TBD Meeting (3197-22)

An endoscopic severity score can achieve a higher specificity in predicting the need for selective immunosuppressive therapy among immune-mediated colitis patients than clinical symptom grading alone, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

An endoscopy score cutoff of 4 or higher had a specificity of 82.8% across all colitis grades, and a cutoff of 5 or higher had a specificity of 87.6%, said Yinghong Wang, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Immune-mediated colitis (IMC) is a common immune-related adverse event associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Dr. Wang and colleagues previously reported on endoscopic presentations of IMC, including severe inflammation with deep ulcerated mucosa; moderate to severe inflammation with diffuse erythema, superficial ulcers, exudate, and loss of vasculature; and mild inflammation with patchy erythema, aphtha, edema, or normal mucosa associated with histological inflammation.

An endoscopic severity score can achieve a higher specificity in predicting the need for selective immunosuppressive therapy among immune-mediated colitis patients than clinical symptom grading alone, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

An endoscopy score cutoff of 4 or higher had a specificity of 82.8% across all colitis grades, and a cutoff of 5 or higher had a specificity of 87.6%, said Yinghong Wang, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Immune-mediated colitis (IMC) is a common immune-related adverse event associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Dr. Wang and colleagues previously reported on endoscopic presentations of IMC, including severe inflammation with deep ulcerated mucosa; moderate to severe inflammation with diffuse erythema, superficial ulcers, exudate, and loss of vasculature; and mild inflammation with patchy erythema, aphtha, edema, or normal mucosa associated with histological inflammation.

An endoscopic severity score can achieve a higher specificity in predicting the need for selective immunosuppressive therapy among immune-mediated colitis patients than clinical symptom grading alone, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

An endoscopy score cutoff of 4 or higher had a specificity of 82.8% across all colitis grades, and a cutoff of 5 or higher had a specificity of 87.6%, said Yinghong Wang, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Immune-mediated colitis (IMC) is a common immune-related adverse event associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Dr. Wang and colleagues previously reported on endoscopic presentations of IMC, including severe inflammation with deep ulcerated mucosa; moderate to severe inflammation with diffuse erythema, superficial ulcers, exudate, and loss of vasculature; and mild inflammation with patchy erythema, aphtha, edema, or normal mucosa associated with histological inflammation.

Guselkumab induction therapy appears to improve key clinical, histologic, and endoscopic outcomes in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) at week 12, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

The efficacy of the 200-mg dose and the 400-mg dose was comparable, said David Rubin, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago Medicine Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center. Outcomes improved in all patients, with or without a history of inadequate response or intolerance to advanced therapy.

Guselkumab, an interleukin-12 p19 subunit antagonist, is currently being investigated in inflammatory bowel disease.

The QUASAR Induction Study 1 (NCT04033445) is a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that evaluates guselkumab as induction therapy in patients with moderately to severely active UC. Inclusion criteria specify a demonstrated inadequate response or intolerance to conventional therapy, such as thiopurines or corticosteroids, or to advanced therapy, such as tumor necrosis factor–alpha antagonists, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib. The study didn’t include patients exposed to ustekinumab.

Study participants were age 18 and older with moderately to severely active UC, defined as a modified Mayo score of 5-9 with a Mayo rectal bleeding subscore of 1 or greater and a Mayo endoscopy subscore of 2 or greater at baseline. The groups were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 400 mg of IV guselkumab, 200 mg of guselkumab, or placebo at weeks 0, 4, and 8.

At week 12, the research team looked for several key endpoints. Clinical response was defined as a modified Mayo score decrease of 30% or more and a drop in 2 or more points, with either a 1-point decrease or more in the rectal bleeding subscore or a rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1.

Clinical remission was defined as a stool frequency subscore of 0 or 1 that hadn’t increased from baseline, a rectal bleeding subscore of 0, and an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability present on the endoscopy.

In addition, symptomatic remission was defined as a stool subscore of 0 or 1 that hadn’t increased from baseline and rectal bleeding subscore of 0.

Endoscopic improvement was defined as an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability present on the endoscopy. Endoscopic normalization was an endoscopy subscore of 0.

Notably, the research team looked at histoendoscopic mucosal improvement, which includes a combination of endoscopic improvement and histologic improvement (neutrophil infiltration in less than 5% of crypts, no crypt destruction, and no erosions, ulcerations, or granulation tissue, according to the Geboes grading system).

Among the 313 total patients, 47% had a history of inadequate response or intolerance to advanced therapy, and about half of these patients had prior inadequate response or intolerance to two or more advanced therapy classes.

At baseline, about 90% of patients had an endoscopic subscore of 3 (severe). More than half had extensive UC, and the average UC duration was 9 years. About 20% overall had extraintestinal manifestations present, which were noted in 33% of the 400 mg guselkumab treatment arm.

At week 12, clinical response was achieved by a higher proportion of patients treated with guselkumab versus placebo, at 50.5% versus 25.5% for patients with prior inadequate response or intolerance to advanced therapy and 70.3% versus 29.6% for those without prior inadequate response or intolerance to advanced therapy, the authors reported in the abstract.

Compared with placebo, higher proportions of patients treated with guselkumab achieved clinical, endoscopic, and histologic outcomes in both groups with or without inadequate response or intolerance to advanced therapy. Generally, those without a history of inadequate response had higher response rates across all endpoints.

Overall, both the 200-mg and 400-mg doses of guselkumab were statistically superior to the placebo across all endpoints for both groups (with or without inadequate response or intolerance). Although the efficacy was comparable for the two doses, the 400-mg dose was associated with greater histoendoscopic mucosal improvement in both groups.

“It’s of interest to think about how we position and sequence our therapies with this additional data,” Dr. Rubin said.

The study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Several authors are employees for and have stock options with Johnson & Johnson and Janssen. The other authors reported consultant roles, advisory roles, and research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Janssen.

Guselkumab induction therapy appears to improve key clinical, histologic, and endoscopic outcomes in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) at week 12, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

The efficacy of the 200-mg dose and the 400-mg dose was comparable, said David Rubin, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago Medicine Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center. Outcomes improved in all patients, with or without a history of inadequate response or intolerance to advanced therapy.

