MEDICAL BULLETIN BOARD

LabCorp’s DoseASSURE® Portfolio Provides Most Expansive Biologics TDM Menu Combined with Expert Guidance

Read Article

BURLINGTON, NC — LabCorp® (NYSE: LH), a leading global life sciences company that is deeply integrated in guiding patient care, announced a new assay in its therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) DoseASSURE® portfolio. The new Certolizumab Concentration and Anti-Certolizumab Antibody DoseASSURETM CTZ assay, helps physicians monitor individual drug response for patients who are on Certolizumab, a biologic drug used to treat certaininflammatory diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn’s disease.
Biologic drugs are complex, protein-based therapies that can be used to treat certain inflammatory diseases and are among the fastest growing class of drugs available today. However, the expense of these medications and the variability in patient response can present numerous challenges. LabCorp’s DoseASSURE® portfolio helps address these challenges by providing quantitative,patient-specific measurement which can guide patienttherapy. With the launch of the DoseASSURE CTZ, LabCorp now has the most comprehensive biologics TDM menu in the industry, targeting the largest number of biologic drugs.

“Biologic drugs can be life-changing, but individual patient response to biologics can vary greatly,” said David P. King, LabCorp’s chairman and CEO. “LabCorp’s DoseASSURE portfolio helps to deliver on the promise of precision medicine by enabling more effective and more individualized treatment plans that can improve clinical outcomes at reduced costs.”

Studies demonstrate the use of TDM can improveefficacy and prolong successful response to biologictreatment. Accordingly, appropriate use of TDM can diminish the need for disease-related surgery and hospitalization by reducing the risk of treatment failure.

“Our expanding DoseASSURE portfolio demonstrates our commitment to providing world-class diagnostic and patient management solutions for physicians and patients,” said Marcia Eisenberg,Ph.D., chief scientific officer of LabCorp Diagnostics.“LabCorp adds value because our diagnostics expertise and available clinical decision support tools help clinicians integrate biologic drugs and the associated diagnostics into optimal patient care.”

DoseASSURE® TDM Portfolio

LabCorp’s TDM DoseASSURE portfolio includes eight assays measuring 10 biologic therapies —including Adalimumab, Infliximab, Infliximab-dyyb, Infliximab-abda, Etanercept, Rituximab, Golimumab,Vedolizumab, Ustekinumab, and Certolizumab.

  • Adalimumab and Anti-Adalimumab Antibody, DoseASSURE ADL
  • Certolizumab and Anti-Certolizumab Antibody, DoseASSURE CTZ
  • Etanercept and Anti-EtanerceptAntibody, Dose ASSURE ETN
  • Golimumab and Anti-Golimumab Antibody,DoseASSURE GOL
  • Infliximab and Anti-Infliximab Antibody,DoseASSURE IFX
  • Rituximab and Anti-Rituximab Antibody,DoseASSURE RTX
  • Ustekinumab and Anti-Ustekinumab Antibody,DoseASSURE UST
  • Vedolizumab and Anti-Vedolizumab Antibody,DoseASSURE VDZ

For more information about LabCorp’s DoseASSURE portfolio, please visit the online test menu at LabCorp’s website

About LabCorp

LabCorp (NYSE: LH), an S&P 500 company, is a leading global life sciences company that is deeply integrated in guiding patient care, providing comprehensive clinical laboratory and end-to-end drug development services. With a mission to improve health and improve lives, LabCorp delivers world-class diagnostic solutions, brings innovative medicines to patients faster, and uses technology to improve the delivery of care. LabCorp reported revenues of more than $11 billion in 2018. To learn more about LabCorp, visit: LabCorp’s website

MEDICIAL BULLETIN BOARD

Vedolizumab Superior to Adalimumab in Achieving Clinical Remission and Mucosal Healing at Week 52 in Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis

Read Article

Osaka, JAPAN – Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (TSE:4502/NYSE:TAK) (“Takeda”) announced results from the Phase 3b head-to-head VARSITY study which demonstrated that the gut-selective biologic vedolizumab (Entyvio®) was superior to the anti-tumornecrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNFα) biologic adalimumab(Humira®) in achieving clinical remission* in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis at week 52. Data showed that 31.3% (n=120/383) of patients receiving vedolizumab intravenous (IV) achieved the primary endpoint of clinical remission compared to 22.5% (n=87/386) of patients treated with adalimumab subcutaneous (SC) at week 52, with thedifference being statistically significant (p=0.0061).These results were announced as an oral presentation (OP34) on Saturday March 9, 2019 from 09:40-09:50, at the 14th Congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Furthermore, treatment with vedolizumab wasassociated with significantly higher rates of mucosalhealing** at week 52, with 39.7% of patients receiving vedolizumab achieving mucosal healing compared to 27.7% treated with adalimumab (p=0.0005). Anon-statistically significant difference in favor ofadalimumab was seen in the percentage of patients using oral corticosteroids at baseline who discontinued corticosteroids and were in clinical remission*** at week 52. While the study was not powered to compare the safety of the two biologics, patients treated with vedolizumab (62.7%) had a lower rate of overall adverse events over 52 weeks than patients treated with adalimumab (69.2%), with a lower rate of infections reported in patients treated with vedolizumab (33.5%) as compared to adalimumab (43.5%). The rate of serious adverse events was also lower in vedolizumab- treated patients than adalimumab (11.0% vs. 13.7% respectively).

“The VARSITY study addresses critical questions concerning the selection of biologic therapy in ulcerative colitis,” said Dr. Bruce E. Sands, primary investigator of the VARSITY study and Chief of the Dr. Henry D. Janowitz Division of Gastroenterology at Mount Sinai Hospital and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. “The goal of treatment in ulcerative colitis is to achieve clinical remission and mucosalhealing, and these results clearly highlight the benefitsseen with vedolizumab versus adalimumab on these important outcomes. The results also showed lower rates of overall and serious adverse events including infections in patients treated with vedolizumab than adalimumab.”

“As the first clinical study to directly compare the efficacy and safety of two commonly used biologictherapies in patients with ulcerative colitis, VARSITY provides invaluable knowledge to help inform physicians’ treatment decisions when initiating biologic therapy,” said Jeff Bornstein, M.D., Executive MedicalDirector, Takeda. “This is also the first time we haveseen a direct comparison between two medicines with distinct modes of action in ulcerative colitis, the gut- selective anti-alpha4beta7 integrin vedolizumab andthe anti-TNFα adalimumab. This is an exciting time inthe landscape of ulcerative colitis treatment, as head- to-head clinical data has not previously been available to guide treatment decisions around biologic therapies.”

VARSITY is a phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multi-center, active-controlled studyto evaluate the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab IVcompared to adalimumab SC at week 52 in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. The study randomized 769 patients (vedolizumab n=383 or adalimumab n=386), all of whom had inadequate response with, loss of response to, or intolerance tocorticosteroids, immunomodulators, or one TNFα-antagonist other than adalimumab prior to being enrolled. Patients were randomized into one of two treatment groups, vedolizumab IV and placebo SC or adalimumab SC and placebo IV. Patients in the vedolizumab group were administered vedolizumab IV 300 mg at weeks 0, 2, 6 and every 8 weeks thereafter until week 46, along with placebo SC at week 0 and every 2 weeks until week 50. The adalimumab group were administered adalimumab SC 160 mg at week 0, 80 mg at week 2 and 40 mg every 2 weeks until week 50, along with placebo IV at weeks 0, 2, 6 and every 8 weeks thereafter until week 46. Dose escalation was not permitted in either treatment arm during the study.* Primary endpoint: Clinical remission is defined as a complete

Mayo score of ≤2 points and no individual subscore ˃1 point. ** Secondary endpoint: Mucosal healing is defined as Mayo endoscopic subscore of ≤1 point. Mayo score: instrument designed to measure disease activity of ulcerative colitis. *** Secondary endpoint: Corticosteroid-free clinical remissionis defined as patients using oral corticosteroids at baseline(week 0) who have discontinued oral corticosteroids and are in clinical remission at week 52.

About Ulcerative Colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is one of the most common formsof inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). UC is a chronic, relapsing, remitting, inflammatory condition of thegastrointestinal tract that is often progressive in nature, and involves the innermost lining of the large intestine. UC commonly presents with symptoms of abdominal discomfort and loose bowel movements, including blood or pus. The cause of UC is not fully understood; however, recent research suggests hereditary, genetics, environmental factors, and/or an abnormal immune response to microbial antigens in genetically predisposed individuals can lead to the condition.

About Entyvio® (vedolizumab)

Vedolizumab is a gut-selective biologic and is approved as an intravenous (IV) formulation. It is a humanizedmonoclonal antibody designed to specifically antagonizethe alpha4beta7 integrin, inhibiting the binding of alpha4beta7 integrin to intestinal mucosal addressin cell adhesion molecule 1 (MAdCAM-1), but not vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1). MAdCAM-1 is preferentially expressed on blood vessels and lymph nodes of the gastrointestinal tract. The alpha4beta7 integrin is expressed on a subset of circulating white blood cells. These cells have been shown to play a rolein mediating the inflammatory process in ulcerativecolitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD). By inhibiting alpha4beta7 integrin, vedolizumab may limit the abilityof certain white blood cells to infiltrate gut tissues.

Vedolizumab IV is approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active UC and CD, who have had an inadequate response with, lost response to, or were intolerant to either conventionaltherapy or a tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα)antagonist. Vedolizumab IV has been granted marketing authorization in over 60 countries, including the United States and European Union, with more than 260,000 patient years of exposure to date.

Therapeutic Indications

Ulcerative colitis

Vedolizumab is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who have had an inadequate response with, lost response to, or were intolerant to either conventionaltherapy or a tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα)antagonist.

Crohn’s Disease

Vedolizumab is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease who have had an inadequate response with, lost response to, or were intolerant to either conventionaltherapy or a tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα)antagonist.

Important Safety Information
Contraindications

Hypersensitivity to the active substance or to any of the excipients.

Special warnings and special precautions for use
Vedolizumab should be administered by a healthcare professional prepared to manage hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, if they occur. Appropriate monitoring and medical support measures should be available for immediate use when administering vedolizumab. Observe patients during infusion and until the infusion is complete.

Infusion-related reactions

In clinical studies, infusion-related reactions (IRR) and hypersensitivity reactions have been reported, with the majority being mild to moderate in severity. If a severe IRR, anaphylactic reaction, or other severe reaction occurs, administration of vedolizumab must be discontinued immediately and appropriate treatment initiated (e.g., epinephrine and antihistamines). If a mild to moderate IRR occurs, the infusion rate can be slowed or interrupted and appropriate treatment initiated (e.g., epinephrine and antihistamines). Once the mild or moderate IRR subsides, continue the infusion. Physicians should consider pre-treatment (e.g., with antihistamine, hydrocortisone and/or paracetamol) prior to the next infusion for patients with a history of mild to moderate IRR to vedolizumab, in order to minimize their risks.

Infections

Vedolizumab is a gut-selective integrin antagonist with no identified systemic immunosuppressive activity. Physicians should be aware of the potential increased risk of opportunistic infections or infections for which the gut is a defensive barrier. Vedolizumab treatment is not to be initiated in patients with active, severe infections such as tuberculosis, sepsis, cytomegalovirus, listeriosis, and opportunistic infections until the infections are controlled, and physicians should consider withholding treatment in patients who develop a severe infection while on chronic treatment with vedolizumab. Caution should be exercised when considering the use of vedolizumab in patients with a controlled chronic severe infection or a history of recurring severe infections. Patients should be monitored closely for infections before, during and after treatment. Before starting treatment with vedolizumab, screening for tuberculosis may be considered according to local practice. Some integrin antagonists and some systemic immunosuppressive agents have been associated with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), which is a rare and often fatal opportunistic infection caused by the JohnCunningham (JC) virus. By binding to the α4β7 integrinexpressed on gut-homing lymphocytes, vedolizumabexerts an immunosuppressive effect specific to thegut. Although no systemic immunosuppressive effect was noted in healthy subjects, the effects on systemicimmune system function in patients with inflammatorybowel disease are not known. Healthcare professionals should monitor patients on vedolizumab for any new onset or worsening of neurological signs and symptoms, and consider neurological referral if they occur. If PML is suspected, treatment with vedolizumab must bewithheld; if confirmed, treatment must be permanentlydiscontinued. Typical signs and symptoms associated with PML are diverse, progress over days to weeks, and include progressive weakness on one side of the body, clumsiness of limbs, disturbance of vision, and changes in thinking, memory, and orientation leading to confusion and personality changes. The progression ofdeficits usually leads to death or severe disability overweeks or months.

Malignancies

The risk of malignancy is increased in patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Immunomodulatory medicinal products may increase the risk of malignancy.

Prior and concurrent use of biological products

No vedolizumab clinical trial data are available for patients previously treated with natalizumab. No clinical trial data for concomitant use of vedolizumab with biologic immunosuppressants are available. Therefore, the use of vedolizumab in such patients is not recommended.

Vaccinations

Prior to initiating treatment with vedolizumab all patients should be brought up to date with all recommended immunizations. Patients receiving vedolizumab may receive non-live vaccines (e.g., subunit or inactivated vaccines) and may receive live vaccines only if thebenefits outweigh the risks.

Adverse reactions include: nasopharyngitis, headache, arthralgia, upper respiratory tract infection,bronchitis, influenza, sinusitis, cough, oropharyngealpain, nausea, rash, pruritus, back pain, pain in extremities, pyrexia, fatigue and anaphylaxis.
Please consult with your local regulatory agency for approved labeling in your country.
For U.S. audiences, please see the full Prescribing Information including Medication Guide for ENTYVIO®.
For EU audiences, please see the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) for ENTYVIO®.

Takeda’s Commitment to Gastroenterology

Gastrointestinal (GI) diseases can be complex, debilitating and life-changing. Recognizing this unmet need, Takeda and our collaboration partners have focused on improving the lives of patients through the delivery of innovative medicines and dedicated patient disease support programs for over 25 years. Takeda aspires to advance how patients manage their disease. Additionally, Takeda is leading in areas of gastroenterology associatedwith high unmet need, such as inflammatory boweldisease, acid-related diseases and motility disorders. Our GI Research & Development team is also exploring solutions in celiac disease and liver diseases, as well asscientific advancements through microbiome therapies.

About Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (TSE:4502/ NYSE:TAK) is a global, values-based, R&D-driven biopharmaceutical leader headquartered in Japan, committed to bringing Better Health and a Brighter Future to patients by translating science into highly- innovative medicines. Takeda focuses its R&D efforts on four therapeutic areas: Oncology, Gastroenterology (GI), Neuroscience, and Rare Diseases. We also make targeted R&D investments in Plasma-Derived Therapies and Vaccines. We are focusing on developing highly innovative medicines that contribute to making a difference in people’s lives by advancing the frontier of new treatment options and leveraging our enhanced collaborative R&D engine and capabilities to create a robust, modality-diverse pipeline. Our employees are committed to improving quality of life for patients and to working with our partners in health care in approximately 80 countries and regions.

For more information, visit Takeda Pharmaceutical’s website

FROM THE PEDIATRIC LITERATURE

Preventing Perinatal Transmission of Hepatitis C

Read Article

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is increasingin young adults, and better screening processes during pregnancy are warranted in order toprevent a subsequent increase in HCV infections in newborns. The authors used data from the “Recovery, Empowerment, Social Services, Prenatal care, Education, Community, and Treatment” (RESPECT) project from Boston Medical Center which cares for pregnant women with substance use disorders. Specifically, women with an opioid use disorder and who delivered a live birth from 2006 to 2015 were followed to see how well follow up occurred in a HCV cascade ofcare. The HCV cascade of care had managementcomponents utilized for both women and infants. Women who had live births were assessed for HCV infection. If they were HCV seropositive, they underwent HCV RNA testing to determine if they had viremia so that they could be linked to medical care. Subsequently, infants born to HCVseropositive mothers were screened per AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics guidelines, and all children with positive HCV antibody testing or RNA testing were linked to medical care, including consultationwith a pediatric infectious disease service. Motherswith and without HCV infection were compared, and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine various factors associated with linking to HCV care, including maternal age, race, distance from the medical center, HIV status, behavioral health diagnosis, tobacco use, substance use disorder, and opioid agonist therapy.

A total of 879 women with an associated opioid use disorder met inclusion criteria for the study and 510 subjects (68%) were HCV seropositive.Women who were seropositive were significantly more likely to be white, non-Hispanic, have a concomitant HIV infection, have used tobacco during pregnancy, and have been prescribed opioid agonist therapy at time of delivery. It was notedthat 369 of HCV seropositive women (72%) hadHCV RNA testing, but only 107 women who had positive HCV RNA testing (41%) were linked tosubsequent HCV care.

Additionally, 404 infants were included in the analysis who were born to mothers with positive HCV seropositivity. Only 180 infants (45%) finished testing for an HCV infection, and only5 of these infants (2.8%) were diagnosed withan HCV infection (and all of these infants were subsequently linked to care). Increased completion of HCV screening in infants was significantly associated with maternal HIV co-infection. Maternal methadone maintenance therapy also was associated with completion of HCV screening on univariate analysis only.

This study demonstrates that there are areasin the care chain warranting improvement forwomen and their infants with HCV positivity so that complete testing and potential referral for treatment can occur. This study shows that linking high-risk individuals to care has the opportunity to improve HCV treatment. It would be interesting to see how this care model would work in othergeographic regions of the United States.


Epstein R, Sabharwal V, Wachman E, Saia K, Vellozzi C, Hariri S, Linas B. Perinatal transmission of hepatitis C virus: defining the cascade of care. Journal of Pediatrics 2018; 203: 34-40

FROM THE LITERATURE

Screening for Pancreatic Cancer

Read Article

A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies to determine the diagnostic yield and outcomes of abdominal imaging screening for asymptomatic individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer, based on family history or genetic variants was carried out.

Through a systematic review of electronic databases and conference proceedings through July 2017, prospective cohort studies (greater than 20 patients), of asymptomatic adults with alifetime risk greater than 5%, including specificgenetic-associated conditions, who were screened by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and/or MRI to detect pancreatic lesions. The primary outcomewas identification of high-risk pancreatic lesions(high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, high-grade dysplasia, or adenocarcinoma) at initial screening and overall incidence during followup.

Summary estimates were reported as incidence rates per 100 patient-years.

A total of 19 studies were identified, comprising7085 individuals at high-risk for pancreatic cancer. Of these, 1660 patients were evaluated by EUS or MRI. A total of 59 high-risk lesionswere identified; 43 had no carcinomas; 28 duringthe initial examination and 15 during follow-up surveillance. A total of 257 patients underwent pancreatic surgery. Based on this meta-analysis, the overall diagnostic yield screening for high-riskpancreatic lesions was 0.74 per 100 patient-years,with moderate heterogeneity among studies. The number needed to screen to identify one patientwith a high-risk lesion was 135. The diagnosticyield was similar for patients with different genetic features at increased risk, and whether patients were screened by EUS or MRI.


Corral, J., Mareth, K., Riegert-Johnson, D., Daas, A., Wallace, M. “Diagnostic Yield from Screening Asymptomatic Individuals at High Risk for Pancreatic Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies.” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2019; Vol. 17, pp. 41-53.

Assessment of Fibrosis and Steatosis in NAFLD

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of vibration- controlled transient elastography (VCTE), which measures liver stiffness, a prospective study of393 adults with NAFLD was carried out within one year of liver histology analysis from 7/1/2014 through 7/31/2017.

Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) cut-off values for pairwise fibrosis stage and controlledattenuation parameter cut-off values for pairwise steatosis grade were determined using cross- validated area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) analyses.Diagnostic statistics were computed at a sensitivity fixed at 90% and a specificity fixed at 90%.

LSM identified patients with advanced fibrosis with an AUROC of 0.83 and patients with cirrhosis with an AUROC of 0.93. At a fixed sensitivity, a cut-off LSM of 6.5 kBa excluded advancedcirrhosis with a negative predictive value of 0.99.At a fixed specificity, LSM identified patients with advanced fibrosis with a positive predictive valueof 0.71 and patients with cirrhosis with a positivepredictive value of 0.41.

Controlled attenuation parameter analysis detected steatosis with an AUROC of 0.76. In contrast, the VCTE was less accurate indistinguishing lower fibrosis stages, higher steatosis grades, or the presence of NASH.

It was concluded in a prospective study ofadults with NAFLD, VCTE was found to accurately distinguish advanced vs earlier stages of fibrosis,using liver histology as the reference standard.

Siddiqui, M., Vuppalanchi, R., Van Natta, M., et al for the NASH Clinical Research Network. “Vibration-Controlled Transient Elastography to Assess Fibrosis and Steatosis in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2019; Vol. 17, pp. 156-163.

Transient Elastography in Apparently Healthy Individuals and Changes
in Liver Stiffness

A systematic review was carried out to determine the range of liver stiffness measurements (LSMs) examined by transient elastography in healthy individuals and individuals who are susceptible tofibrosis. Data was collected from 16,082 individuals in 26 cohorts, identified from systematic searches of MBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies of liver stiffness measurements.

Studies analyzed included apparently healthy adults (normal levels of liver enzymes, low-risk alcohol use patterns, and negative for markers of viral hepatitis). The presence of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or steatosis based on ultrasound examination was known for most participants.

Participants with a BMI less than 30 wereexamined with a medium probe and those witha BMI greater than 30 were examined with the extra-large probe. Linear regression models wereconducted after adjusting for potential confoundingfactors of LSMs. Several sensitivity analyses werecarried out.

LSM ranges for healthy individuals wereestablished, measured with both probes. They didnot change significantly in sensitivity analysesof individuals with normal platelet counts andnormal ALTs in men and women. Multivariate analysis factors that modified LSMs with statistical significance included diabetes, dyslipidemia(decrease), waist circumference, level of AST and systolic blood pressure at examination time.Significant increases in LSMs were associated witha metabolic syndrome in individuals examinedby either probe. Diabetes in obese individuals increased the risk of LSMs in range associated with advanced fibrosis.

It was concluded that a comprehensive setof LSM ranges measured by TE in large cohortsof healthy individuals and persons susceptibleto hepatic fibrosis regression analyses identified factors associated with increased LSMs obtainedby TE with the medium and extra-large probes.


Bazurbachi, F., Haffar, S., Wang, Z., et al. “Range of Normal Liver Stiffness and Factors Associated with Increased Stiffness Measurements in Apparently Healthy Individuals.” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2019; Vol. 17, pp. 54-64.

Thermal Ablation of Endoscopic
Mucosal Resection

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is performed to remove large laterally spreading colonic lesions with a high risk of progression to CRC. Because endoscopically invisible micro-adenomas at the margins of the EMR site might contribute toadenoma recurrence that occurs at 15-30% ofpatients who undergo surveillance, determinationof the efficacy of adjuvant thermal ablation of theEMR mucosal defect margin in reducing polyp recurrence was carried out.

A prospective study of 390 patients with largelaterally spreading colonic lesions (greater than20 mm/N = 416), referred for EMR at 4 tertiarycenters in Australia was carried out. After complete excision by EMR, lesions were randomly assigned. The thermal ablation of the post-EMR mucosaldefect margin (N = 210), or no additional treatment (N = 206), surveillance colonoscopies wereperformed with standardized photo documentation and biopsies of the scar after 5 to 6 months. Patient, procedure and lesion characteristics were similar between the groups. The primary endpoint wasdetection of lesion recurrence at first surveillancecolonoscopy.

A significantly lower proportion of patientswho received thermal ablation of the post-EMR mucosal defect margin had evidence of recurrenceat first surveillance colonoscopy (10/192; 5.2% and controls 37/176; 21%). The relative risk ofrecurrence in the thermal ablation group was 0.25 compared with the control group. Rates of adverse events were similar between the groups.

In this multicenter, randomized trial, it was concluded that thermal ablation in the post-EMRmucosal defect margin significantly reduced polyp recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy,compared with no additional treatment.


Klein, A., Tate, D., Jayasekeran, V., et al. “Thermal Ablation of Mucosal Defect Margins Reduces Adenoma Recurrence After Colonic Endoscopic Mucosal Resection.” Gastroenterology 2019; Vol. 156, pp. 604-613.

Common Sense Pediatric Gastroenterology: A Practical Guide

Read Article

Author: Timothy Blaufuss, DO
Publisher and year: BlaufCo, LLC Publishing, 2018
ISBN-13: 978-1719239653
Price: $19.99 (Paperback)

Common Sense Pediatric Gastroenterology: A Practical Guide, authored by Dr. Tim Blaufuss, was envisioned during a home call, when heidentified the need for a resource for commonpediatric gastroenterology related clinical questions. Dr. Blaufuss recently completed his pediatric gastroenterology fellowship at Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, MO, and has joined Sanford Health, Fargo, ND. This book primarily targets pediatric gastroenterology trainees; however, pediatricians, residents and currentpediatric gastroenterologists also will find this book beneficial.

The book is well-written in a bulleted format with extensive use of helpful tables, algorithms,flowcharts and formulas. The writing style makesthis book extremely easy to navigate, especially when tending to phone calls after hours. This pocket- sized, 50-60 page, light-weight book is divided into two major sections, namely Gastroenterology and Hepatology. These sections are further divided into

various topics and subtopics. A reference section highlighting crucial articles as they pertain to particular topics has been incorporated as well. The section on hepatology has an impressive outline for the work-up of laboratory abnormalities, and it addresses not only common biliary, autoimmune and infectious etiologies but also less common metabolic liver diseases and benign/malignant liver masses. The book concludes with a Quick Medication Guide where the most commonly used GI drugs, their doses, and common indicationsare efficiently tabulated. Most recent guidelinesand up-to-date evidence from a variety of sources have been used to formulate the book. In addition to addressing common symptoms, pathologies, and diseases, more rare clinical entities as well as their diagnosis, management, and treatment pearls also are discussed. In spite of being concise, this book is comprehensive and detailed. Of course, this book will maintain its applicability when updated frequently. In future editions, inclusion of endoscopy and histology pearls with imagesmight prove beneficial to readers.

In summary, this book cannot be applauded enough for its crisp format and thorough presentation of topics both common and rare. We would highly recommend this book to every budding pediatric gastroenterologist as a pocket guide for daily use.

FELLOW's CORNER

A Case of Small Bowel Intussusception in an Adult

Read Article

Sonmoon Mohapatra, Devendra Enjamuri, Arkady Broder, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Saint Peter’s University Hospital – Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson School of Medicine, New Brunswick, NJ.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 36-year-old male presented to the hospital with severe diffuse abdominal pain that was intermittent, with no significant aggravating or relieving factors. He also reported nausea and few episodes of non-bloody vomiting preceding the event. There was no weight loss, fever, chills, or constipation. There was no associated co-morbid conditions or previous history of abdominal surgery. Clinical examination showed normal vital signs. His abdomen was distended, and hyperactive bowel sounds were noted on auscultation. Investigations: complete blood count (CBC) and electrolytes were normal. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan and upper gastrointestinal series (UGI) with gastrografin of the abdomen is shown in Figure I. Follow up single balloon enteroscopy was performed (Figure II). He subsequently underwent surgery. The gross surgical specimen and histology is shown in Figure III and Figure IV respectively. 

Questions

  • 1. What is the radiological diagnosis?
  • 2. a) What is the endoscopic diagnosis? 
    b) What does the histology show? 
  • 3. What is the most common cause of this finding in adults? 
  • 4. What are the non-obstructive causes of this disease? 

