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.

Factors influencing the presence of potentially explosive gases during colonoscopy: Results of the SATISFACTION study.

This study tested the hypothesis that bowel preparation with mannitol should not affect the colonic concentration of H2 and CH4 . Therefore, the SATISFACTION study, an international, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group phase II-III study investigated this issue. The phase II dose-finding part of the study evaluated H2 , CH4 , and O2 concentrations in 179 patients randomized to treatment with 50 g, 100 g, or 150 g mannitol. Phase III of the study compared the presence of intestinal gases in 680 patients randomized (1:1) to receive mannitol 100 g in single dose or a standard split-dose 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG)-Asc preparation (2 L PEG-Asc). Phase II results showed that mannitol did not influence the concentration of intestinal gases. During phase III, no patient in either group had H2 or CH4 concentrations above the critical thresholds. In patients with H2 and/or CH4 levels above detectable concentrations, the mean values were below the risk thresholds by at least one order of magnitude. The results also highlighted the effectiveness of standard washing and insufflation maneuvers in removing residual intestinal gases. In conclusion, bowel cleansing with mannitol was safe as the concentrations of H2 and CH4 were the same as those found in patients prepared with 2 L PEG-Asc. In both groups, the concentrations of gases were influenced more by the degree of cleansing achieved and the insufflation and washing maneuvers performed than by the preparation used for bowel cleansing. The trial protocol was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04759885) and with EudraCT (eudract_number: 2019-002856-18).

Oral mannitol for bowel preparation: a dose-finding phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Successful bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy depends on the instructions, diet, the laxative product, and patient adherence, which all affect colonoscopy quality. Nevertheless, there are no laxatives which combine effectiveness, safety, easy self-administration, good patient acceptance, and low cost. However, mannitol, a sugar alcohol, could be an attractive candidate for use in clinical practice if it is shown to demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety. AIMS: The present phase II dose-finding study compared three doses of mannitol (50, 100, and 150 g) to identify the best dose to be used in a subsequent phase III study. METHODS: The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, caecal intubation rate, adherence, acceptability, and safety profile, including measurement of potentially dangerous colonic gas concentrations (CH4, H2, O2), were considered in all patients. A weighted algorithm was used to identify the best mannitol dose for use in the subsequent study. RESULTS: The per-protocol population included 60 patients in the 50 g group, 54 in the 100 g group, and 49 in the 150 g group. The 100 g dose was the best as it afforded optimal colon cleansing efficacy (94.4% of patients had adequate BP), adherence, acceptability, and safety, including negligible gas concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that the colon cleansing efficacy and safety of mannitol were dose dependent. Conversely, gas concentrations were not dose dependent and negligible in all patients. Combined evaluation of efficacy, tolerability, and safety, using a weighted algorithm, determined that mannitol 100 g was the best dose for the phase III study.

Tralokinumab for moderate-to-severe UC: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIa study.

OBJECTIVE: Interleukin-13 (IL-13) has been implicated as a key driver of UC. This trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of tralokinumab, an IL-13-neutralising antibody, as add-on therapy in adults with moderate-to-severe UC despite standard treatments. DESIGN: Non-hospitalised adults with UC (total Mayo score ≥6) were randomised to receive tralokinumab 300 mg or placebo subcutaneously every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the rate of clinical response at week 8. Secondary efficacy end points included clinical remission and mucosal healing rates at week 8 and changes in total Mayo score, total modified Riley score, partial Mayo score and disease activity markers. RESULTS: Clinical response rate was 38% (21/56) for tralokinumab vs. 33% (18/55) for placebo (p=0.406). Clinical remission rate was 18% (10/56) vs. 6% (3/55) (p=0.033) and mucosal healing rate was 32% (18/56) vs. 20% (11/55) (p=0.104) for tralokinumab vs placebo. Changes to week 8 in total Mayo score and total modified Riley score were similar for tralokinumab and placebo (least-squares mean difference between groups: -0.49 (p=0.394) and 0.25 (p=0.449), respectively). Partial Mayo score at week 4 was lower with tralokinumab than placebo (least-squares mean difference between groups: -0.90 (p=0.041)). No consistent patterns were observed for disease activity markers. Tralokinumab had an acceptable safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: Add-on therapy with tralokinumab did not significantly improve clinical response. However, the higher clinical remission rate with tralokinumab than placebo suggests that tralokinumab may benefit some patients with UC. Tralokinumab was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01482884.

First multicenter study of modified release phosphatidylcholine "LT-02" in ulcerative colitis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in mesalazine-refractory courses.

OBJECTIVES: Phosphatidylcholine is a key component of the mucosal barrier. Treatment with modified release phosphatidylcholine aims to improve the impaired barrier function. The primary objective is to evaluate the efficacy of LT-02, a newly designed modified release phosphatidylcholine formula, in a multicenter setting. METHODS: This is a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, superiority study conducted in 24 ambulatory referral centers in Germany, Lithuania, and Romania. A total of 156 patients with an inadequate response to mesalazine, a disease activity score (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI)) of ≥ 5, and bloody diarrhea underwent treatment with 0, 0.8, 1.6, or 3.2 g LT-02. The primary end point was defined a priori as changes in SCCAI from baseline to the end of treatment. The primary statistical model was a general linear least-squares model. The study was funded by the sponsor Lipid Therapeutics, Heidelberg, Germany, and registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01011322. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics and dropouts were well balanced between all groups. The primary analyses revealed an SCCAI drop of 33.3% in the placebo group (from 9.0 to 6.0 points) compared with 44.3% in the 0.8 g LT-02 (from 8.8 to 4.9, P>0.05) and 40.7% in the 1.6 g groups (from 8.6 to 5.1, P>0.05). The 3.2 g group improved 51.7% from 8.5 to 4.1 (P=0.030 in comparison with placebo). The remission rate was 15% (6/40) in the placebo group compared with 31.4% (11/35) in the highest LT-02 dose group (P=0.089). Mucosal healing was achieved in 32.5% of placebo patients compared with 47.4% of LT-02 patients (P=0.098); the rates for histologic remission were 20% compared with 40.5%, respectively (P=0.016). There were 17 (48.6%) treatment-emergent adverse events in the highest dose group (and 0 serious adverse events (SAEs)) compared with 22 (55%) in the placebo group (4 SAEs). CONCLUSIONS: The primary end point analysis showed a statistically significant improvement in disease activity during LT-02 treatment in comparison with placebo. The drug was found to be very safe.