Guselkumab, an interleukin-12 p19 subunit antagonist, is currently being investigated in inflammatory bowel disease.

The QUASAR Induction Study 1 (NCT04033445) is a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that evaluates guselkumab as induction therapy in patients with moderately to severely active UC. Inclusion criteria specify a demonstrated inadequate response or intolerance to conventional therapy, such as thiopurines or corticosteroids, or to advanced therapy, such as tumor necrosis factor–alpha antagonists, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib. The study didn’t include patients exposed to ustekinumab.

Study participants were age 18 and older with moderately to severely active UC, defined as a modified Mayo score of 5-9 with a Mayo rectal bleeding subscore of 1 or greater and a Mayo endoscopy subscore of 2 or greater at baseline. The groups were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 400 mg of IV guselkumab, 200 mg of guselkumab, or placebo at weeks 0, 4, and 8.

At week 12, the research team looked for several key endpoints. Clinical response was defined as a modified Mayo score decrease of 30% or more and a drop in 2 or more points, with either a 1-point decrease or more in the rectal bleeding subscore or a rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1.

Clinical remission was defined as a stool frequency subscore of 0 or 1 that hadn’t increased from baseline, a rectal bleeding subscore of 0, and an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability present on the endoscopy.

In addition, symptomatic remission was defined as a stool subscore of 0 or 1 that hadn’t increased from baseline and rectal bleeding subscore of 0.

Endoscopic improvement was defined as an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability present on the endoscopy. Endoscopic normalization was an endoscopy subscore of 0.

Notably, the research team looked at histoendoscopic mucosal improvement, which includes a combination of endoscopic improvement and histologic improvement (neutrophil infiltration in less than 5% of crypts, no crypt destruction, and no erosions, ulcerations, or granulation tissue, according to the Geboes grading system).

Among the 313 total patients, 47% had a history of inadequate response or intolerance to advanced therapy, and about half of these patients had prior inadequate response or intolerance to two or more advanced therapy classes.

At baseline, about 90% of patients had an endoscopic subscore of 3 (severe). More than half had extensive UC, and the average UC duration was 9 years. About 20% overall had extraintestinal manifestations present, which were noted in 33% of the 400 mg guselkumab treatment arm.

At week 12, clinical response was achieved by a higher proportion of patients treated with guselkumab versus placebo, at 50.5% versus 25.5% for patients with prior inadequate response or intolerance to advanced therapy and 70.3% versus 29.6% for those without prior inadequate response or intolerance to advanced therapy, the authors reported in the abstract.

Compared with placebo, higher proportions of patients treated with guselkumab achieved clinical, endoscopic, and histologic outcomes in both groups with or without inadequate response or intolerance to advanced therapy. Generally, those without a history of inadequate response had higher response rates across all endpoints.

Overall, both the 200-mg and 400-mg doses of guselkumab were statistically superior to the placebo across all endpoints for both groups (with or without inadequate response or intolerance). Although the efficacy was comparable for the two doses, the 400-mg dose was associated with greater histoendoscopic mucosal improvement in both groups.

“It’s of interest to think about how we position and sequence our therapies with this additional data,” Dr. Rubin said.

The study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Several authors are employees for and have stock options with Johnson & Johnson and Janssen. The other authors reported consultant roles, advisory roles, and research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Janssen.

Guselkumab induction therapy appears to improve key clinical, histologic, and endoscopic outcomes in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) at week 12, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

The efficacy of the 200-mg dose and the 400-mg dose was comparable, said David Rubin, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago Medicine Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center. Outcomes improved in all patients, with or without a history of inadequate response or intolerance to advanced therapy.

Guselkumab, an interleukin-12 p19 subunit antagonist, is currently being investigated in inflammatory bowel disease.

The QUASAR Induction Study 1 (NCT04033445) is a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that evaluates guselkumab as induction therapy in patients with moderately to severely active UC. Inclusion criteria specify a demonstrated inadequate response or intolerance to conventional therapy, such as thiopurines or corticosteroids, or to advanced therapy, such as tumor necrosis factor–alpha antagonists, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib. The study didn’t include patients exposed to ustekinumab.

Study participants were age 18 and older with moderately to severely active UC, defined as a modified Mayo score of 5-9 with a Mayo rectal bleeding subscore of 1 or greater and a Mayo endoscopy subscore of 2 or greater at baseline. The groups were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 400 mg of IV guselkumab, 200 mg of guselkumab, or placebo at weeks 0, 4, and 8.

At week 12, the research team looked for several key endpoints. Clinical response was defined as a modified Mayo score decrease of 30% or more and a drop in 2 or more points, with either a 1-point decrease or more in the rectal bleeding subscore or a rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1.

Clinical remission was defined as a stool frequency subscore of 0 or 1 that hadn’t increased from baseline, a rectal bleeding subscore of 0, and an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability present on the endoscopy.

In addition, symptomatic remission was defined as a stool subscore of 0 or 1 that hadn’t increased from baseline and rectal bleeding subscore of 0.

Endoscopic improvement was defined as an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability present on the endoscopy. Endoscopic normalization was an endoscopy subscore of 0.

Notably, the research team looked at histoendoscopic mucosal improvement, which includes a combination of endoscopic improvement and histologic improvement (neutrophil infiltration in less than 5% of crypts, no crypt destruction, and no erosions, ulcerations, or granulation tissue, according to the Geboes grading system).

Among the 313 total patients, 47% had a history of inadequate response or intolerance to advanced therapy, and about half of these patients had prior inadequate response or intolerance to two or more advanced therapy classes.

At baseline, about 90% of patients had an endoscopic subscore of 3 (severe). More than half had extensive UC, and the average UC duration was 9 years. About 20% overall had extraintestinal manifestations present, which were noted in 33% of the 400 mg guselkumab treatment arm.

At week 12, clinical response was achieved by a higher proportion of patients treated with guselkumab versus placebo, at 50.5% versus 25.5% for patients with prior inadequate response or intolerance to advanced therapy and 70.3% versus 29.6% for those without prior inadequate response or intolerance to advanced therapy, the authors reported in the abstract.