Discussion

  • 1. This paper illustrates an unusual case of intussusception in an adult with the lead lesion being a hamartoma. Figure I shows a focal mass like a filling defect in the small bowel lumen (3.2 cm in maximal diameter) acting as a lead point of the intussusception. Adult intussusception represents 5% of all cases of intussusception and only 1-5% presents with intestinal obstruction. Although the cause of intussusception in children is largely idiopathic, the majority of the adult cases is non-idiopathic and are associated with a pathological structural lead point. Adult intussusception is commonly diagnosed by CT scan.1 Ultrasonography (USG) can be performed alternatively if the CT scan is unavailable. “Doughnut” or “pseudo kidney” signs may be present on the USG suggesting intussusception.1 The “target sign” and “crescent sign” are some other specific abdominal radiographic findings. 
  • 2. a) Single balloon enteroscopy showed a large polypoid mass in the mid-jejunum [Figure II]. The patient underwent segmental small bowel resection (jejunal) including a regional lymph node removal [Figure III]. 3. b) Pathology showed a central core of smooth muscle extending into the polyp in an arborizing fashion, which was covered by normal small bowel mucosa suggesting Peutz-Jeghers polyp [Figure IV]. 
  • 4. The most common causes of small bowel intussusception in adults include malignancies (commonly metastatic), benign tumors (such as adenomatous polyps, fibromas, lipomas, hamartomas, leiomyomas), adhesions and lymphoid hyperplasia.2
  • 5. Non-obstructive diseases such as cystic fibrosis, scleroderma, celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, appendicitis, pancreatitis and rectal foreign bodies may also cause intussusception in adults.2 A hamartomatous polyp is diagnosed as a solitary Peutz-Jeghers polyp (PJP) when it does not meet the WHO criteria of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS). PJS is a rare clinical entity characterized by distinct mucocutaneous pigmentation and intestinal hamartomatous polyps. PJS is commonly seen in the 2nd and 3rd decade whereas solitary PJP is diagnosed often in the 4thdecade.3 A mutation of the LKB1/STK11 gene is found in 50-94% of the patients with PJS. There is an increased risk of gastrointestinal malignancies in patients with PJS. An increased prevalence of malignancies has been shown in PJS with a relative risk for gastrointestinal cancer of 13 (95% confidence interval, 2.7-38.1) and non-gastrointestinal cancer of 9 (95% confidence interval, 4.2-17.3).4 No optimal screening strategy has yet been described. Some proposed screening strategies include upper gastrointestinal endoscopy every 2 years beginning at age 10, colonoscopy every 3 years starting at age 25, and small-bowel screening starting at age 10.4

Download Tables, Images & References

DISPATCHES FROM THE GUILD CONFERENCE, SERIES #21

Biosimilars for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Read Article

Biosimilars are biologic products that are highly similar to a previously approved reference (or originator) biologic drug in terms of safety, purity, and potency (efficacy). These medications are increasingly being approved by global regulatory agencies in the hopes of reducing treatment costs. This review aims to answer common questions regarding biosimilars and their use for IBD. It is written in a question/answer format for easy reference and guides the reader from the basics of biosimilars, to clinically relevant questions encountered in the clinic, to their policy implications, among other topics.

Biosimilars are biologic products that are highly similar to a previously approved reference (or originator) biologic drug in terms of safety, purity, and potency (efficacy). These medications are increasingly being approved by global regulatory agencies in the hopes of reducing treatment costs. To date, six biosimilars in the United States have been approved for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Despite their approval by regulatory bodies and several years-worth of ‘real world’ evidence supporting their use, this class of medications remain somewhat unfamiliar to many clinicians and patients. This review aims to answer common questions regarding biosimilars and their use for IBD. It is written in a question/ answer format for easy reference and guides the reader from the basics of biosimilars, to clinically relevant questions encountered in the clinic, to their policy implications, among other topics.

1Vivek A. Rudrapatna, MD 2Fernando Velayos, MD 1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA 2Department of Gastroenterology, Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, San Francisco, CA

INTRODUCTION

This review addresses the use of biosimilars in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Here we aim to guide the reader from the basics of biosimilars, to clinically relevant questions encountered in the clinic, to their policy implications, among other topics. The goal is to provide an evidence-based review of the topic that answers common questions and can be applied easily to the clinic, for both counseling IBD patients on the use of biosimilars and taking care of patients who are on biosimilars or considering a switch from an originator product. 

What are biosimilars?

Biosimilars are biologic products that are highly similar to a previously approved reference (or originator) biologic drug in terms of safety, purity, and potency (efficacy). In the United States (US), biosimilar products first entered regulatory pathways following the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which included the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. This act created an abbreviated licensure pathway for new biologic products to be marketed as either biosimilar to or interchangeable with a previously approved reference product. Biosimilarity and Interchangeability (Table 1) are distinct and not synonymous marketing categories.

Although biosimilars might sound like another name for generics, they are in fact different. Understanding the difference relies on understanding the differences between biologics and small molecule drugs. Small molecules are the most common class of pharmacotherapies. They are small by atomic size (e.g. Aspirin, 21 atoms), structurally simple, and uniformly manufactured by a short, well-defined process of organic chemical synthesis leading to a homogenous product. By contrast, biologics such as vaccines, hormones (e.g. epoetin alfa), and monoclonal antibodies (e.g. infliximab) are large (∼103-104 atoms) and structurally complex. They are typically derived from living systems (e.g. cultured cells or organisms), and as such involve a more complex manufacturing process, continual surveillance for contamination, and regular assessment of batch-to-batch heterogeneity. The output is a product that is more immunogenic than small molecules, and considerably more expensive. As such, the process of ‘replicating’ a reference small molecule product (e.g. a generic) is much more straightforward and less expensive than the analogous process for a reference biologic (e.g. a biosimilar).

Is it possible to distinguish an originator from a biosimilar prescription?

In the US, six biosimilars have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as of December 2018 (Table 2). Three are infliximab biosimilars – Inflectra™ (infliximab-dyyb), Renflexis™ (infliximab-abda), and Ixfi™ (infliximab-qbtx) – and three are adalimumab biosimilars – Amjevita™ (adalimumab-atto), Cyltezo™ (adalimumab-adbm), and Hyrimoz™ (adalimumab-adaz). Each biosimilar has a unique, non-proprietary name designed to identify the base compound (i.e. infliximab) and distinguish it from the originator and from other biosimilars with the use of a four-letter suffix (that has no inherent meaning). Thus, when prescribing a biosimilar, the trade name or non-proprietary name with a four-letter suffix should be specified. Of the FDA approved biosimilars, only Inflectra™ (infliximab-dyyb) and Renflexis™ (infliximab-abda) have been marketed in the US. The adalimumab biosimilars appear to be in patent litigation with the likely possibility of no market competition until 2023.

How are biosimilars approved?

Recognizing the above differences in complexity and cost, global regulatory bodies such as the FDA and European Medicines Agency have outlined pathways to efficiently approve any new product shown to be sufficiently similar to a reference product that is no longer under patent protection. In order to achieve a balance between rapid approval and confidence in the new agent, the FDA’s current guidance relies on two principles: 1) explicit demonstration of substantial similarity between the proposed product and the reference, and 2) implicit reliance on the existing safety and efficacy evidence in support of the reference product across treatment indications. 

The abbreviated pathway for biosimilar approval acknowledges that the goals of biosimilar development are fundamentally different from that of novel agents; while new biologics must be demonstrated to be safe and efficacious for each proposed indication, the burden of proof for biosimilars primarily lies in demonstration of substantial similarity to the reference product (Figure 1). To demonstrate biosimilarity, the FDA has outlined a step-wise approach with a heavy emphasis on analytical assays and clinical pharmacology. The objectives of biochemical assays are to comprehensively characterize the attributes of the molecule, including any post-translational modifications (e.g. folding, subunit interactions, glycosylation) that might affect the immunogenicity of the product. Because biosimilars must be delivered using the same administration route, dose, and frequency as the reference product, they must be shown to have essentially equivalent pharmacokinetics. 

How were biosimilars approved for IBD?

A key distinction between applications for novel biologic therapies and biosimilars is that the latter can potentially be approved for all of the indications of the reference product without explicit safety and efficacy testing for each indication. This process, called extrapolation (Table 1), is contingent on a case-by-base assessment of the known mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and other factors. Take for instance the first biosimilar to be FDA-approved for IBD: infliximab-dyyb (i.e. CT-P13, Inflectra™). Although this agent was approved for all the indications of originator infliximab (including Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis), the only controlled testing of the drug at the time of approval included a phase 1 study for ankylosing spondylitis (PLANETAS1) and a phase 3 study for rheumatoid arthritis (PLANETRA2). 

The rationale in the approval process given by the FDA and other regulatory bodies is that the pre-clinical data as well as the clinical trial data for which infliximab-dyyb was formally tested (i.e. the totality of the data) supported its mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and toxicity as being sufficiently similar to infliximab as used for IBD. While extrapolation for each indication is performed on a case-by-case basis based on the totality of the data, this process serves to accelerate the delivery of biosimilar products and to reduce costs by avoiding replicative clinical trials for each clinical indication for which the originator is approved.

Is there controlled trial evidencefor the use of biosimilars in IBD?

Although the approval of biosimilars for IBD has been based on extrapolated data, controlled trial data have emerged examining the use of biosimilars in IBD (Table 3). The NOR-SWITCH trial3 was a double-blind, non-inferiority study of patients receiving originator infliximab who were randomly assigned to either continue this treatment or switch to infliximab-dyyb. Of the 482 enrolled subjects who underwent randomization and treatment assignment, 155 had Crohn’s disease and 93 had ulcerative colitis. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint disease worsening by non-invasive scores (including the Harvey-Bradshaw Index4 and partial Mayo score5 for the IBD subgroups, respectively). Subgroup analysis of the IBD patient population, analyzed by per-protocol analysis and adjusted for the duration of reference Infliximab use demonstrated non-inferiority both globally as well as within both IBD subgroups. Moreover, there were no systematic differences seen between groups for inflammatory markers (e.g. fecal calprotectin, c-reactive protein), anti-drug antibodies, pharmacokinetics, safety, or number of patients in clinical remission at one year.

A second randomized controlled trial of infliximab-dyyb in biologic-naive patients with active Crohn’s has recently been published.6 The study randomized patients to inflixmab vs infliximab-dyyb for 30 weeks, and subsequently re-randomized patients to continue versus crossover and continue through 54 total weeks of observation. The investigators assessed a primary endpoint of clinical response by Crohn’s Disease Activity Index-70 (CR-70) criteria at week 6; secondary endpoints included CR-70 at weeks 30 and 54. The investigators found that infliximab-dyyb met the non-inferiority margin of 20% and showed no concerning differences in safety compared to the originator infliximab.

What has been the real-world experience with IBD biosimilars from a safety and efficacy standpoint? 

A sizeable number of publications reporting real-world experience of switching IBD patients to biosimilars have already been published (Table3). Most of this data has come from Europe, where national healthcare payors exercise greater control over treatment options. 

The overall consensus from these studies, which range from studies of both new starts on infliximab products7 vs switching from the reference to the biosimilar in adults8-12 and children,9 is that biosimilars appear to have similar safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity as the reference. These findings have for the most part been consistent with the experience for rheumatological disease. Of note, all of these referenced studies are of infliximab products; very limited data of adalimumab biosimilars in IBD has been published thus far.

The largest of these studies to date was an administrative database study of infliximab-naive Crohn’s patients initiated on reference infliximab vs infliximab-dyyb.13 Time-to-event analysis for a primary composite endpoint of Crohn’s related surgery, all-cause hospitalization, and reimbursement for another biologic demonstrated non-inferiority of the biosimilar within a prespecified margin of 10% – an even tighter margin than that of the NOR-SWITCH trial. They additionally showed no signal for differences in safety between the biosimilar and reference product. Some open-label studies have suggested higher discontinuation rates upon switching to a biosimilar, especially in the setting of rheumatologic disease. These findings have raised the possibility of a significant nocebo effect14-15 – a diminished or negative effect of medical treatment resulting from adverse patient expectations. As such, increased patient education on biosimilars has been recommended as a means of mitigating this effect. 

Are biosimilars considered interchangeable with the reference product? Who determines what version of the drug my patient will get?

Although biosimilars are considered highly similar to the reference product, they are not considered interchangeable. Interchangeability as defined by the FDA is a more stringent standard, implying that 1) it would be expected to produce the same clinical result in any given patient as the reference, and 2) that the risks of safety or diminished efficacy resulting from alternating or switching between products is no greater than that of using the originator without switching. The consequences of interchangeability are that such biosimilars may be substituted for the reference without the intervention of the prescriber, subject to state pharmacy laws. Meeting this higher standard requires additional data and studies from the manufacturer of a proposed interchangeable product.

To date, no biologics for any indication have been approved by the FDA as interchangeable. This does not imply that patients should not be switched or newly initiated on biosimilar products, but rather that patients in the US will receive the specific version of a biologic prescribed by their provider, and switches between biologic cannot be done without the provider’s knowledge or approval. 

What is the position of gastroenterology societies and patient advocacy societies on switching from the originator to a biosimilar product for IBD?

While there are many high-quality patient and physician resources on the use of biologics from the American College of Gastroenterology and American Gastroenterology Association, formal position statements have been published by the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation and the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization on switching.16 (Table 3) The Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation does not oppose single transitions of stable patients from an originator to a biosimilar (or vice versa) by third parties (payers or pharmacies), but is opposed to multiple switches if the agents involved have not been designated as interchangeable by the FDA. They also endorse, when switches occur, that patients and providers are informed of the exact agent the patient is receiving and whether it has received an interchangeable designation.

The European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization (ECCO) reports that switching from the originator to a biosimilar in patients with IBD is acceptable.17 They highlight that scientific and clinical evidence is lacking regarding reverse switching, multiple switching and cross-switching among biosimilars. They endorse that switches should be performed that switches should be performed following appropriate discussions between patients and their physician and other team, members.

Can biosimilars be used in patients who have had a secondary loss of response or adverse reaction to an originator product? Can they be monitored using existing therapeutic drug monitoring assays?

A secondary loss of response to a biologic describes a common phenomenon whereby a patient experiences an adequate response when the therapy is started but then experiences either a subsequent waning response (symptoms recur before the next dose) or full flare at any point before the following dose. The most informative study related to this question was one that specifically tested the cross-reactivity of anti-infliximab antibodies to infliximab-dyyb in 125 IBD patients. The investigators found that sera from all of the patients with antibodies to the originator cross-reacted to infliximab-dyyb whereas none of the controls without anti-infliximab antibodies showed cross-reactivity. The anti-drug antibody titers against infliximab and infliximab-dyyb were almost perfectly correlated. Moreover, they showed that these antibodies showed similar functional competition for and inhibition of drug binding to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-a).

Overall, the results suggest two important points. First, biosimilar drugs are sufficiently similar to the originator as to result in meaningful results when subject to existing assays for therapeutic drug monitoring and anti-drug antibodies against the reference product. Second, patients with non-response to the originator drug are unlikely to benefit from a trial of a biosimilar and may even be at increased risk for complications mediated by anti-drug antibodies such as anaphylaxis. Thus, we typically do not recommend using the biosimilar to an originator biologic in the patient who experiences a secondary loss of response or adverse reaction to the originator with the expectation that the outcome will be different than using the originator.

Have biosimilars lowered the cost of treatment and/or increased access to treatment?

Early and preliminary data from Europe have been optimistic regarding the cost savings resulting from the introduction of biosimilars into the market. At the 2018 Interdisciplinary Autoimmune Summit, Jonathan Kay reported that the Norwegian government was able to secure a 40% cost savings on infliximab as a result of a competitive bidding process.18 Cost projections published by authors from the RAND corporation proposed a potential windfall of $44.2 billion as in the US over a ten-year window.19 However, data supporting increased access to care because of widespread biosimilar entry into the marketplace is not yet available. 

