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.).

Modified-Release Phosphatidylcholine (LT-02) for Ulcerative Colitis: Two Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of LT-02, a novel modified-release phosphatidylcholine (PC) formulation, for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis (UC) and inadequate response to mesalamine. METHODS: LT-02 was evaluated in a multicenter double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study comprising a 12-week induction trial (PCG-2), followed by a 48-week maintenance trial (PCG-4). In PCG-2, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to treatment with 0.8 g LT-02 4 times daily (QID), 1.6 g LT-02 twice daily (BID), or placebo, respectively. All patients continued to take a standard dose of oral mesalamine (≥2.4 g/day). The primary end point in PCG-2 was deep remission. Patients achieving remission at week 12 were randomly assigned 2:1:1 to 1.6 g LT-02 BID, placebo, or 500 mg mesalamine (3 times daily), respectively, in PCG-4; the primary end point was remission at 48 weeks. RESULTS: PCG-2 was terminated early for futility after a prespecified interim analysis; 466 patients (of 762 planned) were randomized. There was no statistically significant difference in deep remission at week 12 (placebo, 13.5%; LT-02 BID, 14.2%; LT-02 QID, 9.7%). In PCG-4, 150 patients (of approximately 400 planned) were randomized. There was no statistically significant difference in remission rates at week 48 (LT-02 BID, 49.3%; mesalamine, 50.0%; placebo, 43.2%). LT-02 was safe. CONCLUSIONS: Despite prior evidence of beneficial effects of PC in phase 2 trials, our induction study with LT-02 in patients with mild to moderate UC was terminated prematurely for futility. Signals of efficacy in maintenance therapy require confirmation in an adequately powered maintenance trial. LT-02 was safe and well-tolerated. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT02280629, NCT02142725.

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.

A placebo-controlled randomised trial of budesonide for PBC following an insufficient response to UDCA.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), the efficacy of budesonide, a synthetic corticosteroid displaying high first-pass metabolism, is unresolved. In a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, we evaluated the added-value of budesonide in those with PBC and ongoing risk of progressive disease despite ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) treatment. METHODS: We evaluated 62 patients with PBC who had histologically confirmed hepatic inflammatory activity, according to the Ishak score, and an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) >1.5× upper limit of normal (ULN), after at least 6 months of UDCA therapy. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive budesonide (9 mg/day) or placebo once daily, for 36 months, with UDCA treatment (12-16 mg/kg body weight/day) maintained. Primary efficacy was defined as improvement of liver histology with respect to inflammation and no progression of fibrosis. Secondary outcomes included changes in biochemical markers of liver injury. RESULTS: Recruitment challenges resulted in a study that was underpowered for the primary efficacy analysis. Comparing patients with paired biopsies only (n = 43), the primary histologic endpoint was not met (p >0.05). The proportion of patients with ALP <1.67×ULN, a ≥15% decrease in ALP and normal bilirubin was higher in the budesonide group than in the placebo group at 12, 24, and 36 months (p <0.05, each). In contrast to placebo, budesonide reduced mean ALP and 35% of budesonide-treated patients achieved normalisation of ALP (placebo 9%; p = 0.023). Serious adverse events occurred in 10 patients receiving budesonide and 7 patients receiving placebo. CONCLUSION: Budesonide add-on therapy was not associated with improved liver histology in patients with PBC and insufficient response to UDCA; however, improvements in biochemical markers of disease activity were demonstrated in secondary analyses. LAY SUMMARY: Around one-third of patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) needs additional medical therapy alongside ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) treatment. In this clinical trial, the addition of the corticosteroid budesonide did not improve liver histology; there were however relevant improvements in liver blood tests. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV NUMBER: NCT00746486.