Compared with placebo, higher proportions of patients treated with guselkumab achieved clinical, endoscopic, and histologic outcomes in both groups with or without inadequate response or intolerance to advanced therapy. Generally, those without a history of inadequate response had higher response rates across all endpoints.

Overall, both the 200-mg and 400-mg doses of guselkumab were statistically superior to the placebo across all endpoints for both groups (with or without inadequate response or intolerance). Although the efficacy was comparable for the two doses, the 400-mg dose was associated with greater histoendoscopic mucosal improvement in both groups.

“It’s of interest to think about how we position and sequence our therapies with this additional data,” Dr. Rubin said.

The study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Several authors are employees for and have stock options with Johnson & Johnson and Janssen. The other authors reported consultant roles, advisory roles, and research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Janssen.

Dupilumab appears to improve clinical, symptomatic, histologic, and endoscopic aspects of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) up to 24 weeks, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

The drug was also well tolerated, demonstrating consistency with the known dupilumab safety profile, said Evan S. Dellon, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

In May, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab (Dupixent) for the treatment of EoE in adults and adolescents who are 12 years and older and weigh at least 40 kg (about 88 pounds), based on safety and efficacy data previously presented by Dr. Dellon and colleagues as part of the phase 3 LIBERTY-EoE-TREET study (NCT03633617).

“Dupilumab is now the only medication FDA approved to treat EoE in the U.S.,” Dr. Dellon said. “The findings here are that the pooled efficacy and safety data for parts A and B of the phase 3 trial are consistent with the results of the individual parts of the study that were previously reported, and which led to the drug being approved for EoE.”

EoE is a chronic, progressive, type 2 inflammatory disease of the esophagus, which can lead to symptoms of esophageal dysfunction that affect quality of life. Current treatment options often lack specificity, present adherence challenges, and provide suboptimal long-term disease control, Dr. Dellon said.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody manufactured by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and IL-13, which are central drivers of type 2 inflammation in EoE.
 

Study population difficult to treat

In the three-part, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, dupilumab was administered to 122 patients as 300-mg weekly doses through subcutaneous injection. In parts A and B, dupilumab demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in adults and adolescents up to 24 weeks. In patients from part A who continued to an extended active treatment period called part C, efficacy was sustained to week 52.

Participants were included if they had EoE that hadn’t responded to high-dose proton pump inhibitors, had baseline esophageal biopsies with a peak intraepithelial eosinophilic count of 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/HPF) or higher in two or more esophageal regions, had a history of an average of two or more episodes of dysphagia per week in the 4 weeks prior to screening, had four or more episodes of dysphagia in the 2 weeks prior to randomization with two or more episodes that required liquids or medical attention, and had a baseline Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score of 10 or higher.

On the other hand, participants were excluded if they initiated or changed a food-elimination diet regimen or reintroduced a previously eliminated food group in the 6 weeks before screening, had other causes of esophageal eosinophilia, had a history of other inflammatory diseases such as Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, or were treated with swallowed topical corticosteroids within 8 weeks prior to baseline.

Dr. Dellon and colleagues focused on co–primary endpoints: The proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count of 6 eos/HPF or less, and the absolute change in DSQ score from baseline to week 24.

Key secondary endpoints included percentage change in eos/HPF, absolute change in EoE-Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS), absolute change in EoE-Histologic Scoring System (EoE-HSS) grade score, and EoE-HSS stage score. Other secondary endpoints included percentage change in DSQ score and proportion of patients achieving less than 15 eos/HPF.

The baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between the treatment and placebo groups. Importantly, about 70% had been treated with topical corticosteroids, and about 40% had a history of esophageal dilation, Dr. Dellon said. The DSQ scores, peak eosinophil counts, and EREFS scores were high, indicating an inflamed, symptomatic, and difficult-to-treat population.
 

Pooled parts A and B findings

Overall, dupilumab reduced peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil counts at week 24. In the dupilumab group, 59% of patients were down to 6 eos/HPF or less, compared with 5.9% in the placebo group. In a secondary endpoint, 77% of dupilumab patients were down to 15 eos/HPF, compared with 7.6% in the placebo group. The dupilumab group saw an 80% drop in baseline change, compared with 1.5% in the placebo group.

Dupilumab also reduced dysphagia symptoms and improved endoscopic features of EoE at week 24. The absolute change in DSQ score was –23.21 in the dupilumab group, compared with –12.69 in the placebo group. The percent change in DSQ score was –65.5% in the dupilumab group, compared with –38.2% in the placebo group. The absolute change in EREFS score was –3.95 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.41 in the placebo group.

In addition, dupilumab reduced histologic scores at week 24. The absolute change in EoE-HSS grade score was –0.82 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.1 in the placebo group. The absolute change in EoE-HSS stage score was –0.79 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.09 in the placebo group.

Dupilumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, and no new safety signals were noted, Dr. Dellon said. The most common adverse events was injection-site reaction at 37.5% in the dupilumab group and 33.3% in the placebo group. The severe adverse events were not related to the medication.

“If patients have EoE, dupilumab might be an option for treatment. However, it’s important to realize that, in the phase 3 study, all patients were PPI nonresponders, most had been treated with topical steroids [and many were not responsive], and many had prior esophageal dilation,” Dr. Dellon said. “We don’t have a lot of data in more mild EoE patients, and insurances are currently requiring a series of authorization before patients might be able to get this medication. It’s best to talk to their doctor about whether the medication is a good fit for not.”

The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Three of the authors are employees for and have stock options with Regeneron or Sanofi. The other authors reported consultant roles, advisory roles, and research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Regeneron and Sanofi.

Dupilumab appears to improve clinical, symptomatic, histologic, and endoscopic aspects of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) up to 24 weeks, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

The drug was also well tolerated, demonstrating consistency with the known dupilumab safety profile, said Evan S. Dellon, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

In May, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab (Dupixent) for the treatment of EoE in adults and adolescents who are 12 years and older and weigh at least 40 kg (about 88 pounds), based on safety and efficacy data previously presented by Dr. Dellon and colleagues as part of the phase 3 LIBERTY-EoE-TREET study (NCT03633617).