CONCLUSION

In summary, biosimilars are biologic products that are highly similar to, and lacking in, clinically meaningful differences from the off-patent reference product. Six anti-TNF biosimilars have been approved in the US, but only the two infliximab biosimilars are widely available at this time. No currently approved biosimilar has a designation as interchangeable. Based on scientific extrapolation, evidence from controlled trials and real-world experience in IBD, data supports the use of biosimilars for both treatment initiation and switching as safe, effective, and potentially cheaper alternatives to the originator biologic.

Download Tables, Images & References

FRONTIERS IN ENDOSCOPY, SERIES #51

Pancreaticopleural Fistula: Diagnosis and Management of Three Cases

Read Article

Pancreaticopleural fistulas are uncommon complications of pancreatitis that occur when there is a disruption in the pancreatic duct, causing pancreatic fluid to track through the retroperitoneum and into the pleural cavities. Treatment of pancreaticopleural fistulas can include conservative medical therapy, ERCP intervention using pancreatic duct stent, and operative therapy which should be considered a last resort if all prior therapies fail. This manuscript serves to highlight why ERCP with pancreatic duct stenting should be considered first line therapy when treating a pancreaticopleural fistula.

Madeleine Birch, Linda Jo Taylor, Douglas G. Adler MD, FACG, AGAF, FASGE University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT

INTRODUCTION

Pancreaticopleural fistulas are uncommon complications of pancreatitis that occur when there is a disruption in the pancreatic duct, causing pancreatic fluid to track through the retroperitoneum and into the pleural cavities.1 Treatment of pancreaticopleural fistulas can includemconservative medical therapy, ERCP intervention using pancreatic duct stent, and operative therapy which should be considered a last resort if all prior therapies fail. This manuscript serves to highlight why ERCP with pancreatic duct stenting should be considered first line therapy when treating a pancreaticopleural fistula.

CASE REPORT

Case #1

A 46-year-old male with a history of alcohol induced chronic pancreatitis and recurrent pleural effusions presented to the emergency department with severe septicemia, shortness of breath, chest pain and abdominal pain. On chest x-ray, patient was found to have a right-sided large pleural effusion and pleural empyema. Thoracentesis was performed, and the pleural fluid had high amylase level of 10,000 U/dL and the empyema was positive for Actinomyces. In addition to chest drainage, the patient was referred for pancreatic duct stenting via ERCP to reduce the intraductal pressure and divert pancreatic secretions away from the fistulous tract. The ERCP showed dye extravasation at the level of the pancreatic tail. (Figure 1) Ventral pancreatic sphincterotomy was made in the minor papilla and one 5 Fr by 15 cm stent with two external and two internal flaps was placed in a transampullary manner. Repeat ERCP was performed 8 weeks later and no extravasation of contrast dye was noted, suggestive of a healed fistulous tract. The pleural effusion resolved without recurrence. 

Case #2

A 39-year-old male with history of alcohol induced acute pancreatitis and pseudocysts presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath, right sided chest pain, and was found to have a large right-sided plural effusion. Thoracentesis was performed, and the pleural fluid was found to have an amylase level of > 2,500 U/dL. The patient was referred for ERCP and pancreatic duct stenting to redirect fluid flow into duodenum and allow the fistulous tract to heal over time. The ERCP showed a high pancreatic duct disruption with extravasation of dye toward the right hemidiaphragm just above the level of the ampulla. (Figure 2) One 5 Fr by 5 cm plastic stent with two external flaps and a single internal flap was placed in the ventral pancreatic duct. Repeat ERCP showed complete resolution of fistulous tract. 

Case #3

A 40-year-old female with history of idiopathic pancreatitis presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath, pleuritic chest pain and left abdominal and flank pain. The CXR showed a large, left sided pleural effusion. (Figure 3a) Patient underwent a thoracentesis which showed high amylase levels of 34,000 U/gL. The patient was referred for ERCP, which showed a high grade pancreatic duct leak at the level of the pancreatic tail. (Figure 3b) One 7 Fr by 9 cm plastic stent with two external flaps and two internal flaps was placed in the ventral pancreatic duct in the tail of her pancreas. On repeat ERCP six weeks later, a small persistent leak was noted and the decision was made to place a 5 Fr by 5 cm plastic stent with two external flaps and a single internal flap into the ventral pancreatic duct. Subsequent ERCP four weeks later showed complete resolution of the fistulous tract.

Discussion

Pancreaticopleural fistulas are a rare and severe manifestation of pancreatitis. They are most commonly associated with alcohol-induced acute or chronic pancreatitis but can be associated with trauma or iatrogenic injury, among other causes.2 The pathophysiology of a pancreatic fistulas results from underlying inflammation that disrupts the pancreatic duct resulting in the formation of an alternative drainage pathway where pancreatic secretions, containing digestive enzymes and bicarbonate, take the path of least resistance.3 If the disruption in the pancreatic duct tracks anteriorly, a pancreaticoperitoneal fistula can communicate freely with the peritoneal cavity, manifesting as pancreatic ascites.4 If the disruption occurs posteriorly, these fistulous tracts can dissect through the retroperitoneum and into the pleural cavity. Such communications can result in left or right sided pleural effusions that can require management and can be acute, subacute, or chronic.5 There are substantial mortality risks associated with the development of a pancreaticopleural fistulas. While patients can experience severe electrolyte losses related to loss of sodium and bicarbonate in pancreatic secretions, most deaths are attributable to sepsis or hemorrhage.6

Patients with pancreaticopleural fistulas often present with chest pain, shortness of breath, respiratory distress and cough. Simultaneous pancreatic ascites is present in 20% of reported cases.7 Abdominal pain can also be present.8 Pleural effusions are often diagnosed after a chest radiograph or CT scan but identifying the pancreas as the source of disease can remain difficult if there is no overt antecedent history of pancreatitis. 

Diagnosis of a pancreatiopleural fistula is often made by performing a throacocentesis with an associated pleural fluid analysis. The defining feature of a pancreaticopleural fistula is an exudative pleural fluid with a high amylase content (greater than 1000 U/dL).9High lipase and high albumin (greater than 3 g/dL) levels are also noted to be characteristic of a pancreaticopleural fistula.6 Serum amylase levels have no diagnostic reliability, may or may not be elevated, and are generally not clinically valuable.10 Once a diagnosis of a pancreatiopleural fistula has been made, ERCP is typically performed to identify the fistula directly and provide endoscopic treatment. 

Pancreaticopleural effusions can be difficult complications to manage; they are rare entities with no clear guideline for management. A study by Virgilio et al. reported a total of 74 documented cases worldwide.11 Initial intervention can include total parenteral nutrition and drugs such as somatostatin and its analogues to decrease basal and food-stimulated pancreatic secretions. Conservative treatments have a success rate of 25-60% if continued for one month.12 Still, these are often inadequate; in a study by Schweigert et al. nonoperative measurements extending for greater than 17 weeks were associated with a substantial increased risk of septic complications such as pleural empyema.13 Definitive interventional therapy is preferable in most cases. 

ERCP is performed to decompress the pancreatic duct and reduce the ductal pressure. A pancreatic stent is commonly placed to divert pancreatic secretions away from the fistulous tract and out through the pancreatic duct to the duodenal lumen.14 Operative management may rarely be needed if other conservative therapies fail to close the fistulous tract or if the patient has high grade strictures, a disconnected pancreatic duct, or in the event of an unsuccessful ERCP.15 Morbidity and mortality rates must be weighed against potential complications of operative treatment. Early operative intervention of distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy after failed endoscopic management is associated with fewer septic complications, but represents maximally invasive therapy.16

In a review reported by Altasan et al. 5%-15% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop complications including pseudocyst, necrosis, or pancreaticopleural fistula. Pleural effusion was noted in 3%-17% of cases and was associated with a worse prognosis.17 The development of a fistulous tract is associated with pseudocyst formation in 77% of cases. Patient age of presentation ranged from 20-60 years in 95% of the reported cases.18 In a literature review reported by Ali et al. 52 cases of pancreaticopleural fistulas were reported. Patients presented with dyspnea in 65% of cases, abdominal pain in (29%) cough (27%) and chest pain (23%). ERCP diagnosed fistulous tracts in 25 (78%) of 32 patients, CT scan was used to diagnose the pancreatiopleural fistula in 8 of 17 patients, and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography was used for diagnosis in 8 of 10 patients. Medical therapy was successful in as a primary intervention in 61% of the cases. ERCP with pancreatic duct stent placement was performed without first giving Octeotride intervention in 13 (25%) cases as initial therapy and surgical intervention as primary treatment was performed in 13% of cases. Conservative medical therapy failed in 65% of the cases but resolved with ERCP and surgical intervention.19

Medical therapy alone including drainage of chest fluid carries high failure rates and greatly increases the patient’s chances of needing more aggressive definitive intervention.20 While ERCP is more invasive than conservative medical treatment alone, it carries significantly fewer risks than operative therapy. During ERCP, pancreatic duct stents can be placed to bridge the ductal disruption (if possible) or simply be placed in a transampullary manner thereby diverting pancreatic secretions away from the fistulous tract and out to the duodenum. All of these effects help facilitate fistula healing.21 Most fistula tracts develop in the head or body of the pancreas where bridging with a pancreatic stent is accessible.6 If the fistulous tract is present in the tail of the pancreas, the pancreatic duct stent should be placed as close to the ductal disruption as possible if bridging across the disruption cannot be accomplished. In a study reported by Pai et al., 28 patients who presented with PPF, 92.8% of patients had complete resolution of pancreatic ascites or pleural effusion after they underwent endoscopic stenting with pancreatic sphincterotomy. Therapeutic interventions consisted of a 5mm sphincterotomy and placement of a 7 Fr pancreatic stent.22 A high percentage of pancreatic stents occlude within 3 months of placement some authors suggest placing pancreatic duct stent in addition to performing a sphincterotomy, although it must be said that individual techniques vary and there are no strict guidelines for this situation.23-24 Pai et al. were unable to conclude if sphincterotomy performed as a single intervention without subsequent pancreatic duct stenting was successful in resolution of the fistula. 20 Neher et al. reported successful treatment of a pancreaticopleural fistula with placement of a 7F nasopancreatic drain after the fistulous tract persisted following 7F stent placement. Nasopancreatic drains allow for repeated pancreatograms without further procedures, although in practice they are rarely employed given the high level of patient inconvenience they create.25 Conservative medical therapy alone was previously only continued for 2 to 4 weeks. Due to the high success rate of conservative medical therapy combined with ERCP intervention, conservative management can be continued up to 2.5 to 6 months.19

In summary, pancreaticopleural fistulas resulting in pleural effusions are rare complications of pancreatitis. Pleural effusion with a history of alcohol use and/or pancreatitis should raise clinical suspicion for presence of a pancreaticopleural fistula. Nonoperative treatments are often successful in resolution of fistulous tracts, mostly via endoscopic means. ERCP and pancreatic duct stent placement with or without sphincterotomy should be considered first line therapy when approaching treatment of such fistulas.

Download Tables, Images & References

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE: A PRACTICAL APPROACH, SERIES #106

The IBD Therapeutic Pipeline Is Primed to Produce

Read Article

There has not been a more exciting time in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) since the approval of infliximab in 1998. In addition to multiple recently approved medications including vedolizumab, ustekinumab, and recently tofacitinib, the IBD pipeline continues to expand at a remarkable rate. This review will provide an update on the current and future IBD drugs, focusing on promising therapies currently in late stage or advanced human clinical trials.

Jeffrey A. Berinstein, MD, Calen A. Steiner, MD, MS, Peter D.R. Higgins, MD, PhD, MSc Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

INTRODUCTION

There has not been a more exciting time in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) since the approval of infliximab in 1998. In addition to multiple recently approved medications including vedolizumab, ustekinumab, and recently tofacitinib, the IBD pipeline continues to expand at a remarkable rate. There are multiple emerging therapies in known and effective drug classes as well as multiple potential therapies with novel mechanisms of action (MOA). Therapies currently on the market employ a variety of different MOAs including anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab), immune system modulation (azathioprine, 6-MP), anti-integrin or anti-adhesion (vedolizumab), anti-interleukin 12/23 (ustekinumab), and Janus lkinase (JAK) inhibitors (tofacitinib). The IBD pipeline now boasts additional therapies in each of these broad MOA groups, as well as therapies with completely novel mechanisms including regenerative therapy, immune cell modulation, microbiome targeting, nutrition-based, apheresis, hormone modulation, and PDE-4 inhibitors. This review will provide an update on the current and future IBD drugs, focusing on promising therapies currently in late stage or advanced human clinical trials.

CYTOKINES

TNF-α Inhibitors

The modulation of cytokines is a pivotal modality for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, and there are several pipeline drugs targeting various different cytokines. While the intricate and complicated roles of many cytokines remain to be elucidated, several have emerged as targets in inflammatory diseases such as Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC).

The first approved specific cytokine-targeting drug to treat inflammatory bowel disease was the TNF-α inhibitor infliximab. Infliximab was approved in the United States (US) for Crohn’s disease in 1998 under the trade name Remicade. Three other TNF-α inhibitors have since been approved for use in inflammatory bowel disease, adalimumab (Humira) for CD and UC, certolizumab (Cimzia) for CD, and golimumab (Simponi) for UC. At this time several new TNF-α inhibitors have been studied in Crohn’s disease. DLX 105 (ESBATech) is an anti-TNF-α antibody, and its use for fistulizing Crohn’s disease has been studied as a fistula-targeted local injection in a phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01624376), but no results are available. Two oral anti-TNF-α therapies, V565 (VHsquared) and OPRX-106 (Protalix Bio), are in the pipeline. V565 is currently recruiting for a phase II trial for patients with moderately to severely active CD (NCT02976129) after reportedly favorable results in a phase Ib trial (NCT03010787). OPRX-106 demonstrated efficacy in clinical and biomarker improvement in a phase II trial of patients with mild to moderate UC.1 These exciting therapies are worth watching as the oral mode of administration could be of clinical benefit with a much easier mode of administration than currently available TNF-α inhibitors. 

In addition to more novel TNF-α inhibitors, biosimilar agents to infliximab have recently entered the market. In 2016 the FDA approved Inflectra (Remsima)(Pfizer), a biosimilar of infliximab, and this has been followed by Renflexis (Flixabi)(Merck). The FDA approved Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm) (Boehringer-Ingelheim) in 2017 and Hyrimoz (adalimumab-adaz) (Sandoz) in 2018, both biosimilars to Humira. In September of 2018, Hulio (Mylan and Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics), another biosimilar to adalimumab, was approved for use in IBD in Europe. 

