Effects of prednisolone tapering on effectiveness of infliximab in patients with ulcerative colitis: data from a retrospective cohort.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The influence of concomitant prednisolone on clinical outcomes and safety in infliximab-treated ulcerative colitis (UC) patients is unknown. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND OUTCOME MEASURES: A retrospective cohort study was performed, including 147 UC patients treated with infliximab at a tertiary inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) centre. Primary outcome was corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CFCR) at week 14 and week 52. Patients were grouped according to prednisolone tapering regimens: standard (≤5 mg/week), fast (>5 mg/week), direct discontinuation or no prednisolone. Patients intolerant to corticosteroids and patients stopping corticosteroids in preparation for surgery including colectomy during their initial admission were excluded. RESULTS: There was no overall association between prednisolone exposure or no exposure and CFCR at weeks 14 or 52 of infliximab. The proportion of patients with C reactive protein ≤5 mg/L was higher in the standard tapering at week 14 as compared with faster regimens or no prednisolone. In subgroup analyses, the standard tapering was associated with a higher rate of CFCR at week 14 compared with the fast-tapering regimen in patients receiving ≥40 mg prednisolone at initiation of infliximab (64.3% vs 26.3%, p=0.04) and among patients admitted with acute severe UC (66.6% vs 23.5%, p<0.05). Similar data were seen at week 52. Prednisolone did not affect infliximab trough levels but increased infection rates (10/77 vs 2/70, p=0.03), in particular C. difficile infection. CONCLUSION: In UC patients with limited disease burden, prednisolone did not affect effectiveness of infliximab. However, patients with increased disease burden seem to benefit from corticosteroid combination therapy.

Management of anal fistulas in Crohn's disease after failure of Infliximab.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of complex perianal fistulas in Crohn's disease remains a challenge especially after the failure of Infliximab. AIM: Update on the different therapeutic alternatives for anal fistula in Crohn's disease after failure of Infliximab. METHODS: A research in the medical literature on PubMed and Google Scholar was carried out. We included cohort studies, reviews and randomized double-blinded therapeutic trials. Case reports and fundamental research studies have been excluded. RESULTS: Anti-TNF therapy, notably Infliximab remain the therapeutic option of choice. Since Infliximab efficacy has been estimated at 60%, with a significant loss-of response rate, new therapeutic strategies have been evaluated and may offer new opportunities for the management of anal fistulas: for example, Ustekinumab could be effective after failure of anti-TNF therapy, although further studies are required. Recent guidelines suggest that injection of mesenchymal stem cells is an effective and safe treatment for complex fistulas. Other surgical options have been proposed, such as endorectal advancement flap, fibrin glue injection, anal fistula plug and ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract, but all with limited and debatable efficacy. Given the failure rate of all these options, new strategies are currently being evaluated. CONCLUSION: Anal fistulas in Crohn's disease are a real therapeutic challenge. New medical and surgical therapies are currently being evaluated, with promising results.

Rifaximin plus lactulose versus lactulose alone for reducing the risk of HE recurrence.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to examine rifaximin plus lactulose efficacy in patients with cirrhosis at a risk of developing overt HE who were stratified by important baseline characteristics such as comorbid ascites or diabetes. METHODS: Pooled post hoc subgroup analysis of adults receiving rifaximin 550 mg twice daily plus lactulose or lactulose alone for 6 months in a phase 3 randomized, double-blind trial and a phase 4 open-label trial was conducted. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Rifaximin plus lactulose was more efficacious than lactulose alone for reducing the risk of overt HE recurrence and HE-related hospitalization in adults grouped by select baseline disease characteristics.