“Dupilumab is now the only medication FDA approved to treat EoE in the U.S.,” Dr. Dellon said. “The findings here are that the pooled efficacy and safety data for parts A and B of the phase 3 trial are consistent with the results of the individual parts of the study that were previously reported, and which led to the drug being approved for EoE.”

EoE is a chronic, progressive, type 2 inflammatory disease of the esophagus, which can lead to symptoms of esophageal dysfunction that affect quality of life. Current treatment options often lack specificity, present adherence challenges, and provide suboptimal long-term disease control, Dr. Dellon said.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody manufactured by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and IL-13, which are central drivers of type 2 inflammation in EoE.
 

Study population difficult to treat

In the three-part, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, dupilumab was administered to 122 patients as 300-mg weekly doses through subcutaneous injection. In parts A and B, dupilumab demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in adults and adolescents up to 24 weeks. In patients from part A who continued to an extended active treatment period called part C, efficacy was sustained to week 52.

Participants were included if they had EoE that hadn’t responded to high-dose proton pump inhibitors, had baseline esophageal biopsies with a peak intraepithelial eosinophilic count of 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/HPF) or higher in two or more esophageal regions, had a history of an average of two or more episodes of dysphagia per week in the 4 weeks prior to screening, had four or more episodes of dysphagia in the 2 weeks prior to randomization with two or more episodes that required liquids or medical attention, and had a baseline Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score of 10 or higher.

On the other hand, participants were excluded if they initiated or changed a food-elimination diet regimen or reintroduced a previously eliminated food group in the 6 weeks before screening, had other causes of esophageal eosinophilia, had a history of other inflammatory diseases such as Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, or were treated with swallowed topical corticosteroids within 8 weeks prior to baseline.

Dr. Dellon and colleagues focused on co–primary endpoints: The proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count of 6 eos/HPF or less, and the absolute change in DSQ score from baseline to week 24.

Key secondary endpoints included percentage change in eos/HPF, absolute change in EoE-Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS), absolute change in EoE-Histologic Scoring System (EoE-HSS) grade score, and EoE-HSS stage score. Other secondary endpoints included percentage change in DSQ score and proportion of patients achieving less than 15 eos/HPF.

The baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between the treatment and placebo groups. Importantly, about 70% had been treated with topical corticosteroids, and about 40% had a history of esophageal dilation, Dr. Dellon said. The DSQ scores, peak eosinophil counts, and EREFS scores were high, indicating an inflamed, symptomatic, and difficult-to-treat population.
 

Pooled parts A and B findings

Overall, dupilumab reduced peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil counts at week 24. In the dupilumab group, 59% of patients were down to 6 eos/HPF or less, compared with 5.9% in the placebo group. In a secondary endpoint, 77% of dupilumab patients were down to 15 eos/HPF, compared with 7.6% in the placebo group. The dupilumab group saw an 80% drop in baseline change, compared with 1.5% in the placebo group.

Dupilumab also reduced dysphagia symptoms and improved endoscopic features of EoE at week 24. The absolute change in DSQ score was –23.21 in the dupilumab group, compared with –12.69 in the placebo group. The percent change in DSQ score was –65.5% in the dupilumab group, compared with –38.2% in the placebo group. The absolute change in EREFS score was –3.95 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.41 in the placebo group.

In addition, dupilumab reduced histologic scores at week 24. The absolute change in EoE-HSS grade score was –0.82 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.1 in the placebo group. The absolute change in EoE-HSS stage score was –0.79 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.09 in the placebo group.

Dupilumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, and no new safety signals were noted, Dr. Dellon said. The most common adverse events was injection-site reaction at 37.5% in the dupilumab group and 33.3% in the placebo group. The severe adverse events were not related to the medication.

“If patients have EoE, dupilumab might be an option for treatment. However, it’s important to realize that, in the phase 3 study, all patients were PPI nonresponders, most had been treated with topical steroids [and many were not responsive], and many had prior esophageal dilation,” Dr. Dellon said. “We don’t have a lot of data in more mild EoE patients, and insurances are currently requiring a series of authorization before patients might be able to get this medication. It’s best to talk to their doctor about whether the medication is a good fit for not.”

The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Three of the authors are employees for and have stock options with Regeneron or Sanofi. The other authors reported consultant roles, advisory roles, and research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Regeneron and Sanofi.

Dupilumab appears to improve clinical, symptomatic, histologic, and endoscopic aspects of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) up to 24 weeks, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

The drug was also well tolerated, demonstrating consistency with the known dupilumab safety profile, said Evan S. Dellon, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

In May, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab (Dupixent) for the treatment of EoE in adults and adolescents who are 12 years and older and weigh at least 40 kg (about 88 pounds), based on safety and efficacy data previously presented by Dr. Dellon and colleagues as part of the phase 3 LIBERTY-EoE-TREET study (NCT03633617).

“Dupilumab is now the only medication FDA approved to treat EoE in the U.S.,” Dr. Dellon said. “The findings here are that the pooled efficacy and safety data for parts A and B of the phase 3 trial are consistent with the results of the individual parts of the study that were previously reported, and which led to the drug being approved for EoE.”

EoE is a chronic, progressive, type 2 inflammatory disease of the esophagus, which can lead to symptoms of esophageal dysfunction that affect quality of life. Current treatment options often lack specificity, present adherence challenges, and provide suboptimal long-term disease control, Dr. Dellon said.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody manufactured by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and IL-13, which are central drivers of type 2 inflammation in EoE.
 

Study population difficult to treat

In the three-part, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, dupilumab was administered to 122 patients as 300-mg weekly doses through subcutaneous injection. In parts A and B, dupilumab demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in adults and adolescents up to 24 weeks. In patients from part A who continued to an extended active treatment period called part C, efficacy was sustained to week 52.

Participants were included if they had EoE that hadn’t responded to high-dose proton pump inhibitors, had baseline esophageal biopsies with a peak intraepithelial eosinophilic count of 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/HPF) or higher in two or more esophageal regions, had a history of an average of two or more episodes of dysphagia per week in the 4 weeks prior to screening, had four or more episodes of dysphagia in the 2 weeks prior to randomization with two or more episodes that required liquids or medical attention, and had a baseline Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) score of 10 or higher.