The approval of biosimilars is based largely on extrapolation from efficacy trials in other inflammatory conditions, as the biosimilar is nearly identical to the reference medication and therefore should have the same clinical effects in the same diseases.2 While this rationale is not uncontested, early evidence in multiple studies from Europe supports their use.2-4 Furthermore, several clinical trials investigating the clinical use of biosimilars compared to infliximab in CD and UC are in progress (NCT02452151, NCT03308357, NCT02846961, NCT02998398, NCT02925338). Given the substantial cost of biologic medications and the ever-present need to provide cost-effective treatment strategies, the use of biosimilars is likely to increase, and many more biosimilar medications are likely to come to market in the near future.

Anti-Interleukins

Several interleukins (ILs), a subset of cytokines, play a critical role in gut inflammation and the pathogenesis of IBD and have been identified as important treatment targets. Perhaps the most promising target interleukin is IL23 with or without concomitant inhibition of IL12. IL23 and IL12 are critical mediators of T cell differentiation and function.5 While the exact role of IL12 and IL23 in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease is unclear, IL23 in particular is thought to be important in the pathogenesis of CD through induction of IL22 expression.6 Ustekinumab (Stelara) (Janssen) is an inhibitor of IL12 and IL23 through direct action on P40, a subunit of both interleukins.5 In 2016 ustekinumab became the only approved IL12/23 inhibitor in inflammatory bowel disease (CD), and a recent phase III long-term extension trial demonstrated reduction in the incidence of CD-related hospitalization, surgery, and alternative biologic therapy at two years in patients treated with ustekinumab compared to placebo.7

There are several specific IL23 inhibitors currently in clinical trials. Two of the most promising IL23 inhibitors currently in the pipeline, are MEDI2070 (brazikumab) (Allergan) and risankizumab (AbbVie). Both MEDI2070 and risankizumab are selective inhibitors of IL23 via selective binding of the p19 subunit, a component of IL23 but not IL12.6,8 MEDI2070 recently demonstrated efficacy in a phase IIa trial for patients with moderate to severe CD who had previously failed anti-TNF therapy.6 In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 119 patients received either placebo or 700mg MEDI2070 IV at weeks 0 and 4, followed by open-label MEDI2070 210 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks from week 12-112. The primary outcome of clinical response at week 8, (either remission defined as a Crohn’s disease activity index [CDAI] score <150, or a decrease in CDAI score of 100 from baseline), was achieved in 49.2% of the MEDI2070 group compared to 26.7% of the placebo group (p=0.010). In the open label phase of this study, 53.8% of patients that continued to get MEDI2070 and 57.7% of patients who had received placebo then transitioned to open label MEDI2070 achieved clinical response at week 24. A phase IIb/III trial of MEDI2070 in patients with moderate to severe CD is currently active (NCT03759288) as is a phase II trial of MEDI2070 in patients with UC (NCT03616821).

More recently, risankizumab demonstrated efficacy in a phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial for patients with moderate-to-severe CD.8 In this study 121 patients were randomized, and the primary outcome was clinical remission (CDAI score <150) at week 12. Patients received intravenous infusions of either risankizumab 200 mg, risankizumab 600 mg, or placebo at weeks 0, 4, and 8. The primary outcome was achieved in 31% of the pooled risankizumab arm versus 15% of the placebo arm (p = 0.0489). When separating the risankizumab dose groups, 24% of the 200mg group and 37% of the 600 mg risankizumab group achieved clinical remission (p = 0.31 and p = 0.0252 respectively). A long-term extension phase II trial of risankizumab in patients with moderately to severely active CD is currently underway (NCT02513459), as well as three phase III studies for use in CD that are currently either recruiting or planned (NCT03105128, NCT03104413, NCT03105102). 

Several other IL23 specific inhibitors are rapidly entering clinical trials for CD and UC, including mirikizumab (LY3074828) (Eli Lilly), tildrakizumab (Sun Pharma), and guselkumab (Janssen).9 Of the three, mirikizumab is farthest along in development with two phase II clinical trials recruiting, one for active CD (SERENITY) and another for moderate to severe UC (NCT02891226, NCT02589665 respectively). Guselkumab recently started recruiting for a combined phase II/phase III trial in CD (GALAXI)(NCT03466411) with an expected enrollment of over 2000 participants with a smaller phase IIa trial in UC patients (NCT03662542).

The selective inhibition of IL23 and sparing of IL12 may add increased safety, as IL12 plays a role in defense against intracellular pathogens and may be important in susceptibility to mycobacterial disease.9 Furthermore, risakizumab demonstrated superiority over ustekinumab in a phase II trial for patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.10 This further supports the notion that selective IL23 blockade may be superior to combined IL12/23 inhibition for use in inflammatory or autoimmune conditions. The positioning of ustekinumab and other inhibitors of interleukin 23 for use in clinical practice is still being sorted out. One patient subset that may be ideally suited for use of IL12/23 inhibition is patients with CD as well as psoriasis, or those that develop psoriasis induced by TNF-α inhibitors. These assertions are supported by the efficacy of ustekinumab in patients with CD and severe psoriasiform lesions and/or alopecia secondary to TNF-α inhibitor use.9 Additionally, ustekinumab has been proposed as a potential first line agent for moderate to severe CD given comparable efficacy and more favorable safety profile than TNF-α inhibitors,9 although head-to-head data is lacking and more research is needed. 

In addition to the IL12/23 pathway, there is a drug in development that targets IL17 indirectly. Vidofludimus (4SC) is an oral inhibitor of dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHODH), which inhibits the proliferation of lymphocytes and IL17 production.11 In an open label, uncontrolled study (ENTRANCE), 8 out of 14 (57.1%) patients with CD and 6 out of 12 (50.0%) patients with UC experienced steroid-free clinical remission at week 12 using CDAI< 150 for CD and clinical activity index (CAI) < 4 for UC.12 Vidofludimus was also reported to be well tolerated, with no serious drug-related adverse events. A phase II dose finding clinical trial of IMU-838 (vidofludimus calcium) (Immunic Therapeutics) in patients with UC recently started recruiting (NCT03341962) with reported plans for a phase II trial in CD as well. 

Inhibition of the pro-inflammatory cytokine IL6 with the fully human monoclonal antibody PF-04236921(Pfizer) has shown promising results for the treatment of CD in phase II trials (ANDANTE I and II).13 These multicenter, randomized trials included an induction study and an open label extension. Patients in this trial had failed ≥ 1 anti-TNF therapy. This trial randomized 249 patients to receive placebo or treatment with PF-04236921 subcutaneously at doses of 10mg, 50mg, or 200mg on days 1 and 28, however enrollment in the 200mg group was discontinued early due to fatalities in a trial for aystemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and this group was not included in the primary efficacy analysis. The primary endpoint for the induction study was CDAI-70 response rate at weeks 8 or 12, and the primary objective of the open label extension was safety. In the induction study PF-04236921 met the primary endpoint in 49.3% vs. 30.6% for placebo at week 8 (p < 0.05), and 47.4% vs. 28.6% at 12 weeks (p < 0.05). In the open label extension study, a one-time dose escalation to 100 mg was allowed for non-responders beginning at week 8, and 77.8% had their dose escalated to 100mg. Despite the drug’s efficacy, there is some concern regarding signals of gastrointestinal abscess and perforation, which have been reported with other IL6 inhibitors as well. While this does not exclude anti-IL6 therapy from consideration, especially in a treatment refractory population, careful patient selection may be prudent for anti-IL6 therapies going forward. 

An additional cytokine modulator in the pipeline is PF-06480605 (Pfizer). This therapy is also an inhibitor of a cytokine, a blocker of the TNF ligand known as TNFSF15 (TNF super family 15). A phase II trial for patients with UC has reportedly completed enrollment, however no data on efficacy has been published yet (NCT02840721).14

A phase II trial of GSK1070806 (GlaxoSmithKline), a monoclonal antibody to IL18, was recently registered for patients with moderate to severe CD after a single arm phase I trial demonstrated safety in healthy and obese subjects.15

Tumor necrosis factor receptors (TNFRs) have become targets for novel therapeutics. OX40 is a member of the TNFR family. The novel OX40 inhibitor KHK4083 (Kyowa Hakko Kirin) has demonstrated safety and tolerability in a phase I trial for patients with plaque psoriasis.16 KHK8043 is currently being investigated in a phase I (NCT02985593) and a phase II (NCT02647866) clinical trial for patients with UC. 

The importance of cytokines in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease is highlighted by the numerous promising therapeutics either in use or under investigation that target them. Cytokine modulation is and will certainly continue to be a cornerstone of the treatment of CD and UC. We anticipate that the cytokine modulator pipeline will continue to grow in this arena as our understanding of these pathways continues to evolve. 

Regeneration

Utilizing the innate potential of the stem cell, or modulating the body’s own regenerative capacity to heal disease, is an exciting and active area of research in many diseases including inflammatory bowel disease. Despite many inherent challenges to this type of therapy, advances are being made at a fast pace. It is likely that regenerative medicine will become a powerful and prominent tool for many disease states including inflammatory bowel disease. Stem cell therapy (SCT) for inflammatory bowel disease is beginning to emerge as a potentially viable treatment option for some patients. There are numerous clinical trials either published or registered with Clinicaltrials.gov for use of stem cells in CD and UC. Therapies may include stem cells that are hematopoietic, bone marrow-derived, adipose-derived, or mesenchymal. Both autologous and non-autologous stem cells have been studied. The route of administration can be either systemic or locally injected/delivered.

In March of 2018, the European Commision approved Alofisel (formerly Cx601) (Takeda, TiGenix), the allogeneic expanded, adipose-derived stem cell therapy for the treatment of complex perianal fistulas in adult patients with Crohn’s disease who have shown inadequate response to at least one conventional or biologic therapy. Approval was based on a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase III trial (ADMIRE-CD) of Cx601 injection for complex perianal fistulas in adult patients with Crohn’s disease demonstrating safety and efficacy.17 In this study 202 patients received a single injection of either Cx601 or placebo (saline solution) into the lesion. The primary endpoint was combined remission, defined as clinical closure of all treated external openings that were draining at baseline, and no collections of greater than 2 cm of treated fistulas on MRI. This was achieved in 50% of the treatment group compared to 34% of the placebo (p = 0.024). This study was also continued for a 52-week period evaluating efficacy endpoints of combined remission (as above), and clinical remission (absence of draining fistulas). At 52 weeks 56.3% of the treatment group achieved combined remission compared to 38.6% in the control group (p = 0.021); and 59.2% of the treatment group compared to 41.6% of the control group achieved clinical remission (p = 0.013). Cx601 also proved to be safe, with similar rates of adverse events in both groups.17 A large, multicenter, phase III trial (ADMIRE-CD II) in underway to gain FDA approval (NCT03279081). Additional promising stem cell therapies in the pipeline include Furestem-CD (Kangstem Biotech) (NCT02000362, NCT02926300) in phase I and II trials for CD, PROCHYMAL (NCT00482092, NCT00543374, NCT01233960) in phase III trials for CD, and MultiStem (NCT01240915) in a phase II trial for UC.

A recent meta-analysis of stem cell therapy (SCT) for CD analyzed 21 studies that included 514 patients.18 This study found that systemic infusion of SCT resulted in 56% of patients achieving clinical response using random-effects meta-analysis (95% confidence interval [CI] 33-76, n=150). Efficacy was also demonstrated when evaluating clinical and endoscopic remission, and for patients with perianal CD. This analysis suggests that SCT may be effective, however the rate of severe adverse events (SAEs) was also significant. In this meta-analysis, the overall pooled rate of SAEs was 12%. The pooled rate of SAEs related to SCT was 8%. Severe adverse effects of SCT could be a significant obstacle to the use of these therapies. The use of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells as intralesional injection therapy for perianal fistulae in CD is perhaps closest to mainstream clinical use in the US. These studies, combined with the meta-analysis previously discussed, enabled the use of this therapy in Europe, and suggests that intra-fistula injection of adipose-derived stem cells may soon become a readily available treatment options for these patients in the US. In addition to therapies that utilize administration of actual stem cells, several emerging therapies aim to modulate or induce the regenerative capacity of a patient’s own stem cells. Preliminary evidence suggests that regenerative therapies hold great promise as treatments for IBD. While many barriers to their widespread use remain, this is an area that is likely to occupy a significant role in the treatment of IBD in the future.

Barrier and Mucosal Agents

The use of barrier or mucosal augmentation agents to help reconstitute and protect the intestinal mucosa is an exciting potential therapeutic area under investigation. These are directly acting, mechanistically based, and ideally not systemically absorbed. The investigators postulate that barrier agents may be uniquely suited to be low toxicity augmentations to other therapies, or potentially non-systemic maintenance therapy.

For patients with ulcerative colitis, the administration of oral phosphatidylcholine represents perhaps the most promising potential barrier augmentation therapy. The concentration of phosphatidylcholine in intestinal mucous has been shown to be lower in patients with UC compared to both patients with Crohn’s disease and healthy controls.20 It is for this reason that re-constituting this barrier with delayed release phosphatidylcholine has been studied as a potential therapy in several clinical trials for patients with UC.21One such therapy is LT-02 (Nestlé Health Science), which demonstrated promising early results in clinical trials, including a phase II trial for UC patients refractory to mesalazine.22 This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled superiority study that analyzed 156 patients with UC and a deficient response to mesalazine therapy. Co-medication with 5-ASA, systemic steroids, azathioprine, and 6-mercaptopurine was allowed if specific dosing and duration criteria were met. Patients receiving rectally applied aminosalicylates or steroids, or oral topically acting steroids were excluded. The primary endpoint was change in the simple clinical colitis activity index (SCCAI). This study compared placebo to LT-02 doses of 0.8g, 1.6g, and 3.2g, and demonstrated a SCCAI score decrease of 33.3% in the placebo group vs. 44.3% in the 0.8g, 40.7% in the 1.6g, and 51.7% in the 3.2g doses (p>0.05, p>0.05, and p=0.030 respectively). Remission for placebo vs. 3.2g was 15% vs. 31.4% (p=0.089). Interestingly, despite a modest clinical improvement in patients receiving LT-02 vs. placebo, histologic remission was achieved in 20% of placebo patients compared to 40.5% LT-02 patients (p=0.016). Patients achieved mucosal healing in 32.5% for placebo vs. 47.4% for LT-02(p=0.098). Furthermore, the safety profile was very favorable. 