Simulated cost-effectiveness of a novel precision-guided dosing strategy in adult patients with Crohn's disease initiating infliximab maintenance therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) who lose response to biologics experience reduced quality of life (QoL) and costly hospitalizations. Precision-guided dosing (PGD) provides a comprehensive pharmacokinetic (PK) profile that allows for biologic dosing to be personalized. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of infliximab (IFX) PGD relative to two other dose intensification strategies (DIS). METHODS: We developed a hybrid (Markov and decision tree) model of patients with CD who had a clinical response to IFX induction. The analysis had a US payer perspective, a base case time horizon of 5 years, and a 4-week cycle length. There were three IFX dosing comparators: PGD; dose intensification based on symptoms, inflammatory markers, and trough IFX concentration (DIS1); and dose intensification based on symptoms alone (DIS2). Patients that failed IFX initiated ustekinumab, followed by vedolizumab, and conventional therapy. Transition probabilities for IFX were estimated from real-world clinical PK data and interventional clinical trial patient-level data. All other transition probabilities were derived from published randomized clinical trials and cost-effectiveness analyses. Utility values were sourced from previous health technology assessments. Direct costs included biologic acquisition and infusion, surgeries and procedures, conventional therapy, and lab testing. The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The robustness of results was assessed via one-way sensitivity, scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: PGD was the cost-effective IFX dosing strategy with an ICER of 122,932 $ per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) relative to DIS1 and dominating DIS2. PGD had the lowest percentage (1.1%) of patients requiring a new biologic through 5 years (8.9% and 74.4% for DIS1 and DIS2, respectively). One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness of PGD was most sensitive to the time between IFX doses. PSA demonstrated that joint parameter uncertainty had moderate impact on some results. CONCLUSIONS: PGD provides clinical and QoL benefits by maintaining remission and avoiding IFX failure; it is the most cost-effective under conservative assumptions.

Combination treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: Present status and future perspectives.

The treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), especially those with severe or refractory disease, represents an important challenge for the clinical gastroenterologist. It seems to be no exaggeration to say that in these patients, not only the scientific background of the gastroenterologist is tested, but also the abundance of "gifts" that he should possess (insight, intuition, determination, ability to take initiative, etc.) for the successful outcome of the treatment. In daily clinical practice, depending on the severity of the attack, IBD is treated with one or a combination of two or more pharmaceutical agents. These combinations include not only the first-line drugs (e.g., mesalazine, corticosteroids, antibiotics, etc) but also second- and third-line drugs (immunosuppressants and biologic agents). It is a fact that despite the significant therapeutic advances there is still a significant percentage of patients who do not satisfactorily respond to the treatment applied. Therefore, a part of these patients are going to surgery. In recent years, several small-size clinical studies, reviews, and case reports have been published combining not only biological agents with other drugs (e.g., immunosuppressants or corticosteroids) but also the combination of two biological agents simultaneously, especially in severe cases. In our opinion, it is at least a strange (and largely unexplained) fact that we often use combinations of drugs in a given patient although studies comparing the simultaneous administration of two or more drugs with monotherapy are very few. As mentioned above, there is a timid tendency in the literature to combine two biological agents in severe cases unresponsive to the applied treatment or patients with severe extraintestinal manifestations. The appropriate dosage, the duration of the administration, the suitable timing for checking the clinical and laboratory outcome, as well as the treatment side-effects, should be the subject of intense clinical research shortly. In this editorial, we attempt to summarize the existing data regarding the already applied combination therapies and to humbly formulate thoughts and suggestions for the future application of the combination treatment of biological agents in a well-defined category of patients. We suggest that the application of biomarkers and artificial intelligence could help in establishing new forms of treatment using the available modern drugs in patients with IBD resistant to treatment.