On the other hand, participants were excluded if they initiated or changed a food-elimination diet regimen or reintroduced a previously eliminated food group in the 6 weeks before screening, had other causes of esophageal eosinophilia, had a history of other inflammatory diseases such as Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, or were treated with swallowed topical corticosteroids within 8 weeks prior to baseline.

Dr. Dellon and colleagues focused on co–primary endpoints: The proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count of 6 eos/HPF or less, and the absolute change in DSQ score from baseline to week 24.

Key secondary endpoints included percentage change in eos/HPF, absolute change in EoE-Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS), absolute change in EoE-Histologic Scoring System (EoE-HSS) grade score, and EoE-HSS stage score. Other secondary endpoints included percentage change in DSQ score and proportion of patients achieving less than 15 eos/HPF.

The baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between the treatment and placebo groups. Importantly, about 70% had been treated with topical corticosteroids, and about 40% had a history of esophageal dilation, Dr. Dellon said. The DSQ scores, peak eosinophil counts, and EREFS scores were high, indicating an inflamed, symptomatic, and difficult-to-treat population.
 

Pooled parts A and B findings

Overall, dupilumab reduced peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil counts at week 24. In the dupilumab group, 59% of patients were down to 6 eos/HPF or less, compared with 5.9% in the placebo group. In a secondary endpoint, 77% of dupilumab patients were down to 15 eos/HPF, compared with 7.6% in the placebo group. The dupilumab group saw an 80% drop in baseline change, compared with 1.5% in the placebo group.

Dupilumab also reduced dysphagia symptoms and improved endoscopic features of EoE at week 24. The absolute change in DSQ score was –23.21 in the dupilumab group, compared with –12.69 in the placebo group. The percent change in DSQ score was –65.5% in the dupilumab group, compared with –38.2% in the placebo group. The absolute change in EREFS score was –3.95 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.41 in the placebo group.

In addition, dupilumab reduced histologic scores at week 24. The absolute change in EoE-HSS grade score was –0.82 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.1 in the placebo group. The absolute change in EoE-HSS stage score was –0.79 in the dupilumab group, compared with –0.09 in the placebo group.

Dupilumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, and no new safety signals were noted, Dr. Dellon said. The most common adverse events was injection-site reaction at 37.5% in the dupilumab group and 33.3% in the placebo group. The severe adverse events were not related to the medication.

“If patients have EoE, dupilumab might be an option for treatment. However, it’s important to realize that, in the phase 3 study, all patients were PPI nonresponders, most had been treated with topical steroids [and many were not responsive], and many had prior esophageal dilation,” Dr. Dellon said. “We don’t have a lot of data in more mild EoE patients, and insurances are currently requiring a series of authorization before patients might be able to get this medication. It’s best to talk to their doctor about whether the medication is a good fit for not.”

The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Three of the authors are employees for and have stock options with Regeneron or Sanofi. The other authors reported consultant roles, advisory roles, and research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Regeneron and Sanofi.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Metabolic and genetic risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) vary across the age spectrum, but once steatosis has started, the risk of progression to cirrhosis is similar for both young and old, investigators found.

At a large Midwest medical center, younger adults were more likely than older patients to have a high-risk gene variant predisposing carriers to NAFLD. And they were less likely than their senior counterparts to have metabolic risk factors, reported Matthew J. Miller, MD, a 3rd-year resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Hospital in Ann Arbor.

“Progression to cirrhosis was similar in patients younger than 40, compared to older patients, suggesting NAFLD in the young should not be considered more benign than in older patients,” he said in an oral abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

MDedge News/Neil Osterweil

The prevalence of NAFLD among younger adults is increasing, but it’s still unknown whether the course of NAFLD is more benign in these patients than in older adults.

In addition, the rate of progression to cirrhosis in patients with NAFLD can vary, making it difficult to predict those patients most at risk for advanced liver disease, Dr. Miller said.

He and his colleagues sought to characterize genetic and metabolic risk factors for NAFLD and their effects on disease progression in patients from 18 to 40 years, 40 to 59 years, and 60 and older.

The investigators collected data on patients with documented objective evidence of NAFLD seen at the Michigan Medicine health care system from 2010 through 2021.

They identified NAFLD by hepatic steatosis on imaging, biopsy, or transient elastography in the absence of other chronic liver diseases, with the earliest date of a hepatic steatosis diagnosis determined to be the index date.

The investigators determined the presence of cirrhosis using validated International Classification of Diseases version 9 or 10 codes, with incident cirrhosis defined as any new cirrhosis diagnosis at least 1 year after the index date.

They also looked at the frequency of known NAFLD risk alleles in a subset of patients with available genetic data.

They divided 31,505 patients into three age groups for comparison: 8,252 patients age 18-39 at the time of steatosis identification, 15,035 age 40-59, and 8,218 age 60 or older.

Of the full cohort, 804 had cirrhosis at the index date, and 388 others developed incident cirrhosis during 128,090 person-years of follow-up.

The prevalence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes were significantly lower in the youngest group, compared with the two older groups, but the youngest patients had a higher prevalence of obesity than the other two groups, with a significantly higher prevalence of class 3 (morbid) obesity.

Of the 4,359 patients with genetic data available, the NAFLD-promoting PNPLA3-rs738409-G allele was more common in the young, compared with the other two age groups (P = .016).

When the investigators looked at the ability of three laboratory tests – the AST to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI), Fibrosis-4 (FIB4), and NAFLD fibrosis score for identifying prevalent cirrhosis – they found that the scores performed similarly for patients in the 40-59 group, but the NFS did less well among patients in the 18-39 group. There were no significant differences among the three age groups in the risk for incident cirrhosis over 10 years.

The study helps to answer some of the questions surrounding differences in risk factors across the age spectrum, commented Patricia Jones, MD, MSCR, from the University of Miami.