These promising results led to the study of LT-02 in phase III trials. Three phase III trials for LT-02 in UC have been initiated, PROTECT-1 (NCT02142725), PROTECT-2 (NCT02280629), and PROTECT-3 (NCT 02849951). PROTECT-1 investigated LT-02 at two doses compared to placebo for remission induction in patients with UC refractory to mesalamine, but was unfortunately terminated. PROTECT-2 is investigating LT-02 at the 3.2g dose for maintenance of remission over 48 weeks, and is currently recruiting. PROTECT-3 investigated LT-02 as an add-on therapy for the induction of remission in UC patients refractory to mesalamine, but unfortunately has also been terminated. Given the termination of two studies aimed at induction of remission, it is reasonable to deduct that LT-02 may have more promise as maintenance therapy with a favorable safety profile for UC patients already having achieved remission.

Other therapies that address the unique needs of the inflamed colonic mucosa rather than creating a mechanical barrier have been investigated. Luminal short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) are thought to be important for colonic integrity, blood flow, motility, and mucous.23,24 Two small studies of SCFA delivered topically as enemas have been performed without compelling evidence for efficacy.25,26 L-Carnitine is critical in fatty acid transport/metabolism, and propionyl-L-carnitine (PLC) is thought to potentially represent a colonic reserve of propionyl-coenzyme-A and L-carnitine in the colon of patients with UC.23 PLC is also thought to be anti-inflammatory and have antioxidant effects in the intestinal mucosa of UC patients.27 PLC has been studied in a phase II trial for patients with UC due these potential effects on SCFA metabolism as well as protective effects on reactive oxygen species present in states of inflammation.23 This double-blind, parallel-group trial randomized 121 patients with UC on stable aminosalicylate or thiopurine therapy to receive 1g/day PLC, 2g/day PLC, or placebo.23 The primary endpoint was “clinical/endoscopic response” using the disease activity index (DAI) as the measure. The study reported good results for both dose groups, with 72% of PLC treated patients achieving clinical/endoscopic response vs. 50% in the placebo group (p=0.02). The remission rates did not achieve statistical significance for PLC treated vs. placebo. Unfortunately, two phase III clinical trials of propionyl-L-carnitine hydrochloride (ST 261) were terminated due to low probability of success (NCT01538251, NCT01567956.) Despite these failures, the general concept of mucosal function augmentation with safe and tolerable oral supplementation such as PLC persists as a potential therapeutic avenue.

Alkaline phosphatase (AP) is a highly important and prevalent enzyme in many living organisms including humans.28 AP is expressed as an apical brush border enzyme in the intestinal tract and is thought to play an important role in mucosal defense through dephosphorylation of inflammatory molecules.28,29 An exploratory open label study of exogenous AP in 21 patients with refractory UC reported improvement in short term disease activity scores as well as lower levels of C-reactive protein(CRP) and fecal calprotectin.29 Of note, in this study the exogenous AP was administered intraduodenally via naso-duodenal tube daily for 7 days. Previously, exogenous AP has been studied intravenously for safety in a variety of conditions. Since then AM-Pharma has developed a fully human recombinant form of AP known as recAP, and is currently studying intravenous recAP in a phase II trial for acute kidney injury due to sepsis (NCT02182440).30 The authors could not find active clinical trials in UC. Alkaline phosphatase appears to be a promising agent to promote protection from inflammation at the mucosal barrier of the intestine, but there remain significant challenges in drug delivery. Should a stable intestinal-release oral formulation become feasible, human AP could represent another safe mucosal-based therapy for UC.

The future direction of barrier reconstitution and augmentation therapies appears promising, and the authors anticipate their incorporation into the UC armamentarium in the near future.

JAK Inhibitors 

Therapeutics targeting the Janus kinase (JAK) pathway offer a particularly promising class for the treatment of IBD. JAKs are a family of receptor-associated tyrosine kinases that are crucial in cytokine signaling.31 Their importance in cytokine signaling makes JAK signaling a key pathway in autoimmune disorders including rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease.31 JAK antagonists are actively being used or investigated for several disease states, including inflammatory bowel disease. Thus far several JAK inhibitors have demonstrated promising efficacy for the treatment of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and their oral delivery represents an additional potential benefit. As a class, JAK inhibitors do exhibit significant side effects including lymphopenia, leukopenia, liver enzyme elevations, dyslipidemia and herpes zoster reactivation.32

Tofacitinib (Xeljanz) (Pfizer) is a pan-JAK inhibitor with a preference for JAK1 and JAK3 that has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of ulcerative colitis.33 As a result, Tofacitinib was recently approved in the United States and Europe for moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis (UC) based on phase II and phase III trials. Phase III trials, titled Oral Clinical Trials for tofAcitinib in ulceratiVE colitis (OCTAVE), were published in May 2017. OCTAVE Induction 1 included 614 randomized patients assigned to placebo, tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, or tofacitinib 15 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was remission at 8 weeks, defined a Mayo score ≤ 2, no subscore > 1, and rectal bleeding subscore = 0. Mucosal healing, defined as a Mayo endoscopic subscore ≤1, was a secondary endpoint. Remission occurred in 18.5% of the 10 mg tofacitinib group compared to 8.2% of placebo (p=0.007). Mucosal healing was achieved in 31.3% in the 10 mg tofacitinib group vs. 15.6% in the placebo group(p<0.001). OCTAVE Induction 2 examined the same endpoints in 547 randomized patients. Remission was achieved in 16.6% of the 10 mg tofacitinib group vs. 3.6% of the placebo group(p<0.001). Mucosal healing was achieved in 28.4% of the 10 mg tofacitinib group vs. 11.6% of the placebo group (p<0.001).33

The OCTAVE Sustain trial randomized 593 patients that had completed OCTAVE Induction 1 or 2 and had a clinic response to receive placebo, tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, or tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint of remission at 52 weeks was achieved in 11.1% of placebo, 34.3% of the tofacitinib 5 mg group, and 40.6% of the tofacitinib 10 mg group (p<0.001) for each treatment compared to placebo. The secondary endpoint of mucosal healing was also significantly higher for both treatments compared to placebo. Unfortunately tofacitinib failed to demonstrate efficacy based on the CDAI as induction or maintenance therapy in two phase II studies for moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, despite significant decreases in CRP and FCP.35,36

Another exciting JAK inhibitor is filgotinib (GLPG0634/GS-6034)(Galapagos), which is a selective inhibitor of JAK1.37 Filgotinib has demonstrated efficacy in several phase II trials for rheumatoid arthritis.38-40 Filgotinib also delivered promising results in a phase II clinical trial for moderate to severe Crohn’s disease.41 This trial was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled 174 patients. This study compared filgotinib 200 mg daily given orally to placebo. The primary endpoint was clinical remission, defined as Crohn’s Disease Activity Index less than 150 at week ten. At week ten, 47% of the filgotinib group achieved clinical remission compared to 23% of the placebo group (p=0.0077). These early results are certainly promising, and there are currently multiple registered clinical trials for filgotinib in inflammatory bowel disease, all of which are currently recruiting. Phase II trials that are recruiting include studies investigating filgotinib for the treatment of small bowel Crohn’s disease (NCT03046056), and for perianal fistulizing Crohn’s disease (NCT03077412). Phase III trials include investigating filgotinib for moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (NCT02914561), for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (NCT02914522), and long-term extensions for patients with Crohn’s disease (NCT02914600) and ulcerative colitis (NCT02914535). 

Upadacitinib (ABT-494) (AbbVie) is a more potent JAK1-selective inhibitor that is currently being investigated for use in Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, atopic dermatitis, and psoriatic arthritis.42 CELEST (NCT02365649) was a phase II, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study investigating upadacitinib for patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease.43 The study which required intolerance or poor response to TNF inhibitors or immunomodulators, enrolled 220 patients, and investigated an array of dosages of upadacitinib compared to placebo. Efficacy was seen with regards to clinical response and remission as well as endoscopic remission at 16-weeks. Similarly, a 52 week maintenance extension showed maintenance of response at 52 weeks.44 A phase II study evaluating long term efficacy, safety and tolerability in patients with Crohn’s disease is ongoing with expected completion in 2022 (NCT02782663). Additionally, upadacitinib is being studied in a phase II trial for induction and maintenance in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (NCT02819635). Currently recruiting/enrolling phase III trials of upadacitinib include a trial for patients with Crohn’s disease and intolerance or inadequate response to conventional therapies but not biologics (NCT03345849), a maintenance and long term extension study in patients with Crohn’s disease (NCT03345823), a study of patients with Crohn’s disease and inadequate response or intolerance to biologic therapy (NCT03345836), and a study of long term safety and efficacy in ulcerative colitis (NCT03006068). 

TD-1473 (Theravance Biopharma) is a gut-selective multi-JAK inhibitor that has reportedly demonstrated promise in a small phase Ib trial for moderate to severe UC according to a press release by Theravance Biopharma.45 While data is extremely preliminary, TD-1473 is gut-selective. The potential to avoid systemic side effects from JAK inhibition with a localized gut-selective agent is very appealing, making this agent another exciting pipeline therapy in the JAK inhibitor class. A phase IIb evaluation of the efficacy and safety of induction and maintenance therapy with TD-1473 in subjects with moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis was recently registered (NCT03758443), however recruitment has not started. 

In addition to the promising efficacy of JAK inhibitors in IBD, their oral delivery represents an additional potential benefit to both patients and physicians. These benefits must be weighed against factors such as cost, risks, and side effects. Shingles is the most prominent adverse event in tofacitinib trials, which seems likely to be ameliorated by prior use of the recombinant Shingrix vaccine. Similarly, it is expected that the JAK-1 specific inhibitors will have less occurrence of shingles, but this remains to be proven in clinical trials. The authors anticipate that additional selective JAK inhibitors will achieve approval for ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease in the near future.

Anti-Adhesion and Chemotaxis Therapies

Anti-adhesion therapies aim to prevent the interaction between adhesion molecules expressed on the endothelium of blood vessels and molecules expressed on the leukocyte cell surface, primarily integrins. By preventing this interaction, leukocytes are unable to migrate into gut tissue from the vasculature and propagate tissue inflammation. Natalizumab (Tysabri) was the first drug in this class to be approved for use in CD, after the phase III ENCORE trial demonstrated efficacy.46 As a monoclonal antibody targeting the a4 integrin subunit, it was designed to have broad effects, blocking the gut-specific a4β7 integrin for Crohn’s disease as well as the a4β1 integrin in the brain for multiple sclerosis. Unfortunately, long-term natalizumab use was associated with increased susceptibility to JC virus infection in the brain and subsequent development of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).47 As a result, the FDA suspended its use in general clinical practice and clinical trials in February of 2005 and it is currently restricted to registered providers in select circumstances through the TOUCH prescribing program.

Vedolizumab (Entyvio) (Takeda), a monoclonal antibody targeting the gut-specific a4β7 ?integrin, has since been developed and showed efficacy in phase III trials (GEMINI) for induction and maintenance in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis and was approved by the FDA in May of 2014.48,49 Abrilumab (AMG 181/MEDI 7183) (Amgen) was designed as an antibody against gut specific a4β7?integrin with reduced immunogenicity as compared to Vedolizumab. Unfortunately, phase II trials failed to demonstrate efficacy in inducing remission rates at 8 weeks in moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, though modestly increased response rates were observed.50 Abrilumab demonstrated improved rates of remission, response, and mucosal healing at doses of 70mg and 210mg. This was seen in all subjects as well as subjects who previously failed anti-TNF.51 A phase II trial of PTG-100 (Protagonist Therapeutics)(NCT02895100), an oral gut-specific a4β7 ?integrin antagonist, was initially terminated due to lack of efficacy. However, an independent, blinded, re-read of endoscopies demonstrated higher rates of clinical remission relative to placebo. The initial lack of response was attributed usually high placebo effect due to “misread endoscopy reports”. An official report is expected to be published in 2019.

Etrolizumab (RG7413/rhuMAb Beta7) (Roche) is a monoclonal antibody that targets the β7 subunit of a4β7 and aEβ7 integrin (involved in T? cell retention via interaction with E-cadherin) on T lymphocytes. A phase II clinical trial, EUCALYPTUS, demonstrated efficacy of Etrolizumab in inducing and maintaining remission in patients with UC.52 The recently published phase III BERGAMOT trial demonstrated higher rates of symptomatic remission and endoscopic remission as early as 6 weeks and sustained through week 14 in CD patients refractory/intolerant.to anti-TNFa agents. The maintenance phase of this trial is still ongoing.53 Etrolizumab is currently being studied in seven additional phase III clinical trials in both UC and CD in both anti-TNF naive and exposed patients (NCT02100696, NCT02163759, NCT02171429, NCT02165215,, NCT02118584, NCT02136069, NCT02394028, NCT02403323).

AJM300 (Carotegrast) (EA Pharma) is an oral small molecule directed against the a4 integrin involved in lymphocyte homing to the gut and brain. Phase II clinical trials in UC demonstrated significantly higher rates of clinical response, remission, and mucosal healing at 8 weeks compared to placebo,54 however no significant difference was noted in patients with CD.55 Phase III development for ulcerative colitis is ongoing in Japan. Although there is a theoretical risk of PML with AJM300, given the presence of a4 in brain lymphocytes, the manufacturer speculated that the short half-life of this thrice daily small molecule could facilitate rapid cessation should PML occur, and that the subsequent resumption of immune activity might prevent significant brain damage. However, given the significant potential for harm caused by PML, the evidence level required for any future a4 agent to reach market is expected be extremely high.

Based on the success of targeting integrins, investigation has also focused on preventing lymphocyte migration and tissue infiltration by inhibiting the mucosal addressin-cell adhesion molecule 1 (MAdCAM-1) present on intestinal and colonic vascular endothelial cells. This molecule is the target of the a4β7 integrin blocked by vedolizumab and etrolizumab. SHP647 (previously known as PF-00547659) (Shire, previously Pfizer) is an anti-MadCAM-1 antibody that was shown in phase II studies to be significantly more effective than placebo in achieving clinical remission, clinical response, and mucosal healing in patients with UC who failed prior therapy (TURANDOT).56 Results of phase II studies in patients with CD (OPERA-1) did not show significant efficacy as induction therapy,57 however, the results of the maintenance part of the phase II study (OPERA-2) suggested sustained efficacy over 72 weeks, but not a clear dose-reponse signal.58 Phase III trials of SHP647 in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis have recently started ruiting (NCT03259334, NCT03259308) with plans to start recruiting for a phase III long-term maintenance trial (CARMEN CD 305, 306 307) in patients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease (NCT03345849, NCT03627091, NCT03559517). However, development of this promising therapy may be further slowed by the purchase of Shire by Takeda, and the required sale of this drug to another company as it competes with vedolizumab.

