Emerging drugs for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.

INTRODUCTION: Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α have been the mainstay therapy for Crohn's (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) for decades. With growing need for highly effective therapy, various therapeutic targets have been introduced including anti-integrins, anti-interleukin (IL) 12/23, selective anti-IL23, Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors, sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators, and mRNA-124 splicing agent. AREAS COVERED: The current state of available IBD therapies and those in development are reviewed, with recommendations made on positioning in clinical practice. EXPERT OPINION: Selecting and sequencing IBD therapies remains a clinical challenge. Disease phenotype, severity of symptoms, patient comorbidities, and prior drug exposure should be considered when considering therapy options. Anti-TNF remains a time-tested option that is effective in both UC and CD. The perception that newer biologics have slower onset of action is probably overestimated and providers should reconsider need for concurrent corticosteroid. JAK-inhibitors provide rapid symptom improvement in patients with moderate-severe UC. Due to safety concerns, it is recommended as a second-line therapy for UC. The goal for IBD treatment should be personalized, have rapid onset of action, induce durable clinical and endoscopic remission, and have excellent safety.

Ozanimod: A First-in-Class Sphingosine 1-Phosphate Receptor Modulator for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis.

OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmacological and clinical profile of ozanimod in the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). DATA SOURCES: A PubMed search was conducted from inception to July 2021 using the keywords ozanimod, ulcerative colitis, and sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator. Information was also extracted from published abstracts and the package insert. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Phase 2 and 3 studies and relevant literature on ozanimod pharmacological and clinical profiles were reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ozanimod approval was based on True North, a phase 3 trial evaluating ozanimod's efficacy and safety in the treatment of moderate to severe UC. Compared with placebo, ozanimod led to clinical remission in a significantly higher proportion of patients in both the induction and maintenance phase. Additionally, for secondary end points of clinical response, endoscopic improvement, corticosteroid-free remission, and mucosal healing, ozanimod performed significantly better than placebo. Common adverse events included infections, headaches, hypertension, bradycardia, and liver enzyme elevations. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: Ozanimod is the first sphingosine 1-phosphate modulator to be approved for UC and is administered orally. Its efficacy profile is comparable with other UC medications. However, its safety profile is unique, requiring extensive assessments prior to initiation of and during treatment. Thus, it is unclear how ozanimod will be positioned in UC treatment. CONCLUSION: Ozanimod is another option in the growing arsenal of UC treatment. Although it offers a novel mechanism of action and is administered orally, there are important safety, dosing, and pharmacokinetic factors to consider prior to initiation and use.

Efficacy and Safety of Etrasimod in a Phase 2 Randomized Trial of Patients With Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Etrasimod (APD334) is an oral, selective sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator in development for immune-mediated inflammatory disorders. We assessed the efficacy and safety of etrasimod in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: In a phase 2, proof-of-concept, double-blind, parallel-group study, adult outpatients with modified Mayo Clinic scores (MCSs) (stool frequency, rectal bleeding, and endoscopy findings) of 4-9, endoscopic subscores of 2 or more, and rectal bleeding subscores of 1 or more were randomly assigned to groups given once-daily etrasimod 1 mg (n = 52), etrasimod 2 mg (n = 50), or placebo (n = 54) for 12 weeks. The study was performed from October 15, 2015, through February 14, 2018, at 87 centers in 17 countries. The primary endpoint was an increase in the mean improvement in modified MCS from baseline to week 12. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients with endoscopic improvement (subscores of 1 or less) from baseline to week 12. Exploratory endpoints, including clinical remission, are reported in the article, although the study was statistically powered to draw conclusions only on the primary endpoint. RESULTS: At week 12, the etrasimod 2 mg group met the primary and all secondary endpoints. Etrasimod 2 mg led to a significantly greater increase in mean improvement in modified MCS from baseline than placebo (difference from placebo, 0.99 points; 90% confidence interval, 0.30-1.68; P = .009), and etrasimod 1 mg led to an increase in mean improvement from baseline in modified MCS of 0.43 points more than placebo (90% confidence interval, reduction of 0.24 to increase of 1.11; nominal P = .15). Endoscopic improvement occurred in 41.8% of patients receiving etrasimod 2 mg vs 17.8% receiving placebo (P = .003). Most adverse events were mild to moderate. Three patients had a transient, asymptomatic, low-grade atrioventricular block that resolved spontaneously all patients had evidence of atrioventricular block before etrasimod exposure. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, etrasimod 2 mg was more effective than placebo in producing clinical and endoscopic improvements. Further clinical development is warranted. Clinicaltrials.gov, Number: NCT02447302.

Tumefactive multiple sclerosis in association with fingolimod initiation and discontinuation.

BACKGROUND: Tumefactive multiple sclerosis (TMS) is a rare multiple sclerosis (MS) form that usually manifests as the initial presentation or in the early stages of MS. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate reports of TMS associated with fingolimod use. METHODS: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database and the medical literature were searched for cases of TMS occurring during or after fingolimod treatment. RESULTS: We identified 29 TMS cases, 19 following fingolimod initiation and 10 following fingolimod discontinuation. In these cases, a TMS diagnosis occurred at a median of 7 years after MS diagnosis, and a median of 7 and 3 months following initiation and discontinuation of fingolimod, respectively. Twenty-two cases were assessed as possible and seven as probable from a causal association perspective. A much larger crude number of TMS reports was observed for fingolimod compared to other disease-modifying therapies. CONCLUSION: TMS should be considered when a severe or atypical MS relapse occurs shortly after fingolimod initiation or discontinuation, and should prompt imaging evaluation and appropriate treatment initiation. Prescribers' awareness of the association between TMS and fingolimod may avoid unnecessary diagnostic procedures. In light of our findings, fingolimod (Gilenya) prescribing information was amended to include TMS in the Warnings and Precautions section.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Etrasimod in Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Isolated Proctitis: Results From the Phase 3 ELEVATE UC Clinical Programme.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pivotal trials in ulcerative colitis have historically excluded patients with isolated proctitis. Etrasimod is an oral, once-daily, selective sphingosine 1-phosphate1,4,5 receptor modulator for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. This post hoc analysis assessed efficacy and safety of etrasimod 2 mg once daily in patients with isolated proctitis (centrally read) from the phase 3 ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 trials. METHODS: Patients, including those with isolated proctitis (<10 cm rectal involvement) who met all other inclusion criteria in ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12, were randomised 2:1 to receive etrasimod or placebo. Primary, secondary and other identified efficacy endpoints and safety were assessed. RESULTS: We analysed data from 64 and 723 patients at Week 12 (both trials pooled), and 36 and 397 patients at Week 52 (ELEVATE UC 52 only) with isolated proctitis and more extensive colitis (≥10 cm rectal involvement), respectively. Patients with isolated proctitis receiving etrasimod demonstrated significant improvements versus placebo, including clinical remission rates at Weeks 12 (42.9% vs 13.6%) and 52 (44.4% vs 11.1%), endoscopic improvement (52.4% vs 22.7%) at Week 12 and bowel urgency numerical rating scale score at Week 12 (all p < 0.01). Generally similar trends were observed in patients with more extensive colitis. Safety was consistent across subgroups, with no new findings. CONCLUSIONS: Etrasimod demonstrated significant improvements versus placebo in patients with isolated proctitis, and those with more extensive disease, in most efficacy endpoints at Week 12 and 52. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03945188; NCT03996369.

Achievement of Clinical, Endoscopic, and Histological Outcomes in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis Treated with Etrasimod, and Association with Faecal Calprotectin and C-reactive Protein: Results From the Phase 2 OASIS Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Etrasimod is an oral, once-daily, selective sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P)1,4,5 receptor modulator for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis [UC]. This post-hoc analysis of the phase 2 OASIS trial [NCT02447302] evaluated its efficacy for endoscopic improvement-histologic remission [EIHR] and assessed correlation between faecal calprotectin [FCP] and C-reactive protein [CRP] levels with efficacy outcomes. METHODS: In total, 156 adults with moderately to severely active UC received once-daily etrasimod (1 mg [n = 52]; 2 mg [n = 50]) or placebo [n = 54] for 12 weeks. Clinical, endoscopic, and histologic variables were evaluated at baseline and Week 12. EIHR was defined as achievement of endoscopic improvement [endoscopic subscore ≤ 1, without friability] and histologic remission [Geboes score < 2.0]. Outcomes included the relationships between FCP and CRP concentration and clinical, endoscopic, and histologic variables. RESULTS: Achievement of EIHR was significantly higher in patients who received etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo [19.5% vs 4.1%; Mantel-Haenszel estimated difference, 15.4%; p = 0.010]. In the etrasimod 2 mg group, median FCP and CRP levels at Week 12 were significantly lower in patients who achieved clinical remission, endoscopic improvement, histologic remission, and EIHR versus patients who did not [all p < 0.05]. An FCP concentration cutoff of 250 µg/g achieved optimum sensitivity and specificity for efficacy, including EIHR [0.857 and 0.786, respectively; κ coefficient, 0.3584]. Higher proportions of patients with FCP ≤ 250 µg/g achieved efficacy outcomes at Week 12 versus patients with FCP > 250 µg/g. CONCLUSIONS: Etrasimod was effective for inducing EIHR in patients with UC. FCP and CRP may be useful, noninvasive biomarkers to monitor treatment response. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV NUMBER: NCT02447302.

Clinician's Guide to Using Ozanimod for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis.

The emergence of advanced therapies [eg, biologics, Janus kinase inhibitors] over the past few decades has revolutionised the treatment of ulcerative colitis. However, the limitations of these therapies leave an unmet need for safer and more effective or convenient treatment options. There is growing interest in the development of novel oral small molecule therapies for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Ozanimod is an oral small molecule therapy that is approved in the USA, the European Union, and other countries as the first sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults. This review provides guidance for ozanimod use for the treatment of ulcerative colitis, based on the prescribing information, clinical trial and real-world data, and the authors' clinical experiences. This guidance outlines patient characteristics to consider when deciding if ozanimod treatment is suitable and describes how to educate patients on risks and best practices. It also details the nature and frequency of monitoring during treatment, which should be adapted to the individual patient based on pre-existing risk factors and events that possibly occur during treatment. This review also provides insights into the patient characteristics and clinical scenarios best suited for ozanimod treatment, based on its efficacy, safety profile, and risks compared with other therapies.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel Design Thorough QT Study With a Nested Crossover to Compare the Cardiac Safety of Amiselimod With Placebo and Positive Control in Healthy Volunteers.

This double-blind study evaluated the cardiac safety of amiselimod. Healthy adults (n = 190) were randomized (2:1:1) to receive (1) oral placebo (day -1), followed by oral amiselimod (days 1-26), which was upwardly titrated from 0.4 to 1.6 mg once daily to achieve steady-state concentrations comparable with 0.4 (therapeutic) and 0.8 mg (supratherapeutic) once daily, and placebo (day 27); (2) placebo (day -1), oral moxifloxacin 400 mg (day 1; positive control), followed by placebo (days 1-27); or (3) placebo (days -1 to 26), followed by moxifloxacin 400 mg (day 27). No participant had a corrected QT interval by Fredericia (QTcF) >500 milliseconds or a change from baseline (dQTcF) >60 milliseconds. The upper limits of the 90%CIs for the differences in least-squares mean difference in dQTcF between amiselimod and placebo on days 13 and 26 were <10 milliseconds. Area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 23.5 hours after dosing and maximum plasma concentration of amiselimod and amiselimod-P (active metabolite) at steady-state concentrations for the 0.8-mg dose on day 26 were approximately double that observed with the 0.4-mg dose on day 13. All adverse events were mild to moderate in severity, and no deaths occurred. Amiselimod did not have any clinically relevant effect on the QTcF interval.

S1P receptor modulators and the cardiovascular autonomic nervous system in multiple sclerosis: a narrative review.

Sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor (S1PR) modulators have a complex mechanism of action, which are among the most efficient therapeutic options in multiple sclerosis (MS) and represent a promising approach for other immune-mediated diseases. The S1P signaling pathway involves the activation of five extracellular S1PR subtypes (S1PR1-S1PR5) that are ubiquitous and have a wide range of effects. Besides the immunomodulatory beneficial outcome in MS, S1P signaling regulates the cardiovascular function via S1PR1-S1PR3 subtypes, which reside on cardiac myocytes, endothelial, and vascular smooth muscle cells. In our review, we describe the mechanisms and clinical effects of S1PR modulators on the cardiovascular system. In the past, mostly short-term effects of S1PR modulators on the cardiovascular system have been studied, while data on long-term effects still need to be investigated. Immediate effects detected after treatment initiation are due to parasympathetic overactivation. In contrast, long-term effects may arise from a shift of the autonomic regulation toward sympathetic predominance along with S1PR1 downregulation. A mild increase in blood pressure has been reported in long-term studies, as well as decreased baroreflex sensitivity. In most studies, sustained hypertension was found to represent a significant adverse event related to treatment. The shift in the autonomic control and blood pressure values could not be just a consequence of disease progression but also related to S1PR modulation. Reduced cardiac autonomic activation and decreased heart rate variability during the long-term treatment with S1PR modulators may increase the risk for subsequent cardiac events. For second-generation S1PR modulators, this observation has to be confirmed in further studies with longer follow-ups. The periodic surveillance of cardiovascular function and detection of any cardiac autonomic dysfunction can help predict cardiac outcomes not only after the first dose but also throughout treatment. Plain Language Summary: What is the cardiovascular effect of S1P receptor modulator therapy in multiple sclerosis? Sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor (S1PR) modulators are among the most efficient therapies for multiple sclerosis. As small molecules, they are not only acting on the immune but on cardiovascular and nervous systems as well. Short-term effects of S1PR modulators on the cardiovascular system have already been extensively described, while long-term effects are less known. Our review describes the mechanisms of action and the short- and long-term effects of these therapeutic agents on the cardiovascular system in different clinical trials. We systematically reviewed the literature that had been published by January 2022. One hundred seven articles were initially identified by title and abstract using targeted keywords, and thirty-nine articles with relevance to cardiovascular effects of S1PR therapy in multiple sclerosis patients were thereafter considered, including their references for further accurate clarification. Studies on fingolimod, the first S1PR modulator approved for treating multiple sclerosis, primarily support the safety profile of this therapeutic class. The second-generation therapeutic agents along with a different treatment initiation approach helped mitigate several of the cardiovascular adverse effects that had previously been observed at the start of treatment. The heart rate may decrease when initiating S1PR modulators and, less commonly, the atrioventricular conduction may be prolonged, requiring cardiac monitoring for the first 6 h of medication. Continuous therapy with S1PR modulators can increase blood pressure values; therefore, the presence of arterial hypertension should be checked during long-term treatment. Periodic surveillance of the cardiovascular and autonomic functions can help predict cardiac outcomes and prevent possible adverse events in S1PR modulators treatment. Further studies with longer follow-ups are needed, especially for the second-generation of S1PR modulators, to confirm the safety profile of this therapeutic class.

Abuse and dependence potential of sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: a review of literature and public data.

Abuse and misuse of prescription drugs remains an ongoing concern in the USA and worldwide; thus, all centrally active new drugs must be assessed for abuse and dependence potential. Sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators are used primarily in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Among the new S1P receptor modulators, siponimod, ozanimod, and ponesimod have recently been approved in the USA, European Union (EU), and other countries. This review of literature and other public data has been undertaken to assess the potential for abuse of S1P receptor modulators, including ozanimod, siponimod, ponesimod, and fingolimod, as well as several similar compounds in development. The S1P receptor modulators have not shown chemical or pharmacological similarity to known drugs of abuse; have not shown abuse or dependence potential in animal models for subjective effects, reinforcement, or physical dependence; and do not have adverse event profiles demonstrating effects of interest to individuals who abuse drugs (such as sedative, stimulant, mood-elevating, or hallucinogenic effects). In addition, no reports of actual abuse, misuse, or dependence were identified in the scientific literature for fingolimod, which has been on the market since 2010 (USA) and 2011 (EU). Overall, the data suggest that S1P receptor modulators are not associated with significant potential for abuse or dependence, consistent with their unscheduled status in the USA and internationally.

Review Of The Safety, Efficacy And Tolerability Of Fingolimod In The Treatment Of Pediatric Patients With Relapsing-Remitting Forms Of Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS).

Pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) is an immune-mediated, demyelinating, neurodegenerative disease that accounts for 3-5% of all multiple sclerosis (MS) cases. Although evidence suggests that it has similar risk factors and disease pathophysiology as adult-onset MS (AOMS), there are distinctive features in disease characteristics and patient demographics of POMS that require unique therapeutic development and treatment considerations. Gilenya® (Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) (fingolimod) is a sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator that prevents lymphocytic outflow from peripheral lymph nodes. It has demonstrated efficacy in AOMS. In POMS, there have been three observational studies and one pivotal clinical trial evaluating the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fingolimod. Currently, fingolimod is the only Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approved disease-modifying therapy to treat POMS. This review will critically evaluate the available evidence of fingolimod in the treatment of POMS in detail, as well as discussing its treatment implications.

Modeling clinical efficacy of the S1P receptor modulator ponesimod in psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Ponesimod is currently the only S1P receptor modulator studied in psoriasis. In a dose-finding study, the active doses showed similar efficacy. OBJECTIVE: Prediction of efficacy at lower doses to aid clinical phase 3 planning with respect to dose selection, duration of treatment, and patient inclusion criteria based on pharma-co-kinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modeling and simulation. METHODS: The dose-finding study treated 326 patients (67 on placebo, 126 on 20mg, and 133 on 40mg) over 16 weeks. PK/PD modeling of steady-state trough concentrations and longitudinal PASI scores was employed to characterize data and simulate scenarios. RESULTS: PASI score continually decreased with time on ponesimod treatment, reaching a plateau at 16 weeks. Absolute and relative (percent) PASI score change was larger in patients with higher PASI score at baseline. Doses below 10mg were predicted to show lower efficacy than doses of 10mg and higher. CONCLUSION: Concentration-response modeling was able to predict the efficacy of doses that were not studied. In psoriasis patients, a dose of 10mg (not administered in the study) was predicted to show efficacy similar to 20mg. Disease status (PASI score at baseline) as study inclusion criterion has pronounced influence on study outcome.