“We wonder how these people with fatty liver are different. Do younger people have a more malignant course? Are they going to progress more rapidly than others, or not? Because if you think of a disease like fatty liver or for that matter any metabolic syndrome–based disease, it’s a spectrum and a continuum, and by the time you’re diagnosed you’ve already had that condition, so it’s really more interesting to me when people are diagnosed, because diagnosing at a younger age allows you to intervene earlier,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Jones said that she was also interested in exploring how the genetic data might be used to improve care for patients, perhaps by testing for the high-risk allele in routine clinical practice.

“It will be interesting to see how people with this allele progress, independently of whether they’re diagnosed at 40, 50, or 60,” she said.

Dr. Jones was a moderator of the session where Dr. Williams presented his data.

Comoderator Mitchell A. Mah’moud, MD, FACG from Duke University in Durham, N.C., commented in an interview that, “with the medications we have available, maybe we can target these patients and prevent progression to cirrhosis and some of the decompensation that we see.”

The study authors did not disclose a funding source. Dr. Miller, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Mah’moud all reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Metabolic and genetic risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) vary across the age spectrum, but once steatosis has started, the risk of progression to cirrhosis is similar for both young and old, investigators found.

At a large Midwest medical center, younger adults were more likely than older patients to have a high-risk gene variant predisposing carriers to NAFLD. And they were less likely than their senior counterparts to have metabolic risk factors, reported Matthew J. Miller, MD, a 3rd-year resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Hospital in Ann Arbor.

“Progression to cirrhosis was similar in patients younger than 40, compared to older patients, suggesting NAFLD in the young should not be considered more benign than in older patients,” he said in an oral abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

MDedge News/Neil Osterweil

The prevalence of NAFLD among younger adults is increasing, but it’s still unknown whether the course of NAFLD is more benign in these patients than in older adults.

In addition, the rate of progression to cirrhosis in patients with NAFLD can vary, making it difficult to predict those patients most at risk for advanced liver disease, Dr. Miller said.

He and his colleagues sought to characterize genetic and metabolic risk factors for NAFLD and their effects on disease progression in patients from 18 to 40 years, 40 to 59 years, and 60 and older.

The investigators collected data on patients with documented objective evidence of NAFLD seen at the Michigan Medicine health care system from 2010 through 2021.

They identified NAFLD by hepatic steatosis on imaging, biopsy, or transient elastography in the absence of other chronic liver diseases, with the earliest date of a hepatic steatosis diagnosis determined to be the index date.

The investigators determined the presence of cirrhosis using validated International Classification of Diseases version 9 or 10 codes, with incident cirrhosis defined as any new cirrhosis diagnosis at least 1 year after the index date.

They also looked at the frequency of known NAFLD risk alleles in a subset of patients with available genetic data.

They divided 31,505 patients into three age groups for comparison: 8,252 patients age 18-39 at the time of steatosis identification, 15,035 age 40-59, and 8,218 age 60 or older.

Of the full cohort, 804 had cirrhosis at the index date, and 388 others developed incident cirrhosis during 128,090 person-years of follow-up.

The prevalence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes were significantly lower in the youngest group, compared with the two older groups, but the youngest patients had a higher prevalence of obesity than the other two groups, with a significantly higher prevalence of class 3 (morbid) obesity.

Of the 4,359 patients with genetic data available, the NAFLD-promoting PNPLA3-rs738409-G allele was more common in the young, compared with the other two age groups (P = .016).

When the investigators looked at the ability of three laboratory tests – the AST to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI), Fibrosis-4 (FIB4), and NAFLD fibrosis score for identifying prevalent cirrhosis – they found that the scores performed similarly for patients in the 40-59 group, but the NFS did less well among patients in the 18-39 group. There were no significant differences among the three age groups in the risk for incident cirrhosis over 10 years.

The study helps to answer some of the questions surrounding differences in risk factors across the age spectrum, commented Patricia Jones, MD, MSCR, from the University of Miami.

“We wonder how these people with fatty liver are different. Do younger people have a more malignant course? Are they going to progress more rapidly than others, or not? Because if you think of a disease like fatty liver or for that matter any metabolic syndrome–based disease, it’s a spectrum and a continuum, and by the time you’re diagnosed you’ve already had that condition, so it’s really more interesting to me when people are diagnosed, because diagnosing at a younger age allows you to intervene earlier,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Jones said that she was also interested in exploring how the genetic data might be used to improve care for patients, perhaps by testing for the high-risk allele in routine clinical practice.

“It will be interesting to see how people with this allele progress, independently of whether they’re diagnosed at 40, 50, or 60,” she said.

Dr. Jones was a moderator of the session where Dr. Williams presented his data.

Comoderator Mitchell A. Mah’moud, MD, FACG from Duke University in Durham, N.C., commented in an interview that, “with the medications we have available, maybe we can target these patients and prevent progression to cirrhosis and some of the decompensation that we see.”

The study authors did not disclose a funding source. Dr. Miller, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Mah’moud all reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Metabolic and genetic risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) vary across the age spectrum, but once steatosis has started, the risk of progression to cirrhosis is similar for both young and old, investigators found.

At a large Midwest medical center, younger adults were more likely than older patients to have a high-risk gene variant predisposing carriers to NAFLD. And they were less likely than their senior counterparts to have metabolic risk factors, reported Matthew J. Miller, MD, a 3rd-year resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Hospital in Ann Arbor.

“Progression to cirrhosis was similar in patients younger than 40, compared to older patients, suggesting NAFLD in the young should not be considered more benign than in older patients,” he said in an oral abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

MDedge News/Neil Osterweil

The prevalence of NAFLD among younger adults is increasing, but it’s still unknown whether the course of NAFLD is more benign in these patients than in older adults.

In addition, the rate of progression to cirrhosis in patients with NAFLD can vary, making it difficult to predict those patients most at risk for advanced liver disease, Dr. Miller said.

He and his colleagues sought to characterize genetic and metabolic risk factors for NAFLD and their effects on disease progression in patients from 18 to 40 years, 40 to 59 years, and 60 and older.

The investigators collected data on patients with documented objective evidence of NAFLD seen at the Michigan Medicine health care system from 2010 through 2021.