Eldelumab (BMS-936557) (Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a monoclonal antibody that binds to Interferon-y-inducible protein-10 (IP-10, also known as CXCL10) and blocks lymphocyte migration into intestinal epithelial cells. Results of phase II clinical trials of Eldelumab in UC and CD did not demonstrate significant efficacy in induction therapy.59,60

“Lymph node trapping” through modulation of sphingosine-1-?phosphate (S1P) receptors has emerged as an exciting target for modulating gut inflammation in IBD. S1P signaling is thought to play a critical role in migration of lymphocytes from peripheral lymph nodes to gut lymphoid tissue.61 Ozanimod (formerly RPC1063) (Celgene) is an oral S1PR1 and S1PR5 agonist, that produced increased clinical remission rates in ulcerative colitis after 8 weeks of induction(TOUCHSTONE) and Crohn’s disease (STEPSTONE) when compared to placebo in phase II clinical trials.62 Two phase III open-label extension studies are currently ongoing for patients with moderate to severe UC who were treated with ozanimod in previous trials (NCT02531126, NCT02435992). Phase II trials of Amiselimod (MT-1303) (Biogen), a S1PR1 modulator, were recently discontinued while phase II trials of Etrasimod (APD334) (Arena), another oral S1PR1 modulator, are still ongoing recently demonstrated positive results in patients in UC patients. Reportedly phase III trials are planned, however, have not been registered. 

Alicaforsen (ISIS 2302) (ISIS Pharmaceuticals) is a 20-base antisense oligonucleotide that is highly selective for intercellular adhesion molecule-1(ICAM-1) mRNA resulting in ICAM-1 down regulation. ICAM-1 is an adhesion molecule involved in leukocyte migration and trafficking in the gut. While phase II trials demonstrated that topical alicaforsen was more effective than placebo in inducing long term remission in patients with distal UC, there was no significant difference when compared to mesalamine enemas.63 Results of a phase II clinical trial investigating IV Alicaforsen in patients with CD were similarly disappointing.64 There is evidence that Alicaforsen may be effective in chronic refractory pouchitis.65 Vercinon (CCX282-B) (GSK-1605786) (GlaxoSmithKline) is an oral small molecule that binds to and blocks CCR9 receptors on the surface of lymphocytes which are involved in lymphocyte trafficking. This was studied in a phase III clinical trial (SHIELD-1), however results did not show significant efficacy compared to placebo in patients with CD and the program was discontinued in August of 2013.66

Immune Cell Modulation

Lymphocytes play a critical role in gut inflammation and the pathogenesis of IBD. Therapeutic strategies targeting aberrant lymphocyte differentiation, activation, survival, and functioning represent an important area of interest with variable success. Early attempts at modulating lymphocyte function with rituximab, (an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody),67 and lenalidomide, (a derivative of thalidomide used in multiple myeloma),68demonstrated no efficacy in treating IBD. IL2 plays an important role in promoting regulatory T cell (Treg) proliferation and survival as well as differentiation into proinflammatory effector T cells including Th17. Unfortunately, daclizumab, a monoclonal antibody to the IL2 receptor (CD25) showed no effect in phase II trials in UC.69

T cell activation occurs by simultaneous engagement of the T cell receptor, co-receptor complex (CD3), and co-stimulatory molecule (CD28) by antigen presenting cells. Both CD3 and CD28 have been proposed as therapeutic targets. Visilizumab (HuM291) (Nuvion) is a monoclonal antibody to the CD3 chain of the T-cell receptor complex which has been shown to diminish cytokine release and T cell activation while inducing T cell apoptosis. Unfortunately, visilizumab was not effective for severe, corticosteroid-refractory UC and was associated with increased infectious, cardiac, and vascular adverse events70 despite positive phase I and phase II studies at higher doses.71,72 As a consequence, the clinical development of visilizumab was halted. 

Another T cell targeting agent, foralumab (NI-0401/TZLS-401) (Tiziana), a human anti-CD3 antibody was evaluated in a phase II clinical trial in patients with moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease (NCT00630643), however results of this study remain unpublished. Abatacept (BMS-188667) (Orencia) (Bristol-Myers Squibb), which inhibits T cell co-stimulatory signaling by binding to C80/CD86 on antigen presenting cells, thus preventing CD28-mediated co-stimulation, was also unsuccessful in phase III trials of patients with moderate to severe UC and CD.73

Laquinimod (TV-5600, previously ABR-215062) (TEVA) is a novel oral therapy with a proposed mechanism of direct inhibitory effect on antigen presenting cells and T cells, resulting in downregulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Phase II trials demonstrated significantly higher rates of remission and response compared to placebo in patients with CD.74 Currently phase III trials are underway for MS but no trials are registered at clinicaltrials.gov for IBD as of yet. 

Upregulation of immunoregulatory cytokines, such as TGF-?, has been an exciting area of investigation. TGF-? suppresses the activation and functioning of pro-inflammatory effector T cells. High concentrations of intracellular SMAD7 inhibit TGF-? pathways leading to development of colitis in animal models75. Mongersen (Formerly GED-0301) (Celgene) is an oral pH controlled 21base single-stranded oligonucleotide that binds and facilitates degradation of SMAD7 mRNA. Phase II trials demonstrated significant efficacy in clinical remission compared to placebo,76,77 with minimal data on biologic remission. After studies including an endoscopic endpoint in 2017, Celgene shut down four planned and ongoing phase III clinical trials testing the safety and efficacy of mongersen (NCT02641392, NCT02685683, NCT02596893, and NCT02974322). 

Kappaproct (Cobitolimod) (DIMS0150) (InDex) is a locally administered DNA-based immunomodulatory sequence that binds to the toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9). This leads to the release of anti-inflammatory cytokines such IL10 and type I interferons to reduce intestinal inflammation and induce mucosal healing.78,79 A phase III clinical study demonstrated increased rates of symptomatic remission as well as histological remission compared to placebo in patients with ulcerative colitis at week four. This was seen after two doses of topically administered drug during colonoscopy at weeks 0 and 4.80 It remains to be seen whether oral administration will have comparable efficacy with results expected by the end of 2018. Another interesting approach currently being investigated involves hampering Th2-mediated inflammation which has been shown to play a role in the pathogenesis of UC. SB012 (Sterna Biologicals) is a rectally delivered DNAzyme-based GATA-3 antagonist. GATA-3 is a transcription factor that plays a key role in regulating Th2 differentiation, activation, and proinflammatory cytokine release such as IL4, IL5, and IL13. Preclinical studies demonstrated that inhibition of GATA-3 mRNA expression in T cells resulted in suppressed colitis in experimental mice models.81 In May of 2014 recruitment for a phase II trial, 

SECURE (NCT02129439) was initiated in patients with UC which recently concluded in March of 2018 with published abstract suggesting safety and efficacy in disease activity improvement at 28 and 56 days.82

In addition to lymphocytes, the activity of macrophages and NK cells is being investigated as an area of interest. ABX464 (Abivax) is an oral small molecule that has been shown in mouse models to reduce colonic production of macrophage-induced inflammatory cytokines such as IL6 and TNF-α and increase tissue repair via cytokine IL22.83 A recent phase 2a induction trial of ABX464 reportedly demonstrated significant increase in clinical remission and mucosal healing over placebo in patients with moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis who failed or were intolerant to other therapy with an extension study evaluating the long-term safety and efficacy currently recruiting (NCT03368118). Interestingly, ABX464 is also currently being investigated in HIV due to its ability to block HIV replication. In March of 2017 recruiting for a phase IIa trial (NCT03093259) of Abivax in moderate-to-severe active UC began.

Another cell-targeting therapy, NNC0142-0002 (Janssen) is an antibody directed against the natural killer group 2D (NKG2D) protein, demonstrated increased clinical remission after week 12 in patients with CD in a phase II study as well as a significant improvement in a biologic non-failure subgroup from week one onward despite not meeting their primary endpoints (clinical response at 4 weeks).84 Two new clinical studies with the anti-NKG2D biologic have reportedly been planned for moderately to severely active Crohn’s, but as yet they have not been registered with clinicaltrials.gov. 

Bertilimumab (Immune Pharmaceuticals) is a monoclonal antibody that targets eotaxin-1, a chemokine involved in eosinophils migration to inflamed tissue. A randomized, double blind phase 2 trial is actively enrolling patients with severe UC (NCT01671956), however recruitment has been ongoing for over 2 years. 

TOP1288 (TopiVert Pharma) is a rectally administered, non-absorbed, narrow spectrum protein kinase inhibitor (NSKI) that has been shown to be effective in reducing inflammation in mouse models of colitis.85 TOP1288 is currently undergoing a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter phase IIa clinical trial for patients with moderate to severe UC (NCT02888379) and a phase I clinical trial with the non-absorbed oral formulation (NCT03071081).

P28GST (Satt Nord) is a recombinant protein glutathione-S-transferase. It is found in the intestinal helminth parasite Schistosoma. It has been shown to promote Th2 mediated cytokine release and reduce intestinal inflammation as well as decrease colitis in experimental mouse models.86,87 This is currently being investigated as a therapeutic vaccine in a phase II, multicenter clinical trial in patients with moderate CD (NCT02281916).

GSK2982772 (GlaxoSmithKline) is a first in class small molecule inhibitor of receptor-interacting protein-1 (RIP1) kinase, which is involved in necroptosis (programed inflammatory cell death) and inflammation via TNF dependent cellular responses.88Currently GSK2982772 is being evaluated in a phase II, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study is patients with UC (NCT02903966). 

LYC-30937-EC (Lycera) is a first in class, oral, gut-directed ATPase modulator, designed to selectively target and induce apoptosis in lymphocytes. Currently two phase II trials have completed recruiting in patients with active UC (NCT02762500, NCT02764229), but did not show statistically significant benefits.

QBECO SSI (Qu Biologics) is an investigational immunotherapy that is derived from inactivated E. coli bacteria and is designed to restore innate immune function in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Phase I/II trials demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with both CD and UC. A larger phase II trial of both induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderate to severe CD is currently recruiting at five centers in Canada (NCT03472690).

Microbiome Targeted Therapies

Multiple studies have demonstrated that intestinal dysbiosis plays a key role in the development and exacerbation of IBD through aberrant mucosal inflammation.89 As a result, various therapeutic strategies aimed at manipulating the intestinal microbiome are currently in development. Investigation has focused on diet, probiotics, prebiotics, antibiotics, and fecal microbiota transplant (FMT).

Diet and Nutritional Supplementation

Dietary approaches to managing IBD represent an under-resourced, difficult, but important area of study. This was highlighted by an online questionnaire showing that 71% of IBD patients believe that diet affects their disease and that 61% of patients believe their specialist disregarded the importance of diet the management of their disease.90Despite the patient perspective on diet and nutritional supplementation in the management of IBD, very few rigorously designed prospective trials exist. 

Diets of popular interest include the semi-vegetarian diet (SVD), the specific carbohydrate diet (SCD), the exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN), the low fermentable oligosaccharide, disaccharide, monosaccharide, and polyol (FODMAP) diet, and the allergen elimination diet. A small prospective trial in Japan demonstrated that a semi-vegetarian diet, with small portions of meat offered once every two weeks and fish weekly, had higher rates of remission and prevention of relapse compared to omnivores in hospitalized patients with CD.91,92 Exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) has been shown in pediatric CD patients to be as effective as corticosteroids in inducing disease remission with higher rates of histological improvement.93 Unfortunately, these results have not been reproduced in adult studies.94 Specific carbohydrate diets, consisting of mostly meat, fruits, vegetables, nuts, oils, and honey with the elimination of most grains, have shown some efficacy in pediatric patients with IBD in retrospective and small single arm clinical trials.95,96Multiple additional early phase trials have been registered and are recruiting in both pediatric (NCT02610101, NCT03301311) and adult patients (NCT03058679, NCT02412553, NCT02858557). Multiple small observational studies 97,98 and one small randomized cross-over study99 have demonstrated that low FODMAP diets (elimination of poorly absorbed short-chain carbohydrates) are effective in improving clinical symptoms of pain, bloating, and distention in patients with IBD, however larger prospective clinical trials are needed. Currently a 30 participant randomized trial of a low FODMAP diet compared to a control diet is recruiting patients with UC (NCT02469220). A large, randomized, controlled trial, conducted at three London teaching hospitals showed improvement in quality of life in CD patients with the implementation of an IgG4-targeted elimination diet. The research group used IgG4 reactivity to guide exclusion of the four food types with the highest IgG4 titers in the treatment group compared to the elimination of the four food types with the lowest IgG4 titers in the sham control group.100

Omega-3 free fatty acids (Epanova) (AstraZeneca) were evaluated in Crohn’s disease patients in two large randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (EPIC-1 and EPIC-2), and did not show efficacy in maintaining remission.101 However, recently published results of a phase II clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of eicosapentaenoic acid (TP-252) (Thetis) in maintaining remission for patients with UC, the major component of fish oil, demonstrated significant improvements in fecal calprotectin levels and maintenance of clinical remission at six months.102

A large, multi-center, randomized, control trial of curcumin, the biologically active component of turmeric with anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects, showed higher rates of remission as well as improved clinical and endoscopic scores in patients with UC when added to standard therapy compared to standard therapy alone.103 Additional phase III clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of curcumin have recently been registered in both pediatric (NCT02277223) and adult patients (NCT02683759) with UC. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of vitamin D administration (2000.IU/day) demonstrated increased plasma cathelicidin, improved intestinal permeability (measured by urinary sugar excretion), lower CRP, and higher QoL in patients with CD.104

Andrographis paniculata extract (HMPL-004) (Hutchison Medi Pharma), a plant extract with broad anti-inflammatory properties (inhibiting TNF-α, NF-κB, and ILβ),105demonstrated efficacy in phase II clinical trials.106 However phase III clinical trials further evaluating effectiveness of HMPL-004 in induction therapy (NCT01805791) and maintenance therapy (NCT01882764) were terminated due to an interim analysis which demonstrated futility in continuing its development. AndoSan (ACE Co. Ltd) is an extract from the Agaricus blazei Murill, a mushroom from Brazil with anti-inflammatory properties that has been evaluated in a phase II/phase III trial. This randomized, single-blinded, placebo controlled trial demonstrated improvement in symptom score, fatigue, and health related quality of life compared to placebo in patients with UC.107 Additional trials of anti-bacterial and anti-inflammatory mastiha gum, derived from the mastic tree in Greece, are currently ongoing (NCT02796339), as are studies of the effects of citrus extract (NCT03225261) and flaxseed lignan-enriched complex (NCT02201758).