Budesonide Orodispersible Tablets Maintain Remission in a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disorder. Swallowed topical-acting corticosteroids are effective in bringing active EoE into remission. However, it is not clear whether these drugs are effective for long-term maintenance of remission. METHODS: We performed a double-blind trial to compare the efficacy and safety of 2 dosages of a budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT) vs placebo in maintaining remission of EoE. Maintenance of remission was defined as absence of clinical and histologic relapse and no premature withdrawal for any reason. Two hundred and four adults with EoE in clinical and histologic remission, from 29 European study sites, were randomly assigned to groups given BOT 0.5 mg twice daily (n = 68), BOT 1.0 mg twice daily (n = 68), or placebo twice daily (n = 68) for up to 48 weeks. RESULTS: At end of treatment, 73.5% of patients receiving BOT 0.5 mg twice daily and 75% receiving BOT 1.0 mg twice daily were in persistent remission compared with 4.4% of patients in the placebo group (P < .001 for both comparisons of BOT with placebo). Median time to relapse in the placebo group was 87 days. The frequency of adverse events was similar in the BOT and placebo groups. Morning serum levels of cortisol were in the normal range at baseline and did not significantly change during treatment. Four patients receiving BOT developed asymptomatic, low serum levels of cortisol. Clinically manifested candidiasis was suspected in 16.2% of patients in the BOT 0.5 mg group and in 11.8% of patients in the BOT 1.0 mg group; all infections resolved with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In a phase 3 trial, up to 48 weeks of treatment with BOT (0.5 mg or 1.0 mg twice daily) was superior to placebo in maintaining remission of EoE. Both dosages were equally effective and well tolerated. EudraCT number; 2014-001485-99; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02434029.

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.

Efficacy of Budesonide Orodispersible Tablets as Induction Therapy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis in a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Swallowed topical-acting corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Asthma medications not optimized for esophageal delivery are sometimes effective, although given off-label. We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of a budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT), which allows the drug to be delivered to the esophagus in adults with active EoE. METHODS: We performed a double-blind, parallel study of 88 adults with active EoE in Europe. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that received BOT (1 mg twice daily; n = 59) or placebo (n = 29) for 6 weeks. The primary end point was complete remission, based on clinical and histologic factors, including dysphagia and odynophagia severity ≤2 on a scale of 0-10 on each of the 7 days before the end of the double-blind phase and a peak eosinophil count <5 eosinophils/high power field. Patients who did not achieve complete remission at the end of the 6-week double-blind phase were offered 6 weeks of open-label treatment with BOT (1 mg twice daily). RESULTS: At 6 weeks, 58% of patients given BOT were in complete remission compared with no patients given placebo (P < .0001). The secondary end point of histologic remission was achieved by 93% of patients given BOT vs no patients given placebo (P < .0001). After 12 weeks, 85% of patients had achieved remission. Six-week and 12-week BOT administration were safe and well tolerated; 5% of patients who received BOT developed symptomatic, mild candida, which was easily treated with an oral antifungal agent. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of adults with active EoE, we found that budesonide oral tablets were significantly more effective than placebo in inducing clinical and histologic remission. Eudra-CT number 2014-001485-99; ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02434029.

Efficacy and Safety of Budesonide, vs Mesalazine or Placebo, as Induction Therapy for Lymphocytic Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Lymphocytic colitis is a common cause of chronic, nonbloody diarrhea. However, the effects of treatment are unclear and randomized placebo-controlled trials were requested in a Cochrane review. We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study to evaluate budesonide and mesalazine as induction therapy for lymphocytic colitis. METHODS: Patients with active lymphocytic colitis were randomly assigned to groups given budesonide 9 mg once daily (Budenofalk granules), mesalazine 3 g once daily (Salofalk granules), or placebo for 8 weeks in a double-blind, double-dummy design. The primary endpoint was clinical remission, defined as ≤21 stools (including ≤6 watery stools), in the 7 days before week 8. RESULTS: The final analysis included 57 patients (19 per group). Most patients were female (72%) and the mean age was 59 years. The proportion of patients in clinical remission at week 8 was significantly higher in the budesonide group than in the placebo group (intention-to-treat analysis, 79% vs 42%; P = .01). The difference in proportions of patients in clinical remission at week 8 between the mesalazine (63%) and placebo groups was not significant (P = .09). The proportion of patients with histologic remission at week 8 was significantly higher in the budesonide group (68%) vs the mesalazine (26%; P = .02) or placebo (21%; P = .008) groups. The incidence of adverse events was 47.4% in the budesonide group, 68.4% in the mesalazine group, and 42.1% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized multicenter study, we found oral budesonide 9 mg once daily to be effective and safe for induction of clinical and histologic remission in patients with lymphocytic colitis, compared with placebo. Oral mesalazine 3 g once daily was not significantly better than placebo. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01209208.

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.

norUrsodeoxycholic acid improves cholestasis in primary sclerosing cholangitis.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) represents a devastating bile duct disease, currently lacking effective medical therapy. 24-norursodeoxycholic acid (norUDCA) is a side chain-shortened C23 homologue of UDCA and has shown potent anti-cholestatic, anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic properties in a preclinical PSC mouse model. A randomized controlled trial, including 38 centers from 12 European countries, evaluated the safety and efficacy of three doses of oral norUDCA (500mg/d, 1,000mg/d or 1,500mg/d) compared with placebo in patients with PSC. METHODS: One hundred sixty-one PSC patients without concomitant UDCA therapy and with elevated serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels were randomized for a 12-week treatment followed by a 4-week follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean relative change in ALP levels between baseline and end of treatment visit. RESULTS: norUDCA reduced ALP levels by -12.3%, -17.3%, and -26.0% in the 500, 1,000, and 1,500mg/d groups (p=0.029, p=0.003, and p<0.0001 when compared to placebo), respectively, while a +1.2% increase was observed in the placebo group. Similar dose-dependent results were found for secondary endpoints, such as ALT, AST, γ-GT, or the rate of patients achieving ALP levels <1.5× ULN. Serious adverse events occurred in seven patients in the 500mg/d, five patients in the 1,000mg/d, two patients in the 1500mg/d group, and three in the placebo group. There was no difference in reported pruritus between treatment and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: norUDCA significantly reduced ALP values dose-dependently in all treatment arms. The safety profile of norUDCA was excellent and comparable to placebo. Consequently, these results justify a phase III trial of norUDCA in PSC patients. Lay summary: Effective medical therapy for primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is urgently needed. In this phase II clinical study in PSC patients, a side chain-shortened derivative of ursodeoxycholic acid, norursodeoxycholic acid (norUDCA), significantly reduced serum alkaline phosphatase levels in a dose-dependent manner during a 12-week treatment. Importantly, norUDCA showed a favorable safety profile, which was similar to placebo. The use of norUDCA in PSC patients is promising and will be further evaluated in a phase III clinical study. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01755507.

Low-dose budesonide for maintenance of clinical remission in collagenous colitis: a randomised, placebo-controlled, 12-month trial.

OBJECTIVE: This 1-year study aimed to assess low-dose budesonide therapy for maintenance of clinical remission in patients with collagenous colitis. DESIGN: A prospective, randomised, placebo-controlled study beginning with an 8-week open-label induction phase in which patients with histologically confirmed active collagenous colitis received budesonide (Budenofalk, 9 mg/day initially, tapered to 4.5 mg/day), after which 92 patients in clinical remission were randomised to budesonide (mean dose 4.5 mg/day; Budenofalk 3 mg capsules, two or one capsule on alternate days) or placebo in a 12-month double-blind phase with 6 months treatment-free follow-up. Primary endpoint was clinical remission throughout the double-blind phase. RESULTS: Clinical remission during open-label treatment was achieved by 84.5% (93/110 patients). The median time to remission was 10.5 days (95% CI (9.0 to 14.0 days)). The maintenance of clinical remission at 1 year was achieved by 61.4% (27/44 patients) in the budesonide group versus 16.7% (8/48 patients) receiving placebo (treatment difference 44.5% in favour of budesonide; 95% CI (26.9% to 62.7%), p<0.001). Health-related quality of life was maintained during the 12-month double-blind phase in budesonide-treated patients. During treatment-free follow-up, 82.1% (23/28 patients) formerly receiving budesonide relapsed after study drug discontinuation. Low-dose budesonide over 1 year resulted in few suspected adverse drug reactions (7/44 patients), all non-serious. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide at a mean dose of 4.5 mg/day maintained clinical remission for at least 1 year in the majority of patients with collagenous colitis and preserved health-related quality of life without safety concerns. Treatment extension with low-dose budesonide beyond 1 year may be beneficial given the high relapse rate after budesonide discontinuation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01278082) and http://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu (EudraCT: 2007-001315-31).

A randomised, double-blind trial comparing budesonide formulations and dosages for short-term treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of two different budesonide formulations (effervescent tablet for orodispersible use (BET) and viscous suspension (BVS)) with different daily dosages for short-term treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE). DESIGN: Adults with active EoE (n=76) randomly received 14 days' treatment with either BET 2×1 mg/day (BET1, n=19) or BET 2×2 mg/day (BET2, n=19), or BVS 2×5 mL (0.4 mg/mL)/day (BVS, n=19) or placebo (n=19) in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion, with a 2-week follow-up. Primary end point was histological remission (mean of <16 eosinophils/mm(2 )hpf). Secondary end points included endoscopy score, dysphagia score, drug safety and patient's preference for drug formulation. RESULTS: Histological remission occurred in 100%, 94.7% and 94.7% of budesonide (BET1, BET2, BVS, respectively) and in 0% of placebo recipients (p<0.0001). The improvement in total endoscopic intensity score was significantly higher in the three budesonide groups compared with placebo. Dysphagia improved in all groups at the end of treatment; however, improvement of dysphagia persisted only in those treated with BET1 (p=0.0196 vs placebo). There were no serious adverse events. Local fungal infection (stained fungi) occurred in two patients of each budesonide group (10.5%). The effervescent tablet was preferred by 80% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: BET or BVS was highly effective and safe for short-term treatment of EoE. The 1 mg (twice daily) dosage was equally effective as the 2 mg twice daily dosage. The majority of patients preferred the effervescent tablet formulation. CLINICALTRIALSGOV NUMBER: NCT02280616; EudraCT number, 2009-016692-29.

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.

Oral administration of dextran sodium sulphate induces a caecum-localized colitis in rabbits.

Trichuris suis ova (TSO) have shown promising results in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) but the mechanisms which underlies this therapeutic effect cannot be studied in mice and rats as T. suis fails to colonize the rodent intestine, whilst hatching in humans and rabbits. As a suitable rabbit IBD model is currently not available, we developed a rabbit colitis model by administration of dextran sodium sulphate (DSS). White Himalayan rabbits (n = 12) received 0.1% DSS in the daily water supply for five days. Clinical symptoms were monitored daily, and rabbits were sacrificed at different time points. A genomewide expression analysis was performed with RNA isolated from caecal lamina propria mononuclear cells (LPMC) and intestinal epithelial cells (IEC). The disease activity index of DSS rabbits increased up to 2.1 ± 0.4 (n = 6) at day 10 (controls <0.5). DSS induced a caecum-localized pathology with crypt architectural distortion, stunted villous surface and inflammatory infiltrate in the lamina propria. The histopathology score reached a peak of 14.2 ± 4.9 (n = 4) at day 10 (controls 7.7 ± 0.9, n = 5). Expression profiling revealed an enrichment of IBD-related genes in both LPMC and IEC. Innate inflammatory response, Th17 signalling and chemotaxis were among the pathways affected significantly. We describe a reproducible and reliable rabbit model of DSS colitis. Localization of the inflammation in the caecum and its similarities to IBD make this model particularly suitable to study TSO therapy in vivo.

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral budesonide for prophylaxis of acute intestinal graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (PROGAST).

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) is a potentially life-threatening complication after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT). Since therapeutic options are still limited, a prophylactic approach seems to be warranted. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind-phase III trial, we evaluated the efficacy of budesonide in the prophylaxis of acute intestinal GvHD after SCT. The trial was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00180089. RESULTS: The crude incidence of histological or clinical stage 3-4 acute intestinal GvHD until day 100 observed in 91 (n =48 budesonide, n =43 placebo) evaluable patients was 12.5% (95% CI 3-22%) under treatment with budesonide and 14% (95% CI 4-25%) under placebo (p = 0.888). Histologic and clinical stage 3-4 intestinal GvHD after 12 months occurred in 17% (95% CI 6-28%) of patients in the budesonide group and 19% (CI 7-32%) in the placebo group (p = 0.853). Although budesonide was tolerated well, we observed a trend towards a higher rate of infectious complications in the study group (47.9% versus 30.2%, p = 0.085). The cumulative incidences at 12 months of intestinal GvHD stage >2 with death as a competing event (budesonide 20.8% vs. placebo 32.6%, p = 0.250) and the cumulative incidence of relapse (budesonide 20.8% vs. placebo 16.3%, p = 0.547) and non-relapse mortality (budesonide 28% (95% CI 15-41%) vs. placebo 30% (95% CI 15-44%), showed no significant difference within the two groups (p = 0.911). The trial closed after 94 patients were enrolled because of slow accrual. Within the limits of the final sample size, we were unable to show any benefit for the addition of budesonide to standard GvHD prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide did not decrease the occurrence of intestinal GvHD in this trial. These results imply most likely that prophylactic administration of budenoside with pH-modified release in the terminal ileum is not effective.

Mesalazine granules promote disease clearance in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, treatment targets for ulcerative colitis (UC) have become more stringent, incorporating multiple parameters. Recently, the concept of 'disease clearance'-defined as combined clinical, endoscopic, and histological remission-has been proposed as an ultimate endpoint in treating UC. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates of disease clearance in patients with mild-to-moderate UC treated with different doses of mesalazine granules as induction therapy. METHODS: In a post hoc analysis, data were pooled from four randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 clinical trials in patients with mild-to-moderate UC receiving 8-week induction therapy with mesalazine granules at daily doses of 1.5, 3.0 or 4.5 g. Rates of clinical, endoscopic, and histological remission were determined using stringent criteria and used to calculate rates of the composite endpoints of clinical plus endoscopic remission, endoscopic plus histological remission, and disease clearance (clinical plus endoscopic plus histological remission). RESULTS: A total of 860 patients were included in the analysis. Among the total population, 20.0% achieved disease clearance with mesalazine granules: 13.1% in patients receiving 1.5 g mesalazine granules/day, 21.8% in those receiving 3.0 g/day and 18.9% in those receiving 4.5 g/day. Among patients with moderate UC, 16.8% achieved disease clearance: 7.1% with 1.5 g/day, 18.8% with 3.0 g/day and 16.2% with 4.5 g/day. CONCLUSION: Disease clearance, proposed to be predictive of improved long-term outcomes, can be achieved in a clinically meaningful proportion of mild-to-moderate UC patients treated with mesalazine granules. A daily dose of 3.0 g appears optimal to reach this target.

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.

Budesonide orodispersible tablets for induction of remission in patients with active eosinophilic oesophagitis: A 6-week open-label trial of the EOS-2 Programme.

BACKGROUND: A novel budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT) has been proven effective in adult patients with active eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) in a 6-week placebo-controlled trial (EOS-1). AIMS: To report the efficacy of an open-label induction treatment with BOT in a large prospective cohort of EoE patients within the EOS-2 study. METHODS: Patients with clinico-histological active EoE were treated with BOT 1 mg BID for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinico-histological remission (≤2 points on numerical rating scales [0-10] each for dysphagia and odynophagia, and peak eosinophil count <16 eos/mm2 hpf (corresponds to <5 eos/hpf)). Further study endpoints included clinical and histological remission rates, change in the EEsAI-PRO score, change in peak eosinophil counts, and deep endoscopic remission using a modified Endoscopic Reference Score. RESULTS: Among 181 patients enrolled, 126 (69.6%) achieved clinico-histological remission (histological remission 90.1%, clinical remission 75.1%). The mean peak eosinophil counts decreased by 283 eos/mm2 hpf (i.e., by 89.0%). Mean EEsAI-PRO score decreased from baseline by 29 points and deep endoscopic remission was achieved in 97 (53.6%) patients. The majority of patients judged tolerability as good or very good (85.6%) and compliance was high (96.5%). Local candidiasis was suspected in 8.3% of patients; all were of mild severity, resolved with treatment and none led to premature withdrawal from the study. CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective trial, a 6-week open-label treatment with BOT 1 mg BID was highly effective and safe in achieving clinico-histological remission of active EoE and confirmed the results of the placebo-controlled EOS-1 trial.