They identified NAFLD by hepatic steatosis on imaging, biopsy, or transient elastography in the absence of other chronic liver diseases, with the earliest date of a hepatic steatosis diagnosis determined to be the index date.

The investigators determined the presence of cirrhosis using validated International Classification of Diseases version 9 or 10 codes, with incident cirrhosis defined as any new cirrhosis diagnosis at least 1 year after the index date.

They also looked at the frequency of known NAFLD risk alleles in a subset of patients with available genetic data.

They divided 31,505 patients into three age groups for comparison: 8,252 patients age 18-39 at the time of steatosis identification, 15,035 age 40-59, and 8,218 age 60 or older.

Of the full cohort, 804 had cirrhosis at the index date, and 388 others developed incident cirrhosis during 128,090 person-years of follow-up.

The prevalence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes were significantly lower in the youngest group, compared with the two older groups, but the youngest patients had a higher prevalence of obesity than the other two groups, with a significantly higher prevalence of class 3 (morbid) obesity.

Of the 4,359 patients with genetic data available, the NAFLD-promoting PNPLA3-rs738409-G allele was more common in the young, compared with the other two age groups (P = .016).

When the investigators looked at the ability of three laboratory tests – the AST to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI), Fibrosis-4 (FIB4), and NAFLD fibrosis score for identifying prevalent cirrhosis – they found that the scores performed similarly for patients in the 40-59 group, but the NFS did less well among patients in the 18-39 group. There were no significant differences among the three age groups in the risk for incident cirrhosis over 10 years.

The study helps to answer some of the questions surrounding differences in risk factors across the age spectrum, commented Patricia Jones, MD, MSCR, from the University of Miami.

“We wonder how these people with fatty liver are different. Do younger people have a more malignant course? Are they going to progress more rapidly than others, or not? Because if you think of a disease like fatty liver or for that matter any metabolic syndrome–based disease, it’s a spectrum and a continuum, and by the time you’re diagnosed you’ve already had that condition, so it’s really more interesting to me when people are diagnosed, because diagnosing at a younger age allows you to intervene earlier,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Jones said that she was also interested in exploring how the genetic data might be used to improve care for patients, perhaps by testing for the high-risk allele in routine clinical practice.

“It will be interesting to see how people with this allele progress, independently of whether they’re diagnosed at 40, 50, or 60,” she said.

Dr. Jones was a moderator of the session where Dr. Williams presented his data.

Comoderator Mitchell A. Mah’moud, MD, FACG from Duke University in Durham, N.C., commented in an interview that, “with the medications we have available, maybe we can target these patients and prevent progression to cirrhosis and some of the decompensation that we see.”

The study authors did not disclose a funding source. Dr. Miller, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Mah’moud all reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

In a subgroup of patients with hepatorenal syndrome type 1 (HRS) who received a liver transplant, terlipressin treatment appears to reduce the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) through 12 months of follow-up, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Among transplant recipients, overall 12-month survival was 11% higher for those treated with terlipressin compared with placebo, said K. Rajender Reddy, MD, director of hepatology and medical director of liver transplantation at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Hepatorenal syndrome type 1 is a potentially reversible form of acute kidney injury that occurs in the setting of end-stage liver disease,” he said.

Liver transplantation, which eliminates end-stage liver disease, is the only definitive treatment for HRS. However, renal replacement therapy is common and associated with poor clinical outcomes and low patient survival rates in both the pretransplant and posttransplant settings, he noted.

Terlipressin, an injectable synthetic vasopressin analogue, restores renal blood flow and reverses HRS in 20%-40% of patients, Dr. Reddy said. In September, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved terlipressin (Terlivaz) for patients with HRS type 1. The label has a boxed warning for serious or fatal respiratory failure.

The safety and efficacy were assessed in the phase 3 CONFIRM trial, which Dr. Reddy and colleagues previously published. The randomized, placebo-controlled study demonstrated that terlipressin reversed HRS and reduced the need for RRT through day 30. The reversal of HRS with terlipressin did not improve 90-day survival as compared with placebo, which researchers attributed to a higher death rate within 90 days after the first dose despite improved kidney function.

A closer look at the liver transplant patients

In the subgroup analysis of the CONFIRM study, Dr. Reddy and colleagues analyzed the clinical outcomes through 12 months of follow-up in patients with HRS who received a liver transplant. They looked at the incidence of verified HRS reversal, HRS reversal, need for RRT, and overall survival.

Verified HRS reversal was defined as two consecutive serum creatinine measurements of 1.5 mg/dL or less at least 2 hours apart up to day 14 and survival without RRT for at least 10 days. HRS reversal was defined as a serum creatinine level of 1.5 mg/dL or less while on treatment. In addition, the need for RRT and overall survival were assessed at days 30, 60, 90, 180, and 365.

RRT was defined as any procedure that replaced nonendocrine kidney function, including continuous hemofiltration and hemodialysis, intermittent hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, ultrafiltration, or other dialysis and filtration techniques.

In the CONFIRM study, 199 patients with HRS were treated with terlipressin plus albumin, and 101 patients were treated with placebo plus albumin for up to 14 days. In the terlipressin group, 46 patients received liver transplants within the first 2 months of the study, as did 29 in the placebo group. Two patients in the terlipressin group and one in the placebo group received a simultaneous liver-kidney transplant.
 

Meaningful clinical outcomes

In the 12-month follow-up subgroup analysis, verified HRS reversal was statistically comparable between the groups, with a 30% decrease in the terlipressin group and 17% decrease in the placebo group, Dr. Reddy reported.

HRS reversal was higher in the terlipressin group, at 37%, as compared with 14% in the placebo group.

The pretransplant need for RRT was lower in the terlipressin group, at 30%, as compared with 62% in the placebo group. The posttransplant need for RRT remained numerically lower in the terlipressin group at all time points and was significantly lower at day 180 and day 365.

Overall survival for transplant recipients in the terlipressin group was 94%, as compared with 83% in the placebo group. Posttreatment adverse events and severe adverse events were similar between the groups.

“Collectively, these data indicate that terlipressin treatment in patients with HRS led to better long-term clinical outcomes in those who received a liver transplant,” Dr. Reddy said.