Probiotics and Prebiotics

Augmentation of the protective functions of “good” bacteria in the GI tract through the use of probiotics and prebiotics have recently emergent as an area of interest. Single probiotic strains of non-pathogenic E. coli Nissle 1917108 and Lactobacillus GG109 demonstrated effectiveness in single trials in maintenance of remission in UC patients. Several trials have demonstrated that VSL#3 (a cocktail of eight different bacteria species) may be effective in inducing and maintaining remission in UC110,111 and preventing the development and recurrence of pouchitis.112-114 Several clinical trials investigating the role of probiotics for CD induction and maintenance therapy have failed to yield positive results.115,116

Another multi-probiotic, SER-287 (Seres Therapeutics), consists of live bacterial spores that proliferate and replace pathogenic “bad” gut bacteria. SER-287 reportedly showed benefit in clinical remission rates and endoscopic scores in patients with UC in a phase Ib placebo-controlled trial (NCT02618187). 

In recent years, attention has shifted to prebiotics, which are non-digested compounds that shift microbial composition to promote protective “good bacteria” growth. This is achieved by serving as preferential metabolites for these bacteria. In preclinical studies, prebiotics have shown improved growth of “good bacteria”,118,119 reduced inflammatory cytokine production,120 and reduced fecal calprotectin levels.121 Clinical use has been limited by high participant dropout due to bloating and discomfort among IBD patients.122,123 Currently, a phase II, single-group, clinical trial of Synergy-1, which is a combination of a probiotics and prebiotic (known as a synbiotic) containing a 1:1 oligosaccharide/inulin mixture, has been completed without published results for patients with mild to moderately active UC (NCT02093767). An additional randomized placebo-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of Synergy-1 for maintenance therapy in patients with UC is currently recruiting (NCT02865707). 

Antimicrobial Therapy

Antimicrobial therapy aims to alter the composition of the microbiota by reducing the concentration of potentially pathogenic bacteria that may be playing a role in the pathogenesis and disease course of patients with IBD. While the use of ciprofloxacin and metronidazole have demonstrated modest efficacy in inducing and maintaining remission in patients with active colonic Crohn’s disease and in preventing postoperative recurrence in patients with ileocolonic anastomosis, their routine use is not recommended outside of suppurative complications.124 Rifaximin, a minimally absorbed antibiotic, has gained attention recently due to its efficacy in other intestinal diseases. Several studies have shown that rifaximin may be effective in inducing and maintaining clinical remission in patients with CD compared to placebo,125,126 however studies have thus far failed to show improvement in patients with UC.127 Multiple additional trials of Rifaximin for induction therapy in CD patients (NCT02240108, NCT00603616, NCT02240121) and in the prevention of postoperative recurrence in CD patients (NCT03185624, NCT03185611) are currently underway. Additional studies investigating the role of antibiotics in IBD include the use of wide-spectrum antibiotic cocktails with doxycycline, amoxicillin, and metronidazole (NCT02345733) and oral vancomycin, neomycin, ciprofloxacin, lavage with PEG, +/- fluconazole in active CD that is refractory to conventional immunosuppressive therapy (NCT02765256). 

Antimicrobial therapy targeting specific aberrant bacterial triggers of IBD is currently under investigation. Specifically, the ongoing randomized controlled trial TEOREM (Evaluation of Adherent Invasive E coli Eradication in Adult Crohn Disease) plans to assess whether 12 weeks of treatment with ciprofloxacin and rifaximin is superior to placebo in obtaining endoscopic remission in patients with ileal Crohn’s disease colonized with adherent invasive E coli (NCT02620007). Adherent invasive E coli is a bacteria which has been associated with the pathogenesis of IBD. RHB-104 (Redhill Biopharma) is a fixed oral antibiotic combination therapy of clarithromycin, rifabutin, and clofazimine with potent intracellular, anti-mycobacterial, and anti-inflammatory properties that targets Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP). MAP may play a role in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease.128 RHB-104 has recently completed a phase III clinical trials (MAPUS) in patients with CD (NCT01951326). 

Fecal Microbiota Transplant

Fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) has the potential to restore microbial diversity that is often lost in IBD patients and has gained significant attention due its low cost, “ick factor”, and relative safety profile.129 In February of 2017, the FOCUS study demonstrated improved steroid-free clinical remission, steroid-free clinical response, and steroid-free endoscopic response at 8 weeks in patients who received one multi-donor FMT colonic infusion followed by multi-donor FMT enemas 5 days per week for 8 weeks.130 The success of this trial was attributed to the intensity of the FMT administration. These results were also supported by a phase III uncontrolled trial in Turkey, where a single 500.mL fecal suspension was endoscopically delivered into the proximal terminal ileum along with loperamide (to provide adequate time for colonization). This study showed a 70% clinical response with 13% having clinical and endoscopic remission at 12 weeks.131

An earlier trial conducted in Canada demonstrated a significantly higher frequency of clinical and endoscopic remission in patients with UC at 7 weeks compared to placebo after receiving one FMT enema per week for 6 weeks.132 A recently published abstract demonstrated that FMT can be effective with shorter duration and lower intensity protocols as well. This multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled trial demonstrated that FMT delivered as one week of induction therapy, (administered via colonoscopy on day 0 followed by two enemas by day 7), had higher rates of steroid-free clinical and endoscopic remission compared to placebo (autologous FMT).133 Given the invasive and “icky” nature of FMT administered by endoscopy, enteral access, or enema, there is currently a phase II trial evaluating the effectiveness of fecal transplantation via oral frozen capsules (NCT03273465). 

Currently there is no published data on the efficacy of FMT in Crohn’s disease, however there are currently multiple trials underway (NCT02227342, NCT02330211, NCT03078803, NCT02417974). A phase II trial of FMT in UC-associated pouchitis is currently recruiting as well (NCT02049502). Two studies looking at antimicrobial ablation with FMT rescue therapy in IBD patients are currently underway (NCT02606032, NCT02033408). Several additional studies with variations in FMT protocols are underway as well.

Extracorporeal Leukocytapheresis and Small Molecule Absorbents

Leukocytapheresis is a non-pharmacologic approach to the treatment of IBD that purportedly works by removing activated circulating leukocytes in the colonic mucosa through the use of beads or filters.134 Leukocytapheresis has the potential for improved treatment efficacy in steroid refractory and steroid dependent patients as well as improved safety through steroid and biologic sparing. Adacolumn (JIMRO) is a device column packed with cellulose acetate beads capable of extracting granulocytes and monocytes from the patient’s plasma. Cellsorba (Asahi KASEI) is a leukocyte apheresis device consisting of fine polyester fibers that removes lymphocytes in addition to granulocytes and monocytes. Small uncontrolled studies, primarily conducted in Japan, have demonstrated some efficacy as a steroid-sparing treatment modality.135 However larger, sham-randomized phase III North American trials failed to demonstrate any efficacy of the Adacolumn for induction therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe UC136 or active CD.137 Two recent single group assignment trials have shown efficacy in inducing remission for steroid dependent ulcerative colitis demonstrating a potential role in this subclass of patients.138,139

ST-120 is a spherical carbon adsorbent that absorbs small molecular weight toxins, inflammatory mediators, and bile acids in the GI tract. ST-120 demonstrated significant efficacy in fistulizing CD in small Japanese studies.140 Unfortunately, a large phase III, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study (FHAST-1) did not meet primary endpoints (50% reduction in the number of draining fistula) in patients with active fistulizing CD.141

Phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors

Phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors block the breakdown of cAMP, which is an important intracellular signaling molecule that plays a role in the suppression of the NF-.B dependent inflammation including TNF-α production.142 Apremilast (Otezla) (Celgene), is a PDE4 inhibitor approved by the FDA for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. A recent phase II, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial demonstrated significantly higher rates of clinical remission, mucosal healing, and biomarker improvement in patients with UC.143

While PDE4 inhibition represents a potentially efficacious target in IBD pathogenesis, multiple phase II and phase III trials of the PDE4 inhibitor tetomilast (OPC-6535) (Otsuka Pharma) failed to show any difference compared to placebo in patients with UC.144,145The trial was limited by high drop-out rate due to upper gastrointestinal symptoms, and a post hoc analysis suggests that tetomilast may have some clinical efficacy in those able to tolerate the drug. 

Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) was investigated in a small phase II clinical trial based on systematic review suggesting improvement in clinical response.146 HBOT has been shown to reduce pro-inflammatory cytokines, improve microbiome diversity, and increase growth factor synthesis. A recent phase 2A, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial demonstrated significantly higher rates of clinical remission at 5 and 10 days in patients hospitalized for moderate-severe UC flare treated with HBOT and steroids compared to sham plus steroids despite early termination due to poor recruitment.147Despite these encouraging results, availability and costs of administering hyperbaric oxygen therapy remains a major barrier to widespread use outside of highly specialized academic centers. 

CONCLUSION

Advances in our understanding of the pathogenesis of IBD have begun to unravel the complexity of gut inflammation. With contributions from the immune system, genetics, microbiome, pathogens, and the environment, the multiple facets of IBD can be daunting. This complexity also allows for immense opportunity, offering multiple targets on which to intervene. The IBD pipeline can therefore be expected to continue to grow and mature. Identifying safe and efficacious targets is only the first hurdle. Critical questions regarding optimal overall treatment approach and drug selection remain unanswered. The question of which therapy to initiate in the treatment naive patient, or which drug to try next, remain largely uninformed and often clinical practice relies on anecdotal or cost-driven step-up therapy in the absence of an evidence-based overall strategy. Studies aimed at answering these questions have been performed and some headway has been made, particularly with regard to the benefits of combination therapy demonstrated in the SONIC148 trial for CD and the SUCCESS149 trial for UC. Newer studies, including REACT150 and CALM,151 have shown benefit in rapid step-up and treat-to-target strategies. REACT was an open-label, cluster randomized controlled trial that compared early combined immunotherapy (ECI) with an anti-TNF-α and an antimetabolite therapy to conventional management. This study found that ECI was not more effective than conventional management for symptom control in CD, but had improved rates of major adverse outcomes. 150 CALM was an open-label, randomized phase III study comparing a ‘tight control’ management strategy that utilized the biomarkers fecal calprotectin and C-reactive protein in conjunction with clinical symptoms vs. a strategy using only clinical symptoms. This study found that patients in the tight control group had better clinical and endoscopic outcomes than those in the clinical management alone, supporting a treat-to-target strategy that utilizes biomarkers in conjunction with clinical evaluation.151

Optimal treatment strategies remain elusive due to a number of factors including an incomplete understanding of the pathogenesis of IBD, a lack of head to head treatment trials (further complicated by the rate of emerging new therapies), and the mixed data on prospective drug levels. The field will benefit from head to head treatment trials and algorithmic strategy studies at the population level. However, the heterogeneity of patient response highlights the need for predictive models that can identify the next optimal therapy for each patient.

As our understanding of IBD expands, so too does the drug pipeline but also the number of unanswered questions regarding the best way to use these treatments. These complex diseases offer many challenges, but great opportunity to improve patients’ quality of life and outcomes. This is an exciting time in the treatment of IBD, and we are only just beginning.

Download Tables, Images & References

MEDICAL BULLETIN BOARD

Compulink Showcases Smart EHR Multi-Specialty Solution At HIMSS 2019

Read Article

Newbury Park, CA—Compulink Healthcare Solutions, the creator of Advantage SMARTPractice®, an all-in-one EHR and practice management solution powered by artificialintelligence (AI), demonstrated its multi-specialtysolution, Compulink AdvantageTM at HIMSS Annual Conference & Exhibition.

Advantage uses AI technology and real-time data from the clinic to completely automate tasks such as billing, along with eliminating steps toimprove patient flow.

Among the innovative AI-driven features demonstrated:

Advantage SMART Workflow®:

Advantage knows which patients are being seen based on their room assignment and automatically displays their record when needed. The system also lets providers and staff know who is waiting, where they need to go next, and keeps them constantlyinformed for maximum efficiency.

SMART Automated Billing, Eligibility & ERA Posting:

Using the Advantage PracticeWatch® task automation engine, staff can schedule eligibility, claims submission, and remittance posting to run unattended. Advantage also automatically populates a claim edit worklist to quickly identify and correct issues.

Advantage SMART Patient EngagementTM:

Advantage automatically communicates personalized content directly to the patient’s mobile device. This includes information about productsand services specific to each individual patient as they arrive at the office and move through the normal patient workflow.

“We expect this release to take our client’sefficiency across their entire clinic to a whole new level,” said Link Wilson, CEO and founder of Compulink. “Our SMART billing features willreduce the amount of time required to generateand work claims by about 90%. With our SMART workflow engine, we’re looking for patientthroughput to increase by as much as 15% or more. And with our mobile patient engagement, the ability to engage patients in their own care while growing your patient base is really limitless.”

Among Compulink’s key innovations is a single database architecture that allows Advantageto serve up templates, workflow, and content(e.g. diagnosis codes) to support the provider’s individual specialty, while allowing the entire care team to easily share information.

The company’s 2015 ONC Certified systemis used by more than 20,000 providers in over 4,700 locations and 40 ASC. Its all-in-onesolution includes specialty-specific EHR for 18specialties, practice management, ASC, inventorymanagement, patient engagement and workflowoptimization. The company also provides an expert revenue cycle management service for its clients.

About Compulink Healthcare Solutions

A leader in specialty-specific, all-in-one EHRand Practice Management solutions for 34 years,Compulink’s Advantage SMART Practice® usesartificial intelligence to improve clinical and financial results. Designed to maximize your time while seeing patients, Advantage includes everything you need to optimize workflow including EHR, PM, ASC, patient engagement, and RCM.

For additional information, visit: Compulink Advantage’s website

jojobethacklinkmarsbahisJojobet GirişcasibomJojobet GirişCasibomCasibomvaycasinoholiganbetcasibommarsbahis girişJojobettaraftarium24madridbet güncel girişmadridbet girişmadridbetGrandpashabet