Vedolizumab for the Treatment of Chronic Pouchitis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately half the patients with ulcerative colitis who undergo restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) will subsequently have pouchitis, and among those patients, one fifth will have chronic pouchitis. METHODS: We conducted a phase 4, double-blind, randomized trial to evaluate vedolizumab in adult patients in whom chronic pouchitis had developed after undergoing IPAA for ulcerative colitis. Patients were assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive vedolizumab intravenously at a dose of 300 mg or placebo on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, 14, 22, and 30. All the patients received concomitant ciprofloxacin from weeks 1 to 4. The primary end point was modified Pouchitis Disease Activity Index (mPDAI)-defined remission (an mPDAI score of ≤4 and a reduction from baseline of ≥2 points in the mPDAI total score; scores range from 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating more severe pouchitis) at week 14. The mPDAI is based on clinical symptoms and endoscopic findings. Other efficacy end points included mPDAI-defined remission at week 34, mPDAI-defined response (a reduction from baseline of ≥2 points in the mPDAI score) at weeks 14 and 34, and PDAI-defined remission (a PDAI score of ≤6 and a reduction from baseline of ≥3 points; scores range from 0 to 18, with higher scores indicating more severe pouchitis) at weeks 14 and 34. The PDAI is based on clinical symptoms, endoscopic findings, and histologic findings. RESULTS: Among the 102 patients who underwent randomization, the incidence of mPDAI-defined remission at week 14 was 31% (16 of 51 patients) with vedolizumab and 10% (5 of 51 patients) with placebo (difference, 21 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5 to 38; P = 0.01). Differences in favor of vedolizumab over placebo were also seen with respect to mPDAI-defined remission at week 34 (difference, 17 percentage points; 95% CI, 0 to 35), mPDAI-defined response at week 14 (difference, 30 percentage points; 95% CI, 8 to 48) and at week 34 (difference, 22 percentage points; 95% CI, 2 to 40), and PDAI-defined remission at week 14 (difference, 25 percentage points; 95% CI, 8 to 41) and at week 34 (difference, 19 percentage points; 95% CI, 2 to 37). Serious adverse events occurred in 3 of 51 patients (6%) in the vedolizumab group and in 4 of 51 patients (8%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with vedolizumab was more effective than placebo in inducing remission in patients who had chronic pouchitis after undergoing IPAA for ulcerative colitis. (Funded by Takeda; EARNEST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02790138; EudraCT number, 2015-003472-78.).

Mucosal Healing with Vedolizumab in Patients with Chronic Pouchitis: EARNEST, a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Vedolizumab is indicated for the treatment of chronic pouchitis in the European Union. We assessed whether vedolizumab induced mucosal healing (MH) and if MH was associated with clinical improvements. METHODS: EARNEST, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, evaluated vedolizumab efficacy and safety in adults with chronic pouchitis. Centrally read endoscopic and histologic evaluation was performed at baseline, Week (W)14, and W34. Ulcer count, adapted Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease in the pouch, and Pouchitis Disease Activity Index histologic component were evaluated. Pouchitis Disease Activity Index and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire remission at W14 and W34 were compared by MH status at W14. RESULTS: Following treatment, mean (standard deviation) number of ulcers in vedolizumab-treated patients reduced from 15.1 (16.4) to 5.0 (4.9) at W14 and 2.7 (3.2) at W34 versus placebo-treated patients with corresponding values of 11.8 (11.3), 13.4 (18.4), and 9.7 (13.8) (vedolizumab vs placebo difference [95% confidence interval]: W14: -8.4 [-14.3 to -2.6]; W34: -7.0 [-12.0 to -2.0]). More patients receiving vedolizumab versus placebo achieved reduction in ulcerated pouch surface area (W14: 52.4% vs 20.0%; difference, 32.4 percentage points [p.p] [9.7, 51.4]; W34: 52.1% vs 12.9%; difference, 40.2p.p [15.6, 60.3]), absence of ulceration (W14: 23.8% vs 7.5%; difference, 16.3p.p [1.1, 31.6]; W34: 34.4% vs 15.6%; difference, 18.8p.p [-2.0, 39.5]), Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease remission (W14: 23.8% vs 7.5%; difference, 16.3p.p [1.1, 31.6]; W34: 34.4% vs 15.6%; difference, 18.8p.p [-2.0, 39.5]), and MH (W14: 16.7% vs 2.5%; difference, 14.2p.p [1.9, 26.4]). Patients with MH at W14 had higher rates of Pouchitis Disease Activity Index and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire remission at W14 and W34 than those without. CONCLUSIONS: Vedolizumab induced endoscopic improvements in patients with chronic pouchitis, which was associated with improved outcomes at W34, particularly in patients achieving MH at W14. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02790138.).

Comparable efficacy of ciclesonide once daily versus fluticasone propionate twice daily in asthma.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids are the mainstay of therapy in asthma, but local and systemic side effects and adherence remain a concern. Ciclesonide is an inhaled corticosteroid with on-site lung activation that provides potent anti-inflammatory activity and has been shown to have a good safety profile, even at high doses. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily ciclesonide versus twice-daily fluticasone propionate at comparable daily doses in patients with asthma. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study, 529 patients were randomized to ciclesonide 160 microg once daily or fluticasone propionate 88 microg twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in lung function. RESULTS: Both ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate significantly improved forced expiratory volume in 1s, forced vital capacity, and morning peak expiratory flow compared with baseline (p<0.0001 for all variables). Both medications reduced asthma symptoms and rescue medication use within the first 24 h. At the tested dose, both medications were equally safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Ciclesonide 160 microg once daily was as effective as fluticasone propionate 88 microg twice daily in improving lung function and asthma symptoms, and in reducing rescue medication use in patients with asthma.