Transcriptomic analysis of intestine following administration of a transglutaminase 2 inhibitor to prevent gluten-induced intestinal damage in celiac disease.

Transglutaminase 2 (TG2) plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of celiac disease (CeD) by deamidating dietary gluten peptides, which facilitates antigenic presentation and a strong anti-gluten T cell response. Here, we elucidate the molecular mechanisms underlying the efficacy of the TG2 inhibitor ZED1227 by performing transcriptional analysis of duodenal biopsies from individuals with CeD on a long-term gluten-free diet before and after a 6-week gluten challenge combined with 100 mg per day ZED1227 or placebo. At the transcriptome level, orally administered ZED1227 effectively prevented gluten-induced intestinal damage and inflammation, providing molecular-level evidence that TG2 inhibition is an effective strategy for treating CeD. ZED1227 treatment preserved transcriptome signatures associated with mucosal morphology, inflammation, cell differentiation and nutrient absorption to the level of the gluten-free diet group. Nearly half of the gluten-induced gene expression changes in CeD were associated with the epithelial interferon-γ response. Moreover, data suggest that deamidated gluten-induced adaptive immunity is a sufficient step to set the stage for CeD pathogenesis. Our results, with the limited sample size, also suggest that individuals with CeD might benefit from an HLA-DQ2/HLA-DQ8 stratification based on gene doses to maximally eliminate the interferon-γ-induced mucosal damage triggered by gluten.

A Randomized Trial of a Transglutaminase 2 Inhibitor for Celiac Disease.

BACKGROUND: In celiac disease, small intestinal transglutaminase 2 causes deamidation of glutamine residues in gluten peptides, which enhances stimulation of T cells and leads to mucosal injury. Inhibition of transglutaminase 2 is a potential treatment for celiac disease. METHODS: In a proof-of-concept trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of a 6-week treatment with ZED1227, a selective oral transglutaminase 2 inhibitor, at three dose levels as compared with placebo, in adults with well-controlled celiac disease who underwent a daily gluten challenge. The primary end point was the attenuation of gluten-induced mucosal damage, as measured by the ratio of villus height to crypt depth. Secondary end points included intraepithelial lymphocyte density, the Celiac Symptom Index score, and the Celiac Disease Questionnaire score (for assessment of health-related quality of life). RESULTS: Of the 41 patients assigned to the 10-mg ZED1227 group, the 41 assigned to the 50-mg group, the 41 assigned to the 100-mg group, and the 40 assigned to the placebo group, 35, 39, 38, and 30 patients, respectively, had adequate duodenal-biopsy samples for the assessment of the primary end point. Treatment with ZED1227 at all three dose levels attenuated gluten-induced duodenal mucosal injury. The estimated difference from placebo in the change in the mean ratio of villus height to crypt depth from baseline to week 6 was 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.73) in the 10-mg group (P = 0.001), 0.49 (95% CI, 0.20 to 0.77) in the 50-mg group (P<0.001), and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.20 to 0.77) in the 100-mg group (P<0.001). The estimated differences from placebo in the change in intraepithelial lymphocyte density were -2.7 cells per 100 epithelial cells (95% CI, -7.6 to 2.2) in the 10-mg group, -4.2 cells per 100 epithelial cells (95% CI, -8.9 to 0.6) in the 50-mg group, and -9.6 cells per 100 epithelial cells (95% CI, -14.4 to -4.8) in the 100-mg group. Use of the 100-mg dose may have improved symptom and quality-of-life scores. The most common adverse events, the incidences of which were similar across all groups, were headache, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Rash developed in 3 of 40 patients (8%) in the 100-mg group. CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary trial, treatment with ZED1227 attenuated gluten-induced duodenal mucosal damage in patients with celiac disease. (Funded by Dr. Falk Pharma; CEC-3 EudraCT number, 2017-002241-30.).

The Oral Transglutaminase 2 Inhibitor ZED1227 Accumulates in the Villous Enterocytes in Celiac Disease Patients during Gluten Challenge and Drug Treatment.

The enzyme transglutaminase 2 (TG2) plays a key role in celiac disease (CeD) pathogenesis. Active TG2 is located mainly extracellularly in the lamina propria but also in the villous enterocytes of the duodenum. The TG2 inhibitor ZED1227 is a promising drug candidate for treating CeD and is designed to block the TG2-catalyzed deamidation and crosslinking of gliadin peptides. Our aim was to study the accumulation of ZED1227 after oral administration of the drug. We studied duodenal biopsies derived from a phase 2a clinical drug trial using an antibody that detects ZED1227 when bound to the catalytic center of TG2. Human epithelial organoids were studied in vitro for the effect of ZED1227 on the activity of TG2 using the 5-biotin-pentylamine assay. The ZED1227-TG2 complex was found mainly in the villous enterocytes in post-treatment biopsies. The signal of ZED1227-TG2 was strongest in the luminal epithelial brush border, while the intensity of the signal in the lamina propria was only ~20% of that in the villous enterocytes. No signal specific to ZED1227 could be detected in pretreatment biopsies or in biopsies from patients randomized to the placebo treatment arm. ZED1227-TG2 staining co-localized with total TG2 and native and deamidated gliadin peptides on the enterocyte luminal surface. Inhibition of TG2 activity by ZED1227 was demonstrated in epithelial organoids. Our findings suggest that active TG2 is present at the luminal side of the villous epithelium and that inhibition of TG2 activity by ZED1227 occurs already there before gliadin peptides enter the lamina propria.

Distribution of histopathological features along the colon in microscopic colitis.

PURPOSE: The diagnosis microscopic colitis (MC) consisting of collagenous colitis (CC) and lymphocytic colitis (LC) relies on histological assessment of mucosal biopsies from the colon. The optimal biopsy strategy for reliable diagnosis of MC is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the distribution of histopathological features of MC throughout the colon. METHODS: Mucosal biopsies from multiple colonic segments of patients with MC who participated in one of the three prospective European multicenter trials were analyzed. Histological slides were stained with hematoxylin-and-eosin, a connective tissue stain, and CD3 in selected cases. RESULTS: In total, 255 patients were included, 199 and 56 patients with CC and LC, respectively. Both groups exhibited a gradient with more pronounced inflammation in the lamina propria in the proximal colon compared with the distal colon. Similarly, the thickness of the subepithelial collagenous band in CC showed a gradient with higher values in the proximal colon. The mean number of intraepithelial lymphocytes was > 20 in all colonic segments in patients within both subgroups. Biopsies from 86 to 94% of individual segments were diagnostic, rectum excluded. Biopsies from non-diagnostic segments often showed features of another subgroup of MC. CONCLUSION: Conclusively, although the severity of the histological changes in MC differed in the colonic mucosa, the minimum criteria required for the diagnosis were present in the random biopsies from the majority of segments. Thus, our findings show MC to be a pancolitis, rectum excluded, questioning previously proclaimed patchiness throughout the colon.

Budesonide Suppositories Are Effective and Safe for Treating Acute Ulcerative Proctitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although proctitis is the most limited form of ulcerative colitis, it causes unpleasant symptoms. Topical mesalamine, the standard treatment, is not always effective. We conducted a randomized phase 2 trial to determine the efficacy and safety of 2 doses of a budesonide suppository vs mesalamine suppositories vs combined budesonide and mesalamine suppositories for proctitis. METHODS: We performed a prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter trial in 337 patients with active proctitis to compare the efficacies of 4 different suppository treatments. Patients were randomly assigned to groups given 2 mg budesonide suppositories (2 mg BUS; n = 89 patients), 4 mg BUS (n = 79), 1 g mesalamine suppositories (1 g MES; n = 81), or the combination of 2 mg BUS and 1 g MES (n = 88). The study was performed from November 2013 through July 2015 at 36 study sites in Europe and Russia. The primary end point was the time to resolution of clinical symptoms, defined as the first of 3 consecutive days with a score of 0 for rectal bleeding and stool frequency. RESULTS: The mean time to resolution of symptoms in the 4 mg BUS (29.8 days) and combination of 2 mg BUS and 1 g MES (29.3 days) groups resembled that of the standard 1 g MES treatment (29.2 days), but was significantly longer in the 2 mg BUS group (35.5 days). Furthermore, proportions of patients with deep, clinical, and endoscopic remission, as well as mucosal healing, were similar among the 1 g MES, 4 mg BUS, and combination therapy groups, but significantly lower in the group that received 2 mg BUS. No safety signals were observed, and the patients' treatment acceptance was high (67%-85% of patients). CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter randomized trial, we found that the efficacy and safety of 4 mg BUS in treatment of active proctitis did not differ significantly from those of 1 g MES. Budesonide suppositories offer an alternative therapy to mesalamine for topical treatment of proctitis. Clinicaltrialsregister.eu no: 2012-003362-41.

Budesonide is more effective than mesalamine or placebo in short-term treatment of collagenous colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Studies reporting that budesonide is effective for the treatment of collagenous colitis have been small and differed in efficacy measures. Mesalamine has been proposed as a treatment option for collagenous colitis, although its efficacy has never been investigated in placebo-controlled trials. We performed a phase 3, placebo-controlled, multicenter study to evaluate budesonide and mesalamine as short-term treatments for collagenous colitis. METHODS: Patients with active collagenous colitis were randomly assigned to groups given pH-modified release oral budesonide capsules (9 mg budesonide once daily, Budenofalk, n = 30), mesalamine granules (3 g mesalamine once daily, Salofalk, n = 25), or placebo for 8 weeks (n = 37) in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion. The study was conducted in 31 centers (hospital clinics and private practices) in Germany, Denmark, Lithuania, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The primary end point was clinical remission at 8 weeks defined as ≤ 3 stools per day. Secondary end points included clinical remission at 8 weeks, according to the Hjortswang-Criteria of disease activity, taking stool consistency into account. RESULTS: A greater percentage of patients in the budesonide group were in clinical remission at week 8 than the placebo group (intention-to-treat analysis, 80.0% vs 59.5%; P = .072; per-protocol analysis, 84.8% vs 60.6%; P = .046). Based on the Hjortswang-Criteria, 80.0% of patients given budesonide achieved clinical remission compared with 37.8% of patients given placebo (P = .0006); 44.0% of patients given mesalamine achieved clinical remission, but budesonide was superior to mesalamine (P = .0035). Budesonide significantly improved stool consistency and mucosal histology, and alleviated abdominal pain. The rate of adverse events did not differ among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Oral budesonide (9 mg once daily) is effective and safe for short-term treatment of collagenous colitis. Short-term treatment with oral mesalamine (3 g once daily) appears to be ineffective. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00450086.

Improvement in oral chronic graft-versus-host disease with the administration of effervescent tablets of topical budesonide-an open, randomized, multicenter study.

Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) frequently involves oral tissues. Although the mucosal changes may be painful and impair oral function, there is currently no topical therapy available for oral cGVHD that has been proven to work in an evidence-based manner. The aims of this study were to (1) assess the response of patients with oral cGVHD to various doses of a new topical budesonide formulation; (2) evaluate the efficacy and safety of the new topical budesonide formulation in these patients. An open, randomized, multicenter phase II pilot study with 4 treatment arms differing in application frequency and duration was performed. Response to treatment was scored by the clinician and patient using several scales. Oral cGVHD improved in all patients, with a median reduction of 70%. Pain reduction was similar in all study arms. The rate of objective improvement (defined as ≥50%) was not significantly different among the 4 study arms. The safety profile was satisfactory. Topical budesonide mouthwash (3 mg/10 mL) improved oral cGVHD in all patients when applied for 5 or 10 minutes, 2 or 3 times daily. The response was similar in all treatment arms. Safety analysis supported a dosing schedule of 3 mg of budesonide 3 times a day for 10 minutes.

Budesonide 9 mg is at least as effective as mesalamine 4.5 g in patients with mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Comparative data on budesonide vs mesalamine for the treatment of mild-to-moderately active Crohn's disease (CD) are sparse. We assessed the efficacy and safety of each therapy in patients with mildly to moderately active CD. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, 8-week, multicenter study in which 309 patients with mildly to moderately active CD received pH-modified-release oral budesonide (9 mg/day once daily or 3 mg/day 3 times daily) or Eudragit-L-coated oral mesalamine (4.5 g/day). RESULTS: The primary efficacy variable, clinical remission (defined as Crohn's Disease Activity Index ≤150), at the final visit occurred in 69.5% (107 of 154) of patients given budesonide vs 62.1% (95 of 153) of patients given mesalamine (difference, 7.4%; 95% repeated confidence interval, -4.6% to 18.0%; P = .001 for noninferiority). Clinical remission rates did not differ significantly between the 2 budesonide groups. Treatment response, defined as Crohn's Disease Activity Index of 150 or less and/or a decrease of 70 or more (Δ70) or 100 or more (Δ100) points from baseline to final visit, did not differ significantly between patients given budesonide vs mesalamine (Δ70, P = .11; Δ100, P = .15), or between the 2 budesonide groups (Δ70, P = .38; Δ100, P = .78). No other efficacy end points differed significantly between groups. Discontinuation because of adverse events occurred in 3% and 5% of budesonide- and mesalamine-treated patients, respectively. There were no clinically relevant differences in adverse events between the 2 budesonide groups. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide (9 mg/day) was numerically, but not statistically, more effective than Eudragit-L-coated mesalamine (4.5 g/day) in patients with mildly to moderately active CD. Budesonide (9 mg/day), administered once daily, was as effective as the standard (3 times daily) regimen.