Real-world clinical outcomes and healthcare costs in patients with Crohn's disease treated with vedolizumab versus ustekinumab in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world treatment persistence, dose escalation, rates of opportunistic or serious infections, and healthcare costs in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) receiving vedolizumab (VDZ) vs ustekinumab (UST) in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective observational study in adults with CD initiated on VDZ or UST on/after 26 September 2016, was performed using the IBM Truven Health MarketScan databases (1 January 2009-30 September 2018). Rates of treatment persistence, dose escalation, opportunistic or serious infection-related encounters, and healthcare costs per patient per month (PPPM) were evaluated. Entropy balancing was used to balance patient characteristics between cohorts. Event rates were assessed using weighted Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared between cohorts using log-rank tests. Healthcare costs were compared between cohorts using weighted 2-part models. RESULTS: 589 VDZ and 599 UST patients were included (172 [29.2%] and 117 [19.5%] were bio-naïve, respectively). After weighting, baseline characteristics were comparable between cohorts. No significant difference in rates of treatment persistence (12-month: VDZ, 76.5%; UST, 82.1%; p = .17), dose escalation (12-month: VDZ, 29.3%; UST, 32.7%; p = .97), or opportunistic or serious infection-related encounters were observed between VDZ and UST. Total mean healthcare costs were significantly lower for patients treated with VDZ vs UST (mean cost difference = -$5051 PPPM; p < .01). Findings were consistent in bio-naïve patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, similar treatment persistence, dose escalation, and rates of opportunistic or serious infections were observed with VDZ- and UST-treated patients with CD. However, VDZ was associated with a significantly lower cost outlay for healthcare systems.

Crohn's disease (CD) causes inflammation in the digestive system. Vedolizumab (VDZ) and ustekinumab (UST) are therapies for patients with CD. Little is known about the clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of VDZ versus UST in the real world in the United States. We used health claims data and found that VDZ and UST had comparable real-world clinical outcomes. After 12 months of treatment, the proportions of patients with CD who stayed on treatment and those who needed to increase therapy dose were similar with VDZ and UST. The rate of infection was also similar between the two groups of patients. However, the monthly healthcare costs were $5051 less for patients treated with VDZ than with UST. This was mainly due to the lower cost of VDZ, which was almost half of that of UST. The lower treatment costs with VDZ may provide substantial savings for the healthcare system and patients specifically. Future cost-effectiveness studies on VDZ and UST are needed to aid treatment selection for patients with CD.

Performance of Eight Infliximab Population Pharmacokinetic Models in a Cohort of Dutch Children with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Efficacy of infliximab in children with inflammatory bowel disease can be enhanced when serum concentrations are measured and further dosing is adjusted to achieve and maintain a target concentration. Use of a population pharmacokinetic model may help to predict an individual's infliximab dose requirement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictive performance of available infliximab population pharmacokinetic models in an independent cohort of Dutch children with inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we used data of 70 children with inflammatory bowel disease (443 infliximab concentrations) to evaluate eight models that focused on infliximab pharmacokinetic models in individuals with inflammatory bowel disease, preferably aged ≤ 18 years. Predictive performance was evaluated with prior predictions (based solely on patient-specific covariates) and posterior predictions (based on covariates and infliximab trough concentrations). Model accuracy and precision were calculated with relative bias and relative root mean square error and we determined the classification accuracy at the trough concentration target of ≥ 5 mg/L. RESULTS: The population pharmacokinetic model by Fasanmade was identified to be most appropriate for the total dataset (relative bias before/after therapeutic drug monitoring: -20.7%/11.2% and relative root mean square error before/after therapeutic drug monitoring: 84.1%/51.6%), although differences between models were small and several were deemed suitable for clinical use. For the Fasanmade model, sensitivity and specificity for maximum posterior predictions for the next infliximab trough concentration to be ≥ 5 mg/L were respectively 83.5% and 80% with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.870. CONCLUSIONS: In our paediatric cohort, various models provided acceptable predictive performance, with the Fasanmade model deemed most suitable for clinical use. Model-informed precision dosing can therefore be expected to help to maintain infliximab trough concentrations in the target range.

Randomized controlled trial of linaclotide in children aged 6-17 years with functional constipation.

OBJECTIVES: Linaclotide, a guanylate cyclase-C agonist, was recently approved in the United States for treatment of children 6-17 years old with functional constipation (FC). This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of several linaclotide doses in children 6-17 years old with FC. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study, 173 children with FC (based on Rome III criteria) were randomized to once-daily linaclotide (A: 9 or 18 µg, B: 18 or 36 µg, or C: 36 or 72 µg) or placebo in a 1:1:1:1 ratio for 6- to 11-year-olds (dosage determined by weight: 18 to <35 or ≥35 kg) and linaclotide (18, 36, 72, or 145 µg) or placebo in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio for 12- to 17-year-olds. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in weekly spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) frequency throughout the 4-week treatment period. Adverse events (AE), clinical laboratory values, and electrocardiograms were monitored. RESULTS: Efficacy and safety were assessed in 173 patients (52.0% aged 6-11 years; 48.0% aged 12-17 years); 162 (93.6%) completed the treatment period. A numerical improvement in mean SBM frequency was observed with increasing linaclotide doses (1.90 in 6- to 11-year-olds [36 or 72 µg] and 2.86 in 12- to 17-year-olds [72 µg]). The most reported treatment-emergent AE was diarrhea, with most cases being mild; none were severe. CONCLUSIONS: Linaclotide was well tolerated in this pediatric population, with a trend toward efficacy in the higher doses, warranting further evaluation.

Combination Therapy With Guselkumab and Golimumab in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: Pharmacokinetics, Immunogenicity and Drug-Drug Interactions.

A proof-of-concept study with the combination of guselkumab and golimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) has shown that the combination therapy resulted in greater efficacy than the individual monotherapies. The current analysis evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK) and immunogenicity of guselkumab and golimumab in both the combination therapy and individual monotherapies. Blood samples were collected to evaluate serum concentrations and immunogenicity of guselkumab and golimumab. Population PK (PopPK) models were developed to assess the effects of combination therapy and other potential covariates on the PK of guselkumab and golimumab. The guselkumab PK was comparable between monotherapy and combination therapy, whereas golimumab concentrations were slightly higher with combination therapy. The anti-guselkumab antibody incidence was low with both monotherapy and combination therapy, and guselkumab immunogenicity did not impact the clearance. Conversely, the anti-golimumab antibody incidence with combination therapy was lower than that for monotherapy. PopPK analysis suggested that the slightly higher golimumab concentrations with combination therapy were partially due to lower immunogenicity and thus lower clearance with combination therapy. C-reactive protein (CRP) was also a significant covariate on golimumab clearance. The greater improvement of inflammation with combination therapy, as shown by reductions in CRP, may have also contributed to the higher golimumab concentrations. Combination therapy slightly decreased the clearance of golimumab, but not guselkumab clearance, in patients with UC. Lower immunogenicity and greater improvement of inflammation with combination therapy were potential mechanisms for slightly increased golimumab concentrations with combination therapy as compared with golimumab monotherapy.

Infliximab desensitization in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: a safe therapeutic alternative.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to the administration of infliximab (IFX) in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) patients are not rare and usually lead to drug discontinuation. We report data on safety and effectiveness of desensitization to IFX in patients with previous HSR. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective monocentric observational study. Patients for whom a desensitization protocol to IFX was realized after a previous HSR were included. Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) and IFX trough levels at both inclusion and six months after desensitization were collected. Clinical outcomes, including recurrence of HSR were evaluated. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2020, 27 patients (Crohn's Disease: 26 (96%) were included). Desensitization after HSR was performed after a median time of 10.4 months (2.9-33.1). Nineteen (70%) patients received immunosuppressants at time of desensitization. Eight (30%) patients presented HSR at first (n = 2), second (n = 4) or third (n = 2) IFX perfusion after desensitization. None led to intensive care unit transfer or death. Thirteen (48%) had clinical response at 6 months and 8 (29%) were still under IFX treatment two years after desensitization. IFX trough levels and ADA were available for 14 patients at time of desensitization. Most patients (12 out of 14) had ADA at a high level. At 6 months, among the 7 patients with long term response to IFX, 4 presented a decrease of ADA titers and 2 had a significant trough level of IFX. CONCLUSION: IFX desensitization in patients with IBD is a safe therapeutic alternative and represents a potential option for patients refractory to multiple biologics.What is already known? Hypersensitivity reactions to the administration of infliximab is frequent. Occurrence of hypersensitivity reaction, either immediate or delayed, usually leads to permanent drug discontinuation.What is new here? Infliximab desensitization is well tolerated with no hypersensitivity reaction recurrence in 70% of patients. Clinical success at 6 months was of 48% and around a third of patients remained under infliximab therapy two years after desensitization. Antidrug antibodies decreased and infliximab trough levels increased in these patients showing the impact of desensitization on immunogenicity.How can this study help patient care? Infliximab desensitization represents a potential option for patients refractory to multiple biologics who presented hypersensitivity reaction to the drug.

A Phase 3 Trial of Seladelpar in Primary Biliary Cholangitis.

BACKGROUND: Effective treatments for patients with primary biliary cholangitis are limited. Seladelpar, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta agonist, has potential benefits. METHODS: In this phase 3, 12-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients who had had an inadequate response to or who had a history of unacceptable side effects with ursodeoxycholic acid to receive oral seladelpar at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo. The primary end point was a biochemical response, which was defined as an alkaline phosphatase level less than 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a decrease of 15% or more from baseline, and a normal total bilirubin level at month 12. Key secondary end points were normalization of the alkaline phosphatase level at month 12 and a change in the score on the pruritus numerical rating scale (range, 0 [no itch] to 10 [worst itch imaginable]) from baseline to month 6 among patients with a baseline score of at least 4 (indicating moderate-to-severe pruritus). RESULTS: Of the 193 patients who underwent randomization and treatment, 93.8% received ursodeoxycholic acid as standard-of-care background therapy. A greater percentage of the patients in the seladelpar group than in the placebo group had a biochemical response (61.7% vs. 20.0%; difference, 41.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 27.7 to 53.4, P<0.001). Normalization of the alkaline phosphatase level also occurred in a greater percentage of patients who received seladelpar than of those who received placebo (25.0% vs. 0%; difference, 25.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 18.3 to 33.2, P<0.001). Seladelpar resulted in a greater reduction in the score on the pruritus numerical rating scale than placebo (least-squares mean change from baseline, -3.2 vs. -1.7; least-squares mean difference, -1.5; 95% CI, -2.5 to -0.5, P = 0.005). Adverse events were reported in 86.7% of the patients in the seladelpar group and in 84.6% in the placebo group, and serious adverse events in 7.0% and 6.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with primary biliary cholangitis, the percentage of patients who had a biochemical response and alkaline phosphatase normalization was significantly greater with seladelpar than with placebo. Seladelpar also significantly reduced pruritus among patients who had moderate-to-severe pruritus at baseline. The incidence and severity of adverse events were similar in the two groups. (Funded by CymaBay Therapeutics; RESPONSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04620733; EudraCT number, 2020-004348-27.).

Managing Risks with Newer Oral Small Molecules in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) is challenging; thus, the need for newer therapeutic options with an oral route of administration has led to the development of novel small molecules drugs (SMDs). We aim to highlight the most common Adverse events (AEs) associated with SMDs and recommendations on monitoring for AEs before and during treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: SMDs, such as Tofacitinib, a JAK inhibitor, have been associated with laboratory abnormalities, infections, and risk of thromboembolic events. Therefore, oral agents with greater selectivity in JAK inhibition, such as tofacitinib and upadacitinib, were later developed. Ozanimod and etrasimod, S1PR agonists, require closer safety profile monitoring by clinicians. Multiple therapies have been recently developed with variable efficacy. However, they have been associated with AEs, and some require close monitoring prior to and during therapy. Clinicians should highlight these adverse events to patients while reassuring the safety profile of these novel SMDs for IBD is favorable.

Efficacy and Safety of Elafibranor in Primary Biliary Cholangitis.

BACKGROUND: Primary biliary cholangitis is a rare, chronic cholestatic liver disease characterized by the destruction of interlobular bile ducts, leading to cholestasis and liver fibrosis. Whether elafibranor, an oral, dual peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) α and δ agonist, may have benefit as a treatment for primary biliary cholangitis is unknown. METHODS: In this multinational, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients with primary biliary cholangitis who had had an inadequate response to or unacceptable side effects with ursodeoxycholic acid to receive once-daily elafibranor, at a dose of 80 mg, or placebo. The primary end point was a biochemical response (defined as an alkaline phosphatase level of <1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a reduction of ≥15% from baseline, and normal total bilirubin levels) at week 52. Key secondary end points were normalization of the alkaline phosphatase level at week 52 and a change in pruritus intensity from baseline through week 52 and through week 24, as measured on the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS; scores range from 0 [no itch] to 10 [worst itch imaginable]). RESULTS: A total of 161 patients underwent randomization. A biochemical response (the primary end point) was observed in 51% of the patients (55 of 108) who received elafibranor and in 4% (2 of 53) who received placebo, for a difference of 47 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 32 to 57; P<0.001). The alkaline phosphatase level normalized in 15% of the patients in the elafibranor group and in none of the patients in the placebo group at week 52 (difference, 15 percentage points; 95% CI, 6 to 23; P = 0.002). Among patients who had moderate-to-severe pruritus (44 patients in the elafibranor group and 22 in the placebo group), the least-squares mean change from baseline through week 52 on the WI-NRS did not differ significantly between the groups (-1.93 vs. -1.15; difference, -0.78; 95% CI, -1.99 to 0.42; P = 0.20). Adverse events that occurred more frequently with elafibranor than with placebo included abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with elafibranor resulted in significantly greater improvements in relevant biochemical indicators of cholestasis than placebo. (Funded by GENFIT and Ipsen; ELATIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04526665.).

Switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab and vedolizumab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: impact on trough levels, day hospital visits, and medical expenses.

OBJECTIVE: Subcutaneous (SC) infliximab (IFX) and vedolizumab (VDZ) have recently become available. We aimed to examine the impact of switching from intravenous (IV) to SC IFX and VDZ in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on costs, the day hospital burden, trough levels, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Our study comprised the cohort of IBD patients receiving IV IFX or VDZ at our hospital in 2022. We evaluated costs, day hospital visits, trough levels, biochemical markers, relapse rates, and self-report outcomes until Jun 30th 2023. RESULTS: Of 114 patients, 18 continued IV therapy, 80 were switched to SC therapy, and 16 were inductions. Eighty-eight (90%) remained in steroid-free remission with no difference between the IV or SC groups. The mean IFX trough level changed from 8.2 ± 4.5 µg/ml to 14.5 ± 5.9 µg/ml, p < 0.001, and the VDZ trough level from 14.7 ± 7.1 mg/ml to 26.5 ± 13.8 mg/ml, p < 0.001. The average yearly costs of infusions and injections per patient were 2 580 € and 7 482 € for IFX and 15 990 € and 13 101 € for VDZ. The annual reduction of day hospital visits was 6,9 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: IV and SC IFX and VDZ are equally effective in maintaining remission in IBD, but SC administration reduces day hospital visits and results in higher trough levels. SC VDZ is less and SC IFX more expensive than IV therapy. Further studies are needed to assess optimal dosing and separate trough levels for SC therapy.

Randomized, Controlled Trial of the FGF21 Analogue Pegozafermin in NASH.

BACKGROUND: Pegozafermin is a long-acting glycopegylated (pegylated with the use of site-specific glycosyltransferases) fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21) analogue in development for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and severe hypertriglyceridemia. The efficacy and safety of pegozafermin in patients with biopsy-proven noncirrhotic NASH are not well established. METHODS: In this phase 2b, multicenter, double-blind, 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH and stage F2 or F3 (moderate or severe) fibrosis to receive subcutaneous pegozafermin at a dose of 15 mg or 30 mg weekly or 44 mg once every 2 weeks or placebo weekly or every 2 weeks. The two primary end points were an improvement in fibrosis (defined as reduction by ≥1 stage, on a scale from 0 to 4, with higher stages indicating greater severity), with no worsening of NASH, at 24 weeks and NASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis at 24 weeks. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Among the 222 patients who underwent randomization, 219 received pegozafermin or placebo. The percentage of patients who met the criteria for fibrosis improvement was 7% in the pooled placebo group, 22% in the 15-mg pegozafermin group (difference vs. placebo, 14 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9 to 38), 26% in the 30-mg pegozafermin group (difference, 19 percentage points; 95% CI, 5 to 32; P = 0.009), and 27% in the 44-mg pegozafermin group (difference, 20 percentage points; 95% CI, 5 to 35; P = 0.008). The percentage of patients who met the criteria for NASH resolution was 2% in the placebo group, 37% in the 15-mg pegozafermin group (difference vs. placebo, 35 percentage points; 95% CI, 10 to 59), 23% in the 30-mg pegozafermin group (difference, 21 percentage points; 95% CI, 9 to 33), and 26% in the 44-mg pegozafermin group (difference, 24 percentage points; 95% CI, 10 to 37). The most common adverse events associated with pegozafermin therapy were nausea and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 2b trial, treatment with pegozafermin led to improvements in fibrosis. These results support the advancement of pegozafermin into phase 3 development. (Funded by 89bio; ENLIVEN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04929483.).

Vedolizumab for the Treatment of Chronic Pouchitis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately half the patients with ulcerative colitis who undergo restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) will subsequently have pouchitis, and among those patients, one fifth will have chronic pouchitis. METHODS: We conducted a phase 4, double-blind, randomized trial to evaluate vedolizumab in adult patients in whom chronic pouchitis had developed after undergoing IPAA for ulcerative colitis. Patients were assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive vedolizumab intravenously at a dose of 300 mg or placebo on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, 14, 22, and 30. All the patients received concomitant ciprofloxacin from weeks 1 to 4. The primary end point was modified Pouchitis Disease Activity Index (mPDAI)-defined remission (an mPDAI score of ≤4 and a reduction from baseline of ≥2 points in the mPDAI total score; scores range from 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating more severe pouchitis) at week 14. The mPDAI is based on clinical symptoms and endoscopic findings. Other efficacy end points included mPDAI-defined remission at week 34, mPDAI-defined response (a reduction from baseline of ≥2 points in the mPDAI score) at weeks 14 and 34, and PDAI-defined remission (a PDAI score of ≤6 and a reduction from baseline of ≥3 points; scores range from 0 to 18, with higher scores indicating more severe pouchitis) at weeks 14 and 34. The PDAI is based on clinical symptoms, endoscopic findings, and histologic findings. RESULTS: Among the 102 patients who underwent randomization, the incidence of mPDAI-defined remission at week 14 was 31% (16 of 51 patients) with vedolizumab and 10% (5 of 51 patients) with placebo (difference, 21 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5 to 38; P = 0.01). Differences in favor of vedolizumab over placebo were also seen with respect to mPDAI-defined remission at week 34 (difference, 17 percentage points; 95% CI, 0 to 35), mPDAI-defined response at week 14 (difference, 30 percentage points; 95% CI, 8 to 48) and at week 34 (difference, 22 percentage points; 95% CI, 2 to 40), and PDAI-defined remission at week 14 (difference, 25 percentage points; 95% CI, 8 to 41) and at week 34 (difference, 19 percentage points; 95% CI, 2 to 37). Serious adverse events occurred in 3 of 51 patients (6%) in the vedolizumab group and in 4 of 51 patients (8%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with vedolizumab was more effective than placebo in inducing remission in patients who had chronic pouchitis after undergoing IPAA for ulcerative colitis. (Funded by Takeda; EARNEST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02790138; EudraCT number, 2015-003472-78.).

Improvement of cholestatic episodes in patients with benign recurrent intrahepatic cholestasis (BRIC) treated with rifampicin. A long-term follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with benign recurrent intrahepatic cholestasis (BRIC) suffer from recurrent episodes of cholestatic jaundice. Treatment options remain limited and are mainly symptomatic. In case reports rifampicin, plasmapheresis, and nasobiliary drainage have been reported to be effective. In this case series, we present long-term experience indicating disease-modifying effects of non-invasive treatment with rifampicin for recurrent cholestasis in BRIC type 1 (BRIC1). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included all adult BRIC1 patients diagnosed and followed up at a single centre in Bergen, Norway. Data regarding clinical and biochemical features during BRIC attacks with and without rifampicin treatment were retrieved from medical journals and a data registry. RESULTS: Five males with BRIC1 were included. Median age at diagnosis was 22 years (range 15-41). Together they had suffered from 65 cholestatic attacks (including four documented abortive attacks). Twenty-eight attacks were treated with rifampicin alone over the last 12 years; all cases showed symptomatic relief and reduction in the levels of bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase in blood. The attacks treated with rifampicin seemed to have shorter duration and were less likely to result in complications or hospitalization compared to attacks prior to the introduction of rifampicin. No side effects attributable to rifampicin were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Episodic treatment of recurrent BRIC1 attacks with rifampicin seems to ameliorate severity and shorten the duration of attacks. Timely diagnosis and effective treatment are of major importance in BRIC, not only to decrease complications but also improving patients' quality of life.

Clinical effect of combination of octreotide and omeprazole in children with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the levels of serum creatinine and serum urea nitrogen.

Pediatric upper gastrointestinal bleeding refers to an acute massive hemorrhage of the upper digestive tract and biliary tract, which is a common clinical emergency in pediatrics. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effect of octreotide combined with omeprazole in pediatric upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Totally 84 cases of pediatric upper gastrointestinal bleeding admitted to Ningbo Women and Children's Hospital from November 2019 to April 2021 were divided into groups according to the admission order. The control group received omeprazole treatment and the observation group received octreotide plus. The total clinical effective rate of children in the observation group was higher than that of the control group. The observation group was superior to the control group with respect to the average hemostasis time, hemostasis rate, rebleeding rate and length of stay after treatment. The observation group witnessed a significantly better quality of life than the control group. For children with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, the combination of omeprazole and octreotide yields a promising effect in the adjustment of blood creatinine and serum urea nitrogen levels and hemostasis, which is worthy of clinical application.

Metabolic syndrome is associated with poor response to rifaximin in minimal hepatic encephalopathy.

Patients with cirrhosis may show minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE), for which rifaximin is effective. Metabolic syndrome may be associated with cognitive impairment. Our aims were to evaluate the influence of metabolic syndrome features on response to rifaximin for neurological and inflammatory alterations in MHE. A prospective cohort study was conducted in 63 cirrhotic patients and 30 controls from two tertiary centres recruited between 2015 and 2019. Metabolic syndrome was defined according to the Adult Treatment Panel-III. Patients were classified into 31 without and 32 with MHE according to the Psychometric Hepatic Encephalopathy Score (PHES). All participants performed specific psychometric tests, and inflammatory parameters were studied. Patients with MHE received rifaximin (400 mg/8 h). Response was evaluated by PHES at 3 and 6 months. Response according to metabolic syndrome manifestations was compared. The response rate was 66%. Older age (p = 0.012) and all metabolic syndrome diseases (p < 0.05) were associated with non-response, plus an increase in risk as the number of manifestations rose (p < 0.001). Patients with metabolic manifestations exhibited worse processing speed (p = 0.011), working memory (p = 0.005), visual coordination (p = 0.013) and lower proportion of activated CD4+ lymphocytes (p = 0.039) at baseline, as well as worse concentration (p = 0.030), bimanual coordination (p = 0.004) and higher levels of intermediate monocytes (p = 0.026), CX3CL1 (p < 0.05), IL-17 (p = 0.022), AHR (p = 0.010) and IgG (p < 0.05) at 3 and/or 6 months of rifaximin. Patients with clinical signs of metabolic syndrome have poor response to rifaximin for MHE, with a higher proportion of neurological alterations associated with a pro-inflammatory environment.