The study was funded by Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures terlipressin. One author is an employee of Mallinckrodt, and the other authors have served in an advisory role or received grant support from Mallinckrodt. The authors also disclosed consultant roles and research support from several other pharmaceutical companies.

In a subgroup of patients with hepatorenal syndrome type 1 (HRS) who received a liver transplant, terlipressin treatment appears to reduce the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) through 12 months of follow-up, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Among transplant recipients, overall 12-month survival was 11% higher for those treated with terlipressin compared with placebo, said K. Rajender Reddy, MD, director of hepatology and medical director of liver transplantation at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Hepatorenal syndrome type 1 is a potentially reversible form of acute kidney injury that occurs in the setting of end-stage liver disease,” he said.

Liver transplantation, which eliminates end-stage liver disease, is the only definitive treatment for HRS. However, renal replacement therapy is common and associated with poor clinical outcomes and low patient survival rates in both the pretransplant and posttransplant settings, he noted.

Terlipressin, an injectable synthetic vasopressin analogue, restores renal blood flow and reverses HRS in 20%-40% of patients, Dr. Reddy said. In September, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved terlipressin (Terlivaz) for patients with HRS type 1. The label has a boxed warning for serious or fatal respiratory failure.

The safety and efficacy were assessed in the phase 3 CONFIRM trial, which Dr. Reddy and colleagues previously published. The randomized, placebo-controlled study demonstrated that terlipressin reversed HRS and reduced the need for RRT through day 30. The reversal of HRS with terlipressin did not improve 90-day survival as compared with placebo, which researchers attributed to a higher death rate within 90 days after the first dose despite improved kidney function.

A closer look at the liver transplant patients

In the subgroup analysis of the CONFIRM study, Dr. Reddy and colleagues analyzed the clinical outcomes through 12 months of follow-up in patients with HRS who received a liver transplant. They looked at the incidence of verified HRS reversal, HRS reversal, need for RRT, and overall survival.

Verified HRS reversal was defined as two consecutive serum creatinine measurements of 1.5 mg/dL or less at least 2 hours apart up to day 14 and survival without RRT for at least 10 days. HRS reversal was defined as a serum creatinine level of 1.5 mg/dL or less while on treatment. In addition, the need for RRT and overall survival were assessed at days 30, 60, 90, 180, and 365.

RRT was defined as any procedure that replaced nonendocrine kidney function, including continuous hemofiltration and hemodialysis, intermittent hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, ultrafiltration, or other dialysis and filtration techniques.

In the CONFIRM study, 199 patients with HRS were treated with terlipressin plus albumin, and 101 patients were treated with placebo plus albumin for up to 14 days. In the terlipressin group, 46 patients received liver transplants within the first 2 months of the study, as did 29 in the placebo group. Two patients in the terlipressin group and one in the placebo group received a simultaneous liver-kidney transplant.
 

Meaningful clinical outcomes

In the 12-month follow-up subgroup analysis, verified HRS reversal was statistically comparable between the groups, with a 30% decrease in the terlipressin group and 17% decrease in the placebo group, Dr. Reddy reported.

HRS reversal was higher in the terlipressin group, at 37%, as compared with 14% in the placebo group.

The pretransplant need for RRT was lower in the terlipressin group, at 30%, as compared with 62% in the placebo group. The posttransplant need for RRT remained numerically lower in the terlipressin group at all time points and was significantly lower at day 180 and day 365.

Overall survival for transplant recipients in the terlipressin group was 94%, as compared with 83% in the placebo group. Posttreatment adverse events and severe adverse events were similar between the groups.

“Collectively, these data indicate that terlipressin treatment in patients with HRS led to better long-term clinical outcomes in those who received a liver transplant,” Dr. Reddy said.

The study was funded by Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures terlipressin. One author is an employee of Mallinckrodt, and the other authors have served in an advisory role or received grant support from Mallinckrodt. The authors also disclosed consultant roles and research support from several other pharmaceutical companies.

In a subgroup of patients with hepatorenal syndrome type 1 (HRS) who received a liver transplant, terlipressin treatment appears to reduce the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) through 12 months of follow-up, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Among transplant recipients, overall 12-month survival was 11% higher for those treated with terlipressin compared with placebo, said K. Rajender Reddy, MD, director of hepatology and medical director of liver transplantation at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Hepatorenal syndrome type 1 is a potentially reversible form of acute kidney injury that occurs in the setting of end-stage liver disease,” he said.

Liver transplantation, which eliminates end-stage liver disease, is the only definitive treatment for HRS. However, renal replacement therapy is common and associated with poor clinical outcomes and low patient survival rates in both the pretransplant and posttransplant settings, he noted.

Terlipressin, an injectable synthetic vasopressin analogue, restores renal blood flow and reverses HRS in 20%-40% of patients, Dr. Reddy said. In September, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved terlipressin (Terlivaz) for patients with HRS type 1. The label has a boxed warning for serious or fatal respiratory failure.

The safety and efficacy were assessed in the phase 3 CONFIRM trial, which Dr. Reddy and colleagues previously published. The randomized, placebo-controlled study demonstrated that terlipressin reversed HRS and reduced the need for RRT through day 30. The reversal of HRS with terlipressin did not improve 90-day survival as compared with placebo, which researchers attributed to a higher death rate within 90 days after the first dose despite improved kidney function.

A closer look at the liver transplant patients

In the subgroup analysis of the CONFIRM study, Dr. Reddy and colleagues analyzed the clinical outcomes through 12 months of follow-up in patients with HRS who received a liver transplant. They looked at the incidence of verified HRS reversal, HRS reversal, need for RRT, and overall survival.

Verified HRS reversal was defined as two consecutive serum creatinine measurements of 1.5 mg/dL or less at least 2 hours apart up to day 14 and survival without RRT for at least 10 days. HRS reversal was defined as a serum creatinine level of 1.5 mg/dL or less while on treatment. In addition, the need for RRT and overall survival were assessed at days 30, 60, 90, 180, and 365.

RRT was defined as any procedure that replaced nonendocrine kidney function, including continuous hemofiltration and hemodialysis, intermