Concomitant Administration of Ozanimod and Serotonergic Antidepressants in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis or Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Ozanimod, approved for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) and relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS), is a weak in vitro monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitor. MAO-B inhibitors can cause serotonin accumulation with concomitant use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). We evaluated the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) potentially associated with serotonin accumulation during ozanimod and concomitant SSRI/SNRI use in this post hoc analysis of pooled UC studies and the open-label extension RMS DAYBREAK. METHODS: Data for ozanimod 0.92 mg from pooled UC studies (n = 1158; cutoff: January 10, 2022) and RMS DAYBREAK (n = 2257; cutoff: February 1, 2022) were analyzed. Concomitant SSRI/SNRI use was allowed in the UC (n = 67) and RMS (n = 274) studies. A narrow Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities search ("serotonin syndrome," "neuroleptic malignant syndrome," and "malignant hyperthermia") and a broad search including terms potentially associated with serotonin accumulation were conducted. The percentages of patients with TEAEs in both searches were analyzed by concomitant SSRI/SNRI use when the TEAE occurred. RESULTS: No patients had TEAEs matching the narrow search criteria. No differences were observed in the percentages of patients with ≥1 TEAE matching the broad search regardless of SSRI/SNRI use in UC (with: 25.4% [n = 17 of 67]; without: 15.0% [n = 164 of 1091]) and RMS (with: 12.4% [n = 34 of 274]; without: 15.6% [n = 310 of 1982]) studies. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence of increased TEAEs potentially associated with serotonin accumulation was observed with concurrent use of ozanimod and SSRIs/SNRIs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01647516, NCT02531126, NCT02435992, NCT02576717.

No evidence of increased treatment-emergent adverse effects potentially associated with serotonin accumulation was observed with concurrent use of ozanimod and serotonergic antidepressants. Our findings support the absence of clinically meaningful ozanimod monoamine oxidase B inhibition in vivo.

Ozanimod in Patients With Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis Naive to Advanced Therapies.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The pivotal phase 3 True North (TN) study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of ozanimod in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. This analysis assessed ozanimod during TN and the ongoing open-label extension (OLE) in patients with active disease who were naive to advanced therapies (ATs). METHODS: TN was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial consisting of 10-week induction period and 42-week maintenance period. Eligible patients could enter the OLE. Symptomatic efficacy was evaluated from induction through the OLE. Clinical, endoscopic, and mucosal outcomes were evaluated at the end of induction (Week [W] 10) and maintenance (W52) and at predefined OLE timepoints (OLE W46 and W94). Safety during TN was reported. RESULTS: This analysis included 616 AT-naive patients. Numerically greater proportions of patients receiving ozanimod than placebo achieved symptomatic response (39% vs 29%, 95% confidence interval, -0.1 to 18.8) by W2, with significant differences (56% vs 39%, 95% confidence interval, 6.3-26.3) achieved by W4. Patients receiving ozanimod showed significant improvements across efficacy outcomes versus placebo at W10 and W52 (P < .05, all endpoints). In patients on continuous ozanimod who entered the OLE in clinical response at W52, 91% maintained clinical response through OLE W94, and 74% achieved endoscopic improvement and 57% achieved mucosal healing at OLE W94. In ozanimod-treated patients without clinical response by W10 who received extended induction in the OLE, 62% achieved symptomatic response by OLE W10. Safety outcomes in AT-naive patients were consistent with the total TN population. CONCLUSIONS: Ozanimod is an effective, durable, and well-tolerated oral therapy for AT-naive ulcerative colitis patients. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, numbers NCT02435992 and NCT02531126.

Efficacy and Safety of Approximately 3 Years of Continuous Ozanimod in Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: Interim Analysis of the True North Open-label Extension.

BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS: This interim analysis from the True North open-label extension [OLE] study examines efficacy and safety of approximately 3 years of continuous ozanimod treatment in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: Clinical responders after 52 weeks of ozanimod during the phase 3 True North study, who continued treatment in the OLE, were evaluated. Efficacy, including endoscopic and histological endpoints, was assessed during the OLE for approximately 2 additional years through OLE Week 94, using observed case [OC] and nonresponder imputation [NRI] analyses. Adverse events were monitored from True North baseline through OLE data cutoff and expressed as exposure-adjusted incidence rates. RESULTS: This analysis included 131 patients; 54% had achieved corticosteroid-free remission at True North Week 52. In OC analyses, clinical response, clinical remission, and corticosteroid-free remission were achieved by 91.4%, 69.1%, and 67.9% of patients, respectively, at OLE Week 94 [146 weeks of total treatment]. Similarly, endoscopic improvement, histological remission, and mucosal healing were achieved by 73.3%, 67.3%, and 56.3% of patients, respectively, at OLE Week 94. Efficacy rates were lower using NRI analyses, but maintenance of efficacy was demonstrated through OLE Week 94. No new safety signals emerged from this analysis. Serious infections, malignancy, cardiovascular events, and hepatic events occurred infrequently. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who achieved clinical response after 1 year of ozanimod treatment during True North, a high percentage sustained clinical and mucosal efficacy over 2 additional years in the OLE. No new safety signals were observed with long-term ozanimod use.

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.

Evolution of Patient Perceptions of Psoriatic Disease: Results from the Understanding Psoriatic Disease Leveraging Insights for Treatment (UPLIFT) Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Since the 2012 Multinational Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (MAPP) survey, several systemic treatments for psoriasis (PsO) and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have been approved. The population-based UPLIFT survey was conducted to understand how perceptions of treatment-related outcomes have evolved, particularly for patients with mild to moderate PsO and/or PsA and their dermatologists. METHODS: This population- and web-based survey was conducted from 2 March to 3 June 2020, in North America, Europe, and Japan. Adults with self-reported healthcare practitioner (HCP)-diagnosed PsO and/or PsA and dermatologists who spent > 50% of time treating patients and treated ≥ 20 patients with PsO, including plaque PsO, per month were included. Patient participants were recruited at random from online panels; dermatologists were recruited randomly from representative physician panels. RESULTS: Of 264,054 patient responses, 3806 who self-reported an HCP diagnosis of PsO and/or PsA were included in the final sample; 67% had PsO alone, 28% had PsO and PsA, and 5% had PsA alone. The estimated population prevalence of psoriatic disease was 7% (PsO only: 4%; PsO and PsA: 2%; PsA only: 1%). Most patients (78%) reported PsO-involved body surface area (BSA) ≤ 3 palms, and ~ 90% or more reported itching, redness, flaking, and scales. Many PsO patients without diagnosed PsA reported musculoskeletal symptoms suggestive of PsA (63%). Across BSA categories, approximately one in four patients was not currently receiving treatment and > 50% had Dermatology Life Quality Index score > 5. Patients and dermatologists had different perceptions of PsO severity, office visit discussions, treatment goals, and treatment satisfaction. The survey was conducted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which could have affected assessments of patient-reported outcomes and ability to have in-person HCP visits. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PsO and PsA in UPLIFT reported high disease burden, including patients with limited skin involvement. An opportunity exists to align patient and dermatologist perceptions to optimize management of PsO and PsA. INFOGRAPHIC: DIGITAL FEATURE: This article is published with digital features, including an infographic, to facilitate understanding of the article. To view digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.17104586 .

In recent years, several new treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis have become available. The UPLIFT survey was conducted to understand how viewpoints on psoriatic disease outcomes have changed, especially for patients whose disease is mild or moderate. UPLIFT was a large, online, population-based survey conducted in North America, Europe, and Japan. Adults with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis and dermatologists who treated at least 20 patients with psoriasis per month were included. There were 3806 patients who participated; of these, most had psoriasis and few had psoriatic arthritis. Most patients (78%) with mild to moderate psoriasis had a limited area of skin affected by psoriasis. Psoriasis symptoms were common and included itching, redness, flaking, and scales. Many patients without a diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis reported symptoms that could be related to this disease (such as joint discomfort). Although many patients had psoriasis symptoms, approximately one in four was not currently receiving treatment and more than half reported psoriasis impacted their quality of life. Patients and dermatologists had different perceptions of psoriasis severity, office visit discussions, treatment goals, and treatment satisfaction. There is an opportunity to improve treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and to better align patient and physician perceptions of psoriasis. This survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could have partially affected some assessments and the ability to have in-person doctor visits.