeda;
S. Travis has received grants from: AbbVie, BUHLMANN Diagnostics, ECCO, Eli Lilly and Company, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Norman Collision Foundation, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Schering-Plough, Takeda, UCB Pharma, Vifor Pharma and Warner Chilcott; and reports other disclosures from: Abacus Pharma, AbbVie, Actial Farmaceutica, ai4gi, Alcimed, Allergan, Amgen, Aptel, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Aspen Pharmacare, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Atlantic Pharmaceuticals, Barco, Biocare Medical, Biogen, BL Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, BUHLMANN Diagnostics, Calcico Therapeutics, Celgene, Cellerix, Cerimon Pharmaceuticals, ChemoCentryx, Chiesi, Cisbio, Comcast, Coronado Biosciences, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, Dr Falk Pharma, Ducentis BioTherapeutics, Dynavax Technologies, Elan, Eli Lilly and Company, Enterome, Equillium, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Galapagos NV, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Grünenthal, GW Pharmaceuticals, Immunocore, Indigo Biosciences, Janssen, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Medarex, MedTrix, Merck, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Mestag Therapeutics, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Neovacs, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, NPS Pharmaceuticals/Nycomed, Ocera Therapeutics, OPTIMA Pharma, Origin Pharma, Otsuka, Procter & Gamble, Palau Pharma, Pentax Medical, Pfizer, PharmaVentures, Phesi, Phillips Pharma Group, Pronota, Proximagen, Resolute, Robarts Clinical Trials, Sandoz, Santarus, Satisfai Health, Sensyne Health, Shire, Sigmoid Pharma, Sorriso Pharmaceuticals, Souffinez, SynDermix, Synthon, Takeda, Theravance Biopharma, TiGenix, Tillotts Pharma AG, Topivert, Trino Therapeutics with Wellcome Trust, TxCell, UCB Pharma, Vertex Pharma, VHsquared, Vifor Pharma, Warner Chilcott and Zeria Pharmaceutical

Introduction

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a refractory inflammatory bowel disease of the colon with repeated relapses and remissions that requires lifelong treatment. Previous studies indicated that proinflammatory cytokines involved the onsets and developments of UC. New treatments for targeting these cytokines, such as TNF-α, IL-12 and IL-23 have been developed in a recent decade, underlying that immune abnormalities are the core for the etiology of UC.
Platelets play a role not only in hemostatic coagulation but in inflammatory mediator by interacting with various cells in the innate and adaptive immunity. Chronic inflammatory response confers platelets activation leading to elevated platelet count and hypercoagulability. Moreover, platelets aggregates with leukocyte in active inflammatory milieu. In fact, thrombocytosis, thromboembolism and upregulation of platelet-monocyte complex (PMC) in UC patients have been reported, implying that platelets could be novel biomarker, therapeutic target and clues for elucidating the pathology of UC. However, the clinical significance of platelet activation and PMC formation in UC is not fully elucidated and few studies were conducted to assess how platelet activation contributes to disease aggravations of UC. Therefore, we comprehensively analyzed platelet activation and platelet-monocyte complex by focusing on a correlation with clinical severity of UC.

Aims & Methods

Patients with UC (n=70) including MES0-2 group (n=34) and MES3 group (n=27), diagnosed according to a combination of symptoms, endoscopic findings, histologic findings, and the absence of alternative diagnoses, and age and sex-matched healthy controls (HCs) (n =19) were enrolled for this study. We analyzed the surface markers such as CD62P, CD40L, CD63, PAC-1 and Annexin V on CD61+ platelets by flowcytometry (FCM) in patients with UC in comparison with those in healthy adults. We also analyzed the proportion of CD61+CD14+ platelet-monocyte complexes and quantified the activation of PMCs by FCM. Moreover, we also investigated the correlation among surface markers, proportion of platelet-monocyte aggregates and Mayo endoscopic score (MES) in UC patients.

Results

The expression of CD62P but not other surface markers on platelets was significantly upregulated in UC when compared to HCs (p<0.01), and was significantly upregulated in in MES3 group when compared to the MES0-2 group (P<0.001). The proportion of PMC was also higher in MES3 groups when compared to MES0-2 group (P<0.05), and was markedly reduced by treatment (P<0.05). In addition, CD16+ monocytes, phenotypically mature and pro-inflammatory cell population, were increased in patients with UC when compared to HCs (P<0.01). The expression of CD16 on monocytes aggregated with platelets was significantly higher when compered to that without platelet (P<0.001).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that platelet activation accelerates mucosal inflammation via adhesion with monocytes in UC and contributes to the aggravation of disease.

References

Semple JW, et al. Platelets and the immune continuum.
Nat Rev Immunol. 2011 Apr;11(4):264-74.
Collins CE, et al. Platelets circulate in an activated state in inflammatory bowel disease.
Gastroenterology. 1994 Apr;106(4):840-5.

Introduction

Filgotinib (FIL) is a once-daily, oral, Janus kinase 1 preferential inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). Previous analyses of data from the phase 2b/3 SELECTION trial (NCT02914522) demonstrated that FIL 200 mg (FIL200) improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and led to comprehensive disease control (comprising clinical, biomarker, HRQoL and endoscopic improvements) in patients with UC.¹

Aims & Methods

We evaluated individual Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) item data from SELECTION to assess which items drive the benefits of FIL treatment. In SELECTION, adults with moderately to severely active UC were randomized 2:2:1 to receive FIL200, FIL 100 mg or PBO once daily for 11 weeks in Induction Studies A and B (biologic-naive and -experienced patients, respectively). Patients who responded to FIL were rerandomized 2:1 to continue their induction FIL dose in the 47-week Maintenance Study. In this post hoc analysis, standardized effect sizes (SES) were calculated to evaluate the relative magnitude of the difference in mean scores of individual IBDQ items at week 10 (W10) between FIL200 versus PBO-treated patients, and at week 58 (W58) between patients who continued FIL200 treatment (FIL200→FIL200) versus those who were rerandomized to PBO (FIL200→PBO). SES were also calculated for the mean change in score of individual IBDQ items from baseline to W10, and from maintenance baseline to W58. SES were categorized by Cohen’s thresholds (‘trivial’ [<0.2]; ‘small’ [≥0.2–<0.5]; ‘moderate’ [≥0.5–<0.8]; and ‘large’ [≥0.8]). A last observation carried forward imputation approach was used for missing data.

Results

At W10, patients treated with FIL200 overall (n=506) had improvements in all individual IBDQ items versus those treated with PBO (n=277) and had moderate to large increases from baseline (SES ≥0.5) in all individual IBDQ items. The IBDQ items with the five largest SES for FIL200 versus PBO at W10 (analysed by induction study), and for FIL200→FIL200 (n=199) versus FIL200→PBO (n=98) at W58 are summarized in the Table. FIL200 treatment consistently resulted in the largest benefits in items related to pain (‘abdominal pain’ and ‘abdominal cramps’), ability to engage socially (‘satisfied with life’, ‘depressed or discouraged’, ‘social engagement’ and ‘problems with activities’) and bowel urgency (‘loose bowel movements’ and ‘finding a washroom’) versus PBO at W10, and versus FIL200→PBO at W58

Table. Top five individual IBDQ item scores ranked by SES for FIL200 versus PBO groups at W10 and FIL200→FIL200 versus FIL200→PBO groups at W58.

Conclusion

FIL200 treatment provides improvements in HRQoL versus PBO, with large SES seen for most IBDQ items, and the greatest improvements in items related to pain, social engagement and bowel urgency over 58 weeks. This analysis reveals the specific IBDQ items that drive the benefits to HRQoL of FIL and adds further evidence to that showing that FIL contributes to restoration of health through comprehensive disease control for patients with UC.¹

References

1. Schreiber S et al. J Crohns Colitis 2023; https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad018

Disclosure

BF reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Biotech/Centocor, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Pfizer, Receptos and Takeda; and personal fees from Ablynx, ActoGeniX, AdMIRx, Inc., Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., Allergan, Atlantic Pharmaceuticals, Avaxia Biologics, Inc., Avir Pharma, Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Biogen Idec, BiomX Israel, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Calypso Biotech, Celgene, Elan/Biogen, Eli Lilly, enGene, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, gIcare Pharma, Gilead, Given Imaging, Gossamer Bio, GSK, Inception IBD, Inc., Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Japan Tobacco Company, Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co. Ltd, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Lycera, Mesoblast, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Nestlé, Nextbiotix, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Par’Immune, Progenity, Prometheus Therapeutics and Diagnostics, Protagonist, Qu Biologics, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Shire, Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Sigmoid Pharma, Synergy Pharma, Teva Pharmaceuticals, TiGenix, Tillotts Pharma, UCB, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, VHsquared, Vivelix Pharmaceuticals, Wyeth, Zealand Pharma and Zyngenia.
SV reports grants from AbbVie, Galapagos, J&J, Pfizer and Takeda; consulting and/or speaker fees from AbbVie, AbolerIS Pharma, AgomAb, Alimentiv, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Avaxia Biologics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, CVasThera, Cytoki Pharma, Dr Falk Pharma, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Hospira, Imidomics, Janssen, J&J, Lilly, Materia Prima, MiroBio, Morphic, MrMHealth, Mundipharma, MSD, Pfizer, Prodigest, Progenity, Prometheus, Robarts Clinical Trials, Second Genome, Shire, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance Biopharma, Tillotts Pharma and Zealand Pharma.
LP-B reports speaking fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medac Pharma, MSD, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda, Tillotts Pharma, Viatris and Vifor Pharma;grants from Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi and Takeda; and consulting fees from AbbVie, Abivax, Alimentiv, Alma Bio Therapeutics, Amgen, Applied Molecular Transport, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, CONNECT Biopharma, Cytoki Pharma, Eli Lilly, Enthera, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, Gossamer Bio, GSK, H.A.C. Pharma, IAG Image Analysis, Index Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, medac Pharma, Mopac, Morphic, MSD, Norgine, Novartis, OM Pharma, ONO Pharmaceutical, OSE

Introduction

Cobitolimod (MW 5925.18 Da) is a DNA-based oligonucleotide functioning as an immunomodulatory Toll-like receptor 9 agonist. Cobitolimod is in phase III clinical development as a new therapy for moderate to severe left-sided ulcerative colitis (UC). This phase Ib study aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety and tolerability of rectally administered cobitolimod in patients with moderate to severe UC.

Aims & Methods

The phase Ib open-label study was conducted at a single center in Sweden (NCT05404074). The patients had moderate to severe UC defined by a 3-component Mayo score of 5 to 9, with an Investigator read endoscopic subscore ≥2, and with stool frequency and rectal bleeding subscores each ≥1. Patients received one cobitolimod enema (500 mg/50 ml) at week 0, and blood samples for PK analysis were collected pre-dose, 15 min, 30 min, 1h, 2h, 4h, 8h, 12h and 24h after dosing. Patients received a second cobitolimod enema (500 mg/50 ml) at week 3, and at week 6 the degree of clinical remission was evaluated. Clinical remission was defined by the 3-component Mayo score with a rectal bleeding subscore = 0, a stool frequency subscore ≤1 (≥1 point decrease from baseline), and an Investigator read endoscopic subscore ≤1. Patients in clinical remission at week 6 received a third cobitolimod enema (500 mg/50 ml), and blood samples were collected for a second PK analysis as described above. The primary endpoint was PK parameters: maximum plasma concentration (C_max), time to C_max (T_max), area under the curve from 0 to timepoint t (AUC_t) and half-life (T_1/2). Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability.

Results

Eight patients with active disease were enrolled in the study and included in the safety analysis set. One patient was excluded from the pharmacokinetic analysis set (PKAS) due to an immediate bowel movement following administration. Of the 7 patients included in the PKAS, 4 patients achieved clinical remission at week 6. Rectal administration of 500 mg cobitolimod at week 0 resulted in median C_max of 21.7 ng/ml, median T_max of 1h, median T_last of 4h, and median AUC_0-last of 71.7 h*ng/ml (n=7). For the 4 patients in remission at week 6, corresponding numbers were: median C_max of 15.5 ng/ml, median T_max of 0.5h, median T_last of 4h and median AUC_0-last of 27.6 h*ng/ml. T_1/2 was <2.5h both at week 0 and week 6.
In total, 24 adverse events occurred in the study, out of which the majority was mild and judged as unlikely related to study drug. No serious adverse events were reported.

Table 1. PK parameters per patient

Conclusion

The study demonstrates that rectally administered cobitolimod results in a low systemic exposure of short duration both in patients with active disease and in clinical remission. Cobitolimod was safe and well tolerated at a dose of 500 mg.

Disclosure

Thomas Knittel is a consultant for and a shareholder in InDex Pharmaceuticals, Sweden. Pernilla Sandwall is a former employee and a shareholder in InDex Pharmaceuticals, Sweden. Christine Dieterich Johansson is employed by InDex Pharmaceuticals, Sweden. Arezou Zargari is employed by and a shareholder in InDex Pharmaceuticals, Sweden. Johan Bring is a consultant for InDex Pharmaceuticals, Sweden. Per Hellström receives consultancy fees from: Clinical trial consultants, Sweden; ROSE pharma, USA; Pharmanovia, Denmark; Swedish Agricultural University, Uppsala; Pharmacosmos, Denmark; Stockholm Diabetes Association, Sweden; Celltrion, Finland; Mag-tarmförbundet, Sweden; Karolinska Institutet, Sweden; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sweden; ClinSmart, Sweden; InDex Pharmaceuticals, Sweden; Takeda pharmaceutical company; Mediahuset, Sweden; Bonnier Healthcare Sweden; Folkuniversitetet, Stockholm, Sweden; Biogaia, Stockholm, Sweden; Norgine, Denmark; Nanologica AB, Södertälje, Sweden.