Novel Budesonide Suppository and Standard Budesonide Rectal Foam Induce High Rates of Clinical Remission and Mucosal Healing in Active Ulcerative Proctitis: a Randomised, Controlled, Non-inferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Proctitis is the least extensive type of ulcerative colitis, for which rectal therapy is rarely studied and is underused. This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and patient's preference of a novel formulation of budesonide suppository 4 mg, compared with a commercially available budesonide rectal foam 2 mg, for the treatment of mild to moderate ulcerative proctitis. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either budesonide 4 mg suppository or budesonide 2 mg foam once daily for 8 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were changes from baseline to Week 8 in clinical symptoms, for which clinical remission was defined as having a modified Ulcerative Colitis-Disease Activity Index [UC-DAI] subscore for stool frequency of 0 or 1 and a subscore for rectal bleeding of 0, and mucosal healing, defined as having a modified UC-DAI subscore for mucosal appearance of 0 or 1. Using a more stringent criterion, we additionally analysed deepened mucosal healing, which was defined as a mucosal appearance subscore of 0. Patient's preference, physician's global assessment, and quality of life were also assessed and analysed. RESULTS: Overall, 286 and 291 patients were included in the 4 mg suppository and 2 mg foam groups, respectively. Budesonide 4 mg suppository met the prespecified criterion for non-inferiority to the 2 mg foam in both co-primary endpoints of clinical remission and mucosal healing. Secondary endpoints consistently supported the non-inferiority of the suppository. Trends in favour of the suppository were observed in the subgroup of mesalazine non-responders. More patients reported a preference for the suppository over rectal foam. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ulcerative proctitis, budesonide 4 mg suppository was non-inferior to budesonide 2 mg foam in efficacy, and both were safe and well tolerated.

Budesonide as induction therapy for incomplete microscopic colitis: A randomised, placebo-controlled multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Incomplete microscopic colitis (MCi) is a subtype of microscopic colitis (MC). Budesonide is recommended as a first-line treatment for MC. However, randomised trials on efficacy of treatment in MCi are missing. We therefore performed a randomised, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate budesonide as induction therapy for MCi. METHODS: Patients with active MCi were randomly assigned to either budesonide 9 mg once daily or placebo for 8 weeks in a double-blind, double-dummy design. The primary endpoint was clinical remission, defined as a mean of <3 stools/day and a mean of <1 watery stool/day in the 7 days before week 8. RESULTS: Due to insufficient patient recruitment, the trial was discontinued prematurely. The intention-to-treat analysis included 44 patients (21 budesonide and 23 placebo). The primary endpoint of clinical remission at week 8 was obtained by 71.4% on budesonide and 43.5% on placebo (p = 0.0582). All clinical secondary endpoints were in favour of budesonide. Budesonide decreased the number of soft or watery stools (16.3 vs. 7.7, p = 0.0186) and improved health-related quality of life for all four dimensions of the short health scale. Adverse events with a suspected relation to study drug were reported in one patient in the budesonide group and two patients in the placebo group. Neither serious nor severe adverse events occurred during the double-blind phase. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide decreased the frequency of soft or watery stools and improved the patients' quality of life significantly in MCi, but the primary endpoint was not met due to the low sample size (type 2 error). Budesonide was safe and well tolerated during the 8-weeks treatment course.

Smoking Status Influences Clinical Outcome in Collagenous Colitis.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between clinical and histological parameters in collagenous colitis (CC) is poorly understood. Smoking is a risk factor for CC, whereas its impact on clinical activity and outcome is not well known. METHODS: In a post hoc analysis of pooled data from two randomized controlled trials we assessed the association between demographic data (gender, age, smoking habits, family history of inflammatory bowel disease), clinical variables (duration of symptoms, mean number of stools/watery stools per day, abdominal pain, clinical remission) and histological data (thickness of the collagen band, inflammation of the lamina propria, total numbers of intraepithelial lymphocytes, degeneration). Moreover, we analysed the predictive value of baseline parameters for clinical outcome in a logistic regression model. RESULTS: Pooled data were available from 202 patients with active CC, of whom 36% were current smokers, 29% former smokers and 35% non-smokers. Smoking status was associated with decreased ability to achieve clinical remission (current smokers vs non-smokers: odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10-0.98, p = 0.045; former smokers vs non-smokers: OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05-0.73, p = 0.016). Current smokers had an increased mean number of watery stools at baseline compared with non-smokers (p = 0.051) and increased mean number of watery stools per se was associated with decreased likelihood of obtaining clinical remission (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47-0.86, p = 0.003). Patient characteristics and histology at baseline had no association with clinical parameters and no predictive value for clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: Smoking worsens clinical symptoms in CC and is associated with an increased number of watery stools and decreased likelihood of achieving clinical remission. There is no significant association between histology and clinical data.

The phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitor udenafil lowers portal pressure in compensated preascitic liver cirrhosis. A dose-finding phase-II-study.

BACKGROUND: Phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors may lower portal pressure. AIMS: To investigate the effect of the phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitor udenafil on hepatic and systemic haemodynamics in liver cirrhosis. METHODS: In an open-label phase-II-study, patients with liver cirrhosis Child A/B and hepatic venous pressure-gradient ≥ 12 mmHg received 12.5mg/day, 25mg/day, 50mg/day, 75 mg/day (n = 5, each), or 100mg/day (n = 10) udenafil p.o. for one week. On days 0 and 6, hepatic venous pressure-gradient was measured prior to and one hour after drug ingestion. Endpoints were reduction of hepatic venous pressure-gradient from day 0 pre to day 6 post intake and reduction in the acute setting. Pharmacokinetics were measured in the two lowest dosage groups. RESULTS: Combining the 75 and 100mg/day groups hepatic venous pressure-gradient reduction after drug intake was 19.9% (p = 0.0006) on day 0. From day 0 pre-dose to day 6 post-dose hepatic venous pressure-gradient decreased by 15.7% (p = 0.040) and in 5/15 patients by ≥ 20% or to <12 mmHg. In the 100mg/day group, mean arterial pressure decreased from 98.9 mmHg by 6.2 mmHg (p = 0.037) from day 0 pre-dose to day 6 post-dose. Heart rates or electrocardiograms were unchanged. Udenafil was eliminated with t1/2 = 25 h. CONCLUSIONS: Oral application of 75-100mg of the phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitor udenafil lowers portal pressure in the acute setting by about 20% without relevant systemic cardiovascular side effects.

Clinical trial: a novel high-dose 1 g mesalamine suppository (Salofalk) once daily is as efficacious as a 500-mg suppository thrice daily in active ulcerative proctitis.

BACKGROUND: Mesalamine suppositories are first-line therapy in active ulcerative proctitis; the standard regime still recommends multiple doses per day. The primary objective of this study was to show the noninferiority of once-daily administration of a novel 1 g mesalamine suppository versus thrice-daily administration of the 0.5 g mesalamine suppository. METHODS: This was a single-blind (investigator-blinded), randomized, multicenter, comparative, Phase III clinical trial. Patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative proctitis inserted either one mesalamine 1 g suppository at bedtime or one mesalamine 0.5 g suppository thrice daily over a 6-week period. The primary endpoint was rate of remission (Disease Activity Index below 4). RESULTS: In all, 354 patients were evaluable for safety and per-protocol analysis. The new regimen demonstrated noninferiority: The percentage of patients with remission was 87.9% for the once-daily 1 g mesalamine suppository and 90.7% for the thrice-daily 0.5 g mesalamine suppository. Each regimen resulted in prompt cessation of clinical symptoms (e.g., median time to ≤3 stools per day (all without blood): 5 days in the 1 g mesalamine once-daily and 7 days in the 0.5 g mesalamine thrice-daily group). Patients preferred applying suppositories once a day. CONCLUSIONS: In active ulcerative proctitis the once-daily administration of a 1 g mesalamine suppository is as effective and safe, yet considerably more convenient, than the standard thrice-daily administration of a 0.5 g mesalamine suppository.