Etrasimod as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis (ELEVATE): two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies.

BACKGROUND: Etrasimod, a once-daily, oral, sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator that selectively activates S1P receptor subtypes 1, 4, and 5, with no detectable activity on S1P2,3, is in development for the treatment of immune-mediated diseases, including ulcerative colitis. In these two phase 3 trials, we aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of etrasimod in adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: In two independent randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials, ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12, adults with active moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis and an inadequate or loss of response or intolerance to at least one approved ulcerative colitis therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to once-daily oral etrasimod 2 mg or placebo. Patients in ELEVATE UC 52 were enrolled from 315 centres in 40 countries. Patients in ELEVATE UC 12 were enrolled from 407 centres in 37 countries. Randomisation was stratified by previous exposure to biologicals or Janus kinase inhibitor therapy (yes vs no), baseline corticosteroid use (yes vs no), and baseline disease activity (modified Mayo score [MMS]; 4-6 vs 7-9). ELEVATE UC 52 comprised a 12-week induction period followed by a 40-week maintenance period with a treat-through design. ELEVATE UC 12 independently assessed induction at week 12. The primary efficacy endpoints were the proportion of patients with clinical remission at weeks 12 and 52 in ELEVATE UC 52 and week 12 in ELEVATE UC 12. Safety was evaluated in both trials. ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03945188 and NCT03996369, respectively. FINDINGS: Patients in ELEVATE UC 52 were enrolled between June 13, 2019, and Jan 28, 2021. Patients in ELEVATE UC 12 were enrolled between Sept 15, 2020, and Aug 12, 2021. ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 screened 821 patients and 606 patients, respectively, with 433 and 354 subsequently undergoing random assignment. The full analysis set of ELEVATE UC 52 comprised 289 patients assigned to etrasimod and 144 to placebo. In ELEVATE UC 12, 238 patients were assigned to etrasimod and 116 to placebo. In ELEVATE UC 52, a significantly greater proportion of patients in the etrasimod group achieved clinical remission compared with patients in the placebo group at completion of the 12-week induction period (74 [27%] of 274 patients vs ten [7%] of 135 patients; p<0·0001) and at week 52 (88 [32%] of 274 patients vs nine [7%] of 135 patients; p<0·0001). In ELEVATE UC 12, 55 (25%) of 222 patients in the etrasimod group had clinical remission compared with 17 (15%) of 112 patients in the placebo group at the end of the 12-week induction period (p=0·026). Adverse events were reported in 206 (71%) of 289 patients in the etrasimod group and 81 (56%) of 144 patients in the placebo group in ELEVATE UC 52 and 112 (47%) of 238 patients in the etrasimod group and 54 (47%) of 116 patients in the placebo group in ELEVATE UC 12. No deaths or malignancies were reported. INTERPRETATION: Etrasimod was effective and well tolerated as an induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Etrasimod is a treatment option with a unique combination of attributes that might address the persistent unmet needs of patients with ulcerative colitis. FUNDING: Arena Pharmaceuticals.

Ozanimod as Induction and Maintenance Therapy for Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Ozanimod, a selective sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator, is under investigation for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ozanimod as induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. In the 10-week induction period, patients in cohort 1 were assigned to receive oral ozanimod hydrochloride at a dose of 1 mg (equivalent to 0.92 mg of ozanimod) or placebo once daily in a double-blind manner, and patients in cohort 2 received open-label ozanimod at the same daily dose. At 10 weeks, patients with a clinical response to ozanimod in either cohort underwent randomization again to receive double-blind ozanimod or placebo for the maintenance period (through week 52). The primary end point for both periods was the percentage of patients with clinical remission, as assessed with the three-component Mayo score. Key secondary clinical, endoscopic, and histologic end points were evaluated with the use of ranked, hierarchical testing. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: In the induction period, 645 patients were included in cohort 1 and 367 in cohort 2; a total of 457 patients were included in the maintenance period. The incidence of clinical remission was significantly higher among patients who received ozanimod than among those who received placebo during both induction (18.4% vs. 6.0%, P<0.001) and maintenance (37.0% vs. 18.5% [among patients with a response at week 10], P<0.001). The incidence of clinical response was also significantly higher with ozanimod than with placebo during induction (47.8% vs. 25.9%, P<0.001) and maintenance (60.0% vs. 41.0%, P<0.001). All other key secondary end points were significantly improved with ozanimod as compared with placebo in both periods. The incidence of infection (of any severity) with ozanimod was similar to that with placebo during induction and higher than that with placebo during maintenance. Serious infection occurred in less than 2% of the patients in each group during the 52-week trial. Elevated liver aminotransferase levels were more common with ozanimod. CONCLUSIONS: Ozanimod was more effective than placebo as induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; True North ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02435992.).

Paid Leave Mandates and Care for Older Parents.

Policy Points We examined the effect of the Paid Family Leave policy (PFL) and Paid Sick Leave policy (PSL) on care provision to older parents. We found that PSL adoption led to an increase in care provision, an effect mainly attributable to respondents in states/periods when PSL and PFL were concurrently offered. Some of the strongest effects were found among women and unpartnered adult children. PFL adoption by itself was not associated with care provision to parents except when PFL also offered job protection. Paid leave policies have heterogeneous effects on eldercare and their design and implementation should be carefully considered. CONTEXT: Family caregivers play a critical role in the American long-term care system. However, care responsibilities are known to potentially conflict with paid work, as about half of family caregivers are employed. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act passed by the US Congress in 1993 provides a nonuniversal, unpaid work benefit. In response, several states and localities have adopted the Paid Family Leave policy (PFL) and Paid Sick Leave policy (PSL) over the last two decades. Our objective is to examine the effect of these policies on the probability of personal care provision to older parents. METHODS: This study used longitudinal data from the Health and Retirement Study (1998-2020). Difference-in-differences regression models were estimated to examine associations between state- and local-level PFL and PSL mandates and personal care provision to older parents. We analyzed heterogeneous effects by the type of paid leave exposure (provision of job protection with PFL and availability of both PSL and PFL [with or without job protection] concurrently). We also examined results for different population subgroups. FINDINGS: PSL implementation was associated with a four- to five-percentage point increase in the probability of personal care provision. These effects were mainly attributable to respondents in states/periods when PSL and PFL were concurrently offered. The strongest effects were found among adult children who were employed at baseline, women, younger, unpartnered, and college educated. PFL implementation by itself was not associated with care provision to parents except when the policy also offered job protection. CONCLUSIONS: Paid leave policies have heterogeneous impacts on personal care provision, potentially owing to differences in program features, variation in caregiving needs, and respondent characteristics. Overall, the results indicate that offering paid sick leave and paid family leave, when combined with job protection, could support potential family caregivers.

State COVID-19 Policies and Drug Overdose Mortality Among Working-Age Adults in the United States, 2020.

Objectives. To identify relationships between US states' COVID-19 in-person activity limitation and economic support policies and drug overdose deaths among working-age adults in 2020. Methods. We used county-level data on 140 435 drug overdoses among adults aged 25 to 64 years during January 2019 to December 2020 from the National Vital Statistics System and data on states' COVID-19 policies from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker to assess US trends in overdose deaths by sex in 3138 counties. Results. Policies limiting in-person activities significantly increased, whereas economic support policies significantly decreased, overdose rates. A 1-unit increase in policies restricting activities predicted a 15% average monthly increase in overdose rates for men (incident rate ratio [IRR] = 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09, 1.20) and a 14% increase for women (IRR = 1.14; 95% CI = 1.09, 1.20). A 1-unit increase in economic support policies predicted a 3% average monthly decrease for men (IRR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.95, 1.00) and a 4% decrease for women (IRR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.93, 0.99). All states' policy combinations are predicted to have increased drug-poisoning mortality. Conclusions. The economic supports that states enacted were insufficient to fully mitigate the adverse relationship between activity limitations and drug overdoses. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(7):714-722. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307621).

Ozanimod Differentially Impacts Circulating Lymphocyte Subsets in Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Ozanimod showed efficacy and safety in the phase 2 STEPSTONE study conducted in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. AIMS: This analysis assessed the effects of ozanimod on circulating lymphocytes in Crohn's disease. METHODS: Patients received ozanimod 0.92 mg for 12 weeks. Lymphocyte subtypes were evaluated using multicolor flow analysis on blood samples collected before treatment and on Week 12. Absolute lymphocyte count changes were analyzed by Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Disease activity changes and efficacy outcomes were evaluated at Week 12, and associations with lymphocyte subtype levels were assessed using Spearman's correlation and logistic regression. RESULTS: Reductions in median total T, Th, and cytotoxic T cells occurred at Week 12 (45.4%-76.8%), with reductions in most subtypes of 47.5% to 91.3% (P < 0.001). CD8+ terminally differentiated effector memory cells were largely unaffected (median change, - 19%; P = 0.44). Reductions in median total B cells occurred at Week 12 (76.7%), with reductions in subtypes of 71.4% to 81.7% (P < 0.001). Natural killer and monocyte cell counts were unchanged. Greater baseline levels and changes in nonswitched memory B cells were significantly associated with clinical, endoscopic, and histologic efficacy (P < 0.05, all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Ozanimod reduced circulating levels of all B-cell and most T-cell subsets but not monocytes or natural killer cells. Key subsets relevant to immune surveillance were not reduced, supporting the low risk of infection and malignancy with ozanimod in chronic inflammatory diseases. Levels of nonswitched memory B cells were associated with efficacy, providing a potential marker for ozanimod response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02531113, EudraCT: 2015-002025-19.

Cardiovascular Safety of Ozanimod in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: True North and Open-Label Extension Analyses.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Evaluating cardiovascular safety of sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators is warranted due to S1P receptor expression on cardiomyocytes and vascular endothelial cells. This analysis reports the cardiovascular safety of ozanimod, an S1P receptor modulator, in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis from the phase 3 True North (TN) and open-label extension (OLE). METHODS: All patients who received ozanimod in TN (n = 796) and all eligible TN patients who entered the OLE (n = 823) were included. Cardiovascular-related adverse events were evaluated in patients with up to 146 weeks of ozanimod exposure (2219 patient-years), which included 52 weeks during TN. RESULTS: On TN day 1, first-dose ozanimod resulted in a 0.2 beats per minute mean decrease in heart rate from pretreatment to hour 6; 2 patients experienced bradycardia, which resolved without treatment modification. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure increases of 5.1 and 2.2 mm Hg, respectively, were observed at TN week 52. No second-degree Mobitz type II atrioventricular block events were reported; 1 third-degree atrioventricular block unrelated to ozanimod occurred in the OLE. Cardiac and vascular treatment-emergent adverse events were infrequent (3.8% [31 of 823] and 8.5% [70 of 823]); no ozanimod-related cardiovascular deaths occurred. The incidences of deep-vein thrombosis (0.2%; 2 of 823), pulmonary embolism (0.2%; 2 of 823), and ischemic stroke (0.4%; 3 of 823) in the OLE were low. CONCLUSIONS: No new cardiovascular safety signals were identified, consistent with findings from previous ozanimod studies. There were few major adverse cardiovascular events or thromboembolic events, which were unrelated or unlikely related to ozanimod. Ozanimod has a well-tolerated cardiovascular safety profile when prescribed in accordance with the label. Clinical trial registry website and trial numbers: ClinicalTrials.gov numbers: NCT02435992 and NCT02531126.

Vedolizumab, Adalimumab, and Methotrexate Combination Therapy in Crohn's Disease (EXPLORER).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although biologics have revolutionized the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD), an efficacy ceiling has been reached. Combining biologic therapies may improve remission rates. METHODS: EXPLORER, a phase 4, single-arm, open-label study, evaluated triple combination therapy with vedolizumab (300 mg on day 1, weeks 2 and 6, and then every 8 weeks), adalimumab (160 mg on day 2, 80 mg at week 2, then 40 mg every 2 weeks), and methotrexate (15 mg weekly) in biologic-naïve patients with newly diagnosed, moderate- to high-risk CD. Endoscopic remission at week 26 (primary end point; Simple Endoscopic Score for CD ≤2), clinical remission at weeks 10 and 26 (secondary end point; Crohn's Disease Activity Index <150), and incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 55 enrolled patients, the mean CD duration was 0.4 years, the mean baseline Simple Endoscopic Score for CD was 12.6, and the mean baseline Crohn's Disease Activity Index was 265.5. At week 26, 19 patients (34.5%) were in endoscopic remission. At weeks 10 and 26, 34 (61.8%) and 30 patients (54.5%), respectively, were in clinical remission. Post hoc Bayesian analysis showed that the probabilities that triple combination therapy produced a higher endoscopic remission rate (33.5%; 95% credible interval, 22.4-45.7) than placebo (14%), vedolizumab monotherapy (27%), or adalimumab monotherapy (30%) were 99.9% or higher, 86.3%, and 71.4%, respectively. Six patients had serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy resulted in endoscopic and clinical remission at week 26 in 34.5% and 54.5% of patients, respectively, with no safety signal related to the treatment regimen. This supports further evaluation of combination therapy in CD. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number: NCT02764762.

Is the 90-day dog study necessary for pesticide toxicity testing?

When registering a new pesticide, 90-day oral toxicity studies performed with both rodent and non-rodent species, typically rats and dogs, are part of a standard battery of animal tests required in most countries for human health risk assessment (RA). This analysis set out to determine the need for the 90-day dog study in RA by reviewing data from 195 pesticides evaluated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) from 1998 through 2021. The dog study was used in RA for only 42 pesticides, mostly to set the point of departure (POD) for shorter-term non-dietary pesticide exposures. Dog no-observed-adverse-effect-levels (NOAELs) were lower than rat NOAELs in 90-day studies for 36 of the above 42 pesticides, suggesting that the dog was the more sensitive species. However, lower NOAELs may not necessarily correspond to greater sensitivity as factors such as dose spacing and/or allometric scaling need to be considered. Normalizing doses between rats and dogs explained the lower NOAELs in 22/36 pesticides, indicating that in those cases the dog was not more sensitive, and the comparable rat study could have been used instead for RA. For five of the remaining pesticides, other studies of appropriate duration besides the 90-day rat study were available that would have offered a similar level of protection if used to set PODs. In only nine cases could no alternative be found in the pesticide's database to use in place of the 90-day dog study for setting safe exposure levels or to identify unique hazards. The present analysis demonstrates that for most pesticide risk determinations the 90-day dog study provided no benefit beyond the rat or other available data.

Towards achieving a modern science-based paradigm for agrochemical carcinogenicity assessment.

The rodent cancer bioassay has been the standard approach to fulfill regulatory requirements for assessing human carcinogenic potential of agrochemicals, food additives, industrial chemicals, and pharmaceuticals. Decades of research have described the limitations of the rodent cancer bioassay leading to international initiatives to seek alternatives and establish approaches that modernize carcinogenicity assessment. Biologically relevant approaches can provide mechanistic information and increased efficiency for evaluating hazard and risk of chemical carcinogenicity to humans. The application of human-relevant mechanistic understanding to support new approaches to carcinogenicity assessment will be invaluable for regulatory decision-making. The present work outlines the challenges and opportunities that authorities should consider as they come together to build a roadmap that leads to global acceptance and incorporation of fit-for-purpose, scientifically defensible new approaches for human-relevant carcinogenicity assessment of agrochemicals.

A new paradigm for regulatory sciences.

Regulatory science, rooted in legal requirements, provides a mechanism for identifying, assessing, and managing harm to humans and the environment from exposure to hazardous substances. A challenge for regulatory authorities is that many governing laws reflect the scientific paradigm of the mid-20th century. By the nature of legislative processes, most laws are not able to readily adapt to incorporate scientific advances that are inherent in an ever-evolving paradigm. Consequently, the issue of rigid legal frameworks has become prominent in global discussions related to the incorporation of reliable and relevant modern technology to fulfill regulatory needs. To explore this issue, we apply Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as a conceptual framework to help understand the natural progression of scientific paradigms (from normal science, to anomaly, to crisis, to revolution, and finally to a new normal), identify where we are now in the paradigm cycle, and to explore a path towards a revolution that enables timely implementation of the best available science to fulfil legal requirements.

A new approach to the classification of carcinogenicity.

Concern over substances that may cause cancer has led to various classification schemes to recognize carcinogenic threats and provide a basis to manage those threats. The least useful schemes have a binary choice that declares a substance carcinogenic or not. This overly simplistic approach ignores the complexity of cancer causation by considering neither how the substance causes cancer, nor the potency of that mode of action. Consequently, substances are classified simply as "carcinogenic", compromising the opportunity to properly manage these kinds of substances. It will likely be very difficult, if not impossible, to incorporate New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) into binary schemes. In this paper we propose a new approach cancer classification scheme that segregates substances by both mode of action and potency into three categories and, as a consequence, provides useful guidance in the regulation and management of substances with carcinogenic potential. Examples are given, including aflatoxin (category A), trichlorethylene (category B), and titanium dioxide (category C), which demonstrate the clear differentiation among these substances that generate appropriate levels of concern and management options.

Application of a new approach method (NAM) for inhalation risk assessment.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and other regulatory authorities have been working to utilize in vitro studies with human cells and in silico modelling to reduce the use of vertebrate animals for evaluating chemical risk. Using the Source-to-Outcome framework, a novel mathematical procedure was developed to estimate the human equivalent concentration (HEC) for inhalation risk assessment based upon the relevant aerosol characterization, respiratory dosimetry modelling, and endpoints derived from an in vitro assay using human respiratory epithelial tissue. The procedure used the retained doses at the various areas of the inhalation tract estimated from a computational fluid-particle dynamics (CFPD) model coupled with a simple clearance model. The effect of exposure was derived from an in vitro assay. The magnitude of exposure and the particle size distributions (PSDs) of the external aerosol droplets were obtained from Unit Exposure values published by the USEPA and published monitoring studies, respectively. The Source-to-Outcome approach incorporates external and internal exposure metrics with the toxicity pathway. The information was then integrated to conduct a risk assessment for agricultural operators exposed to products containing chlorothalonil (CTN), a broad-spectrum fungicide. The HECs for three different PSDs considered in this work ranged from 0.043 to 0.112 mg-CTN/L for nasal and oral breathing. These were compared with the estimated average daily exposure concentration for six representative application scenarios. The resulting margins of exposure (MOEs) ranged from 230 to 70,000 depending on the application scenario. This New Assessment Method (NAM) that combined human in silico and human in vitro methods, eliminated the typical uncertainties associated with extrapolation from rodent studies, with their associated interspecies toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics differences. The intraspecies toxicodynamics and toxicokinetics, are still relevant and may need to be used in an inhalation risk assessment. The NAM presented in this work is not chemical-specific and may be applied to conduct an inhalation risk assessment for workers as well as bystanders who could be exposed to aerosol particles of any cytotoxic respiratory irritant.

Rethinking chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity assessment for agrochemicals project (ReCAAP): A reporting framework to support a weight of evidence safety assessment without long-term rodent bioassays.

Rodent cancer bioassays have been long-required studies for regulatory assessment of human cancer hazard and risk. These studies use hundreds of animals, are resource intensive, and certain aspects of these studies have limited human relevance. The past 10 years have seen an exponential growth of new technologies with the potential to effectively evaluate human cancer hazard and risk while reducing, refining, or replacing animal use. To streamline and facilitate uptake of new technologies, a workgroup comprised of scientists from government, academia, non-governmental organizations, and industry stakeholders developed a framework for waiver rationales of rodent cancer bioassays for consideration in agrochemical safety assessment. The workgroup used an iterative approach, incorporating regulatory agency feedback, and identifying critical information to be considered in a risk assessment-based weight of evidence determination of the need for rodent cancer bioassays. The reporting framework described herein was developed to support a chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study waiver rationale, which includes information on use pattern(s), exposure scenario(s), pesticidal mode-of-action, physicochemical properties, metabolism, toxicokinetics, toxicological data including mechanistic data, and chemical read-across from similar registered pesticides. The framework could also be applied to endpoints other than chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity, and for chemicals other than agrochemicals.

P031 Impact of Prior Biologic Exposure on Response to Ozanimod for Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis in the Phase 3 True North Study.

BACKGROUND: Ozanimod, an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator selectively targeting S1P1 and S1P5, demonstrated superior efficacy and safety vs placebo for up to 52 weeks in adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) in a phase 3 study (True North). In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of prior biologic exposure on response to ozanimod. METHODS: True North consisted of two cohorts. In cohort 1, patients with UC received double-blind treatment with once-daily ozanimod 0.92 mg (equivalent to ozanimod HCl 1 mg) or placebo. In cohort 2, patients received open-label once daily ozanimod 0.92 mg. Ozanimod responders after a 10-week induction were re-randomized to double-blind maintenance with ozanimod 0.92 mg or placebo through week 52. Outcomes based on prior biologic exposure (biologic-naïve, 1 biologic, and 2+ biologics) and prior biologic type (anti-tumor necrosis factor [TNF] agents, vedolizumab, or both) were analyzed for clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic improvement, and mucosal healing. Patients exposed to only a JAK inhibitor were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 992 patients (n = 213 placebo and n = 426 ozanimod in cohort 1, n = 353 ozanimod in cohort 2) were included in the analysis for induction; 616 were biologic-naïve, 162 had exposure to 1 biologic, and 214 were exposed to 2 or more biologics. At baseline, biologic-exposed patients had more prior corticosteroid use, longer disease duration, and more extensive disease than biologic-naïve patients. During induction, greater therapeutic effects of ozanimod were generally seen in biologic-naïve vs biologic-exposed patients, and ozanimod-treated patients had greater responses on nearly all reported endpoints at week 10 (cohort 1). Clinical remission was achieved in 23% vs 6.6% of patients on ozanimod vs placebo who were biologic naïve, 17.2% vs 8.3% on 1 prior biologic, and 3.7% vs 2.5% on 2 or more biologics. Clinical response was reached in 53% vs 28% of patients on ozanimod vs placebo who were biologic naïve, 50% vs 33% on 1 biologic, and 27% vs 15% on 2 or more biologics. During maintenance, ozanimod-treated patients had greater responses on all endpoints versus placebo, with similar proportions of patients achieving clinical response to ozanimod regardless of prior biologic exposure (61% for biologic naïve, 60% for 1 biologic, and 55% for 2 or more biologics). At week 52, the proportion of patients on ozanimod with clinical remission was similar in the 1-biologic and 2+-biologic exposure groups (28% and 26%, respectively), and proportions of patients on ozanimod with endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing were similar for the 1-biologic and biologic-naïve groups (47% and 50%, 30%, and 33%, respectively). Among patients with inadequate response to prior anti-TNF agents, vedolizumab, or both at baseline, treatment effects favored ozanimod vs placebo on these endpoints in all three groups during both induction and maintenance. CONCLUSION: Ozanimod improved clinical, endoscopic, and histologic outcomes in both biologic-exposed and -naïve patients. Patients with prior biologic use may require additional time to respond to treatment. Outcomes were improved with ozanimod regardless of prior use of anti-TNF agents and vedolizumab.

P035 Ozanimod for Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis: North American Population Results During Induction and Maintenance in the Phase 3 True North Study.

BACKGROUND: True North is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 285 sites in 30 countries (NCT02435992). Treatment with once-daily ozanimod (an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate [S1P] receptor modulator selectively targeting S1P1 and S1P5) in patients with moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) showed significant improvements in primary and all key secondary endpoints. Here we report findings on the consistency of clinical and endoscopic endpoints in the global and North American population. METHODS: In True North, patients received either double-blind treatment with ozanimod 0.92 mg (equivalent to ozanimod HCl 1 mg) or matching placebo, or open-label ozanimod 0.92 mg over a 10-week induction period. Patients with clinical response to ozanimod at Week 10 were re-randomized 1:1 to receive double-blind maintenance treatment with ozanimod 0.92 mg or placebo through Week 52. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients in clinical remission at Weeks 10 and 52; key secondary endpoints included clinical response and endoscopic improvement. The global population included 1012 patients who received at least 1 dose of study medication during induction, and 457 who received at least 1 dose of study medication during maintenance. Here, we examine the results from the patients in the North American sites. RESULTS: A total of 247 patients were enrolled in North America, of which 167 received double-blind ozanimod (n=107) or placebo (n=60) during induction. At baseline, 41.1% and 48.3% of patients in the ozanimod and placebo groups, respectively, had previously received a biologic treatment for UC. At Week 10, 15.9% and 3.3% of patients in the ozanimod and placebo groups, respectively, achieved clinical remission. In addition, 46.7% and 15.0% achieved clinical response and 26.2% and 10.0% achieved endoscopic improvement in the ozanimod and placebo groups, respectively. In patients with prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), the proportion with clinical response favored ozanimod (35.7%) vs placebo (11.5%), while the proportion with clinical remission and endoscopic improvement did not favor ozanimod. In patients with no prior TNFi exposure, greater responses were seen with ozanimod vs placebo for all 3 endpoints. During maintenance, 105 patients from North America were re-randomized to treatment with ozanimod (n=56) or placebo (n=49). At Week 52, 39.3% and 12.2% of patients in the ozanimod and placebo groups, respectively, achieved clinical remission. In addition, 58.9% and 26.5% achieved clinical response and 50.0% and 16.3% achieved endoscopic improvement in the ozanimod and placebo groups, respectively. The proportion of patients with clinical remission, clinical response, and endoscopic improvement favored ozanimod vs placebo regardless of prior TNFi use. These outcomes from the North American population are generally consistent with those previously reported from the global population. CONCLUSION: In this post-hoc analysis, consistent with the global population, ozanimod treatment for up to 52 weeks in North American patients with moderately-to-severely active UC showed benefits on clinical and endoscopic endpoints.

P038 Ozanimod First-Dose Cardiac Effects in Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis and Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Ozanimod, an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator that selectively targets S1P1 and S1P5, is approved in the US for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) and in multiple countries for treating relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). In a Phase 1 study of ozanimod in healthy participants, first-dose cardiac effects were mitigated with gradual dose escalation. Based on these results, an initial 7-day ozanimod dose escalation regimen was implemented in all Phase 2 and 3 UC and MS trials. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the number of patients who were excluded from ozanimod treatment due to contraindications of pre-existing cardiac disorders and to evaluate the incidence of cardiac-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) following first-dose ozanimod administration in all patients and patients with a history of non-exclusionary cardiac disorders in the UC and MS clinical trials. METHODS: For UC, the analysis included pooled data from the Phase 2 Touchstone (NCT01647516) and Phase 3 True North (NCT02435992) trials. For MS, the analysis included pooled data from the Phase 3 Radiance (NCT02047734) and Sunbeam (NCT02294058) trials. Patients with clinically relevant cardiac conditions or clinically significant electrocardiogram (ECG) disorders were excluded from the trials. On Day 1, all patients received ozanimod 0.23 mg (equivalent to ozanimod HCl 0.25 mg). Day 1 cardiac monitoring included collection of vital signs (including heart rate) prior to dosing and hourly for at least 6 hours after dosing, and ECG prior to dosing and at Hour 6 after dosing. RESULTS: Among patients screened, 26/2178 (1.2%) in the UC studies and 47/3351 (1.4%) in the MS studies were excluded due to protocol-defined pre-existing cardiac disorders. Of 496 patients who received ozanimod in the UC studies, 1 (0.2%) experienced a cardiac-related TEAE on Day 1 (asymptomatic bradycardia). Of 1774 patients who received ozanimod in the MS studies, 11 (0.6%) experienced a cardiac-related TEAE on Day 1. In both the UC and MS studies, no cases of second- or third-degree AV block were observed. A decrease in mean heart rate from baseline (UC, 0.7 bpm; MS, 1.2 bpm) was observed at first-dose that reached a nadir at Hour 5 and returned to baseline by Hour 6. Among 496 patients with UC who received ozanimod, 34 (6.9%) had a known history of cardiac disorders, of whom 1 experienced a cardiac-related TEAE on Day 1 (asymptomatic bradycardia). Among the 1774 patients with MS who received ozanimod, 96 (5.4%) had a known history of cardiac disorders, of whom 2 experienced symptomatic bradycardia on Day 1. CONCLUSION: In clinical trials of ozanimod, the number of patients with UC or MS who failed screening because of exclusionary cardiac disorders was low. Most patients with a history of cardiac disorders who were enrolled in ozanimod clinical trials did not have Day 1 cardiac events, and the events that occurred were manageable.

Paraquat pharmacokinetics in primates and extrapolation to humans.

By extending our Paraquat (PQ) work to include primates we have implemented a modelling and simulation strategy that has enabled PQ pharmacokinetic data to be integrated into a single physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model that enables more confident extrapolation to humans. Because available data suggested there might be differences in PQ kinetics between primates and non-primates, a radiolabelled study was conducted to characterize pharmacokinetics and excretion in Cynomolgus monkeys. Following single intravenous doses of 0.01 or 0.1 mg paraquat dichloride/kg bw, plasma PQ concentration-time profiles were dose-proportional. Excretion up to 48 h (predominantly urinary) was 82.9%, with ca. 10% remaining unexcreted. In vitro blood binding was similar across Cynomolgus monkeys, humans and rat. Our PBPK model for the rat, mouse and dog, employing a single set of PQ-specific parameters, was scaled to Cynomolgus monkeys and well represented the measured plasma concentration-time profiles over 14 days. Addition of a cartilage compartment to the model better captured the percent remaining in the monkeys at 48 h, whilst having negligible effect on model predictions for the other species. The PBPK model performed well for all four species, demonstrating there is little difference in PQ kinetics between non-primates and primates enabling a more confident extrapolation to humans. Scaling of the PBPK model to humans, with addition of a human-specific dermal submodel based on in vitro human dermal absorption data, provides a valuable tool that could be employed in defining internal dosimetry to complement human health risk assessments.

Integration of paraquat pharmacokinetic data across species using PBPK modelling.

Paraquat dichloride (PQ) is a non-selective herbicide which has been the subject of numerous toxicology studies over more than 50 years. This paper describes the development of a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model of PQ kinetics for the rat, mouse and dog, firstly to aid the interpretation of studies in which no kinetic measurements were made, and secondly to enable the future extension of the model to humans. Existing pharmacokinetic data were used to develop a model for the rat and mouse. Simulations with this preliminary model were then used to identify key data gaps and to design a new blood binding study to reduce uncertainty in critical aspects of the model. The new data provided evidence to support the model structure, and its predictive performance was then assessed against dog and rat datasets not used in model development. The PQ-specific model parameters are the same for all three species, with only the physiological parameters varying between species. This consistency across species provides a strong basis for extrapolation to other species, as demonstrated here for the dog. The model enables a wide range of PQ data to be linked together to provide a broad understanding of PQ pharmacokinetics in rodents and the dog, showing that the key aspects of PQ kinetics in these species are understood and adequately encapsulated within the model.

Effects of US state preemption laws on infant mortality.

Studies show that raising the minimum wage in a US state above the federal minimum wage can reduce infant mortality rates in those states. Some states have raised their minimum wage in recent decades, while many others did not, and have prohibited local authorities from doing so by enacting preemption laws. This study investigates how the recent emergence of state preemption laws that remove local authority to raise the minimum wage has affected infant mortality rates. Using county- and state- level data spanning 2001 through 2018, this study models infant mortality rates as a function of minimum wage levels, controlling for confounders. The estimated model, combined with information on the timing, location, and level of preempted minimum wages, is then used to estimate the number of infant deaths that occurred in 2018 that could be attributed to state preemption of local minimum wage increases. In the 9 largest (pop. > 250,000) metro counties most directly affected by state preemption, we estimate that in 2018, 25 infant deaths were attributable to preemption. This equates to a 5.4% reduction in these counties' infant mortality rate. When considering all large metro counties in preemption states, as many as 605 infant deaths could be attributed to preemption. State preemption laws that remove local authority to enact health-promoting legislation, such as minimum wage increases, are a significant threat to population health. The growing tide of these laws, particularly since 2010, may be contributing to recent troubling trends in US life expectancy.

The codification of hazard and its impact on the hazard versus risk controversy.

The long running controversy about the relative merits of hazard-based versus risk-based approaches has been investigated. There are three levels of hazard codification: level 1 divides chemicals into dichotomous bands of hazardous and non-hazardous; level 2 divides chemicals into bands of hazard based on severity and/or potency; and level 3 places each chemical on a continuum of hazard based on severity and/or potency. Any system which imposes compartments onto a continuum will give rise to issues at the boundaries, especially with only two compartments. Level 1 schemes are only justifiable if there is no variation in severity, or potency or if there is no threshold. This is the assumption implicit in GHS/EU classification for carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and mutagenicity. However, this assumption has been challenged. Codification level 2 hazard assessments offer a range of choices and reduce the built-in conflict inherent in the level 1 process. Level 3 assessments allow a full range of choices between the extremes and reduce the built-in conflict even more. The underlying reason for the controversy between hazard and risk is the use of level 1 hazard codification schemes in situations where there are ranges of severity and potency which require the use of level 2 or level 3 hazard codification. There is not a major difference between level 2 and level 3 codification, and they can both be used to select appropriate risk management options. Existing level 1 codification schemes should be reviewed and developed into level 2 schemes where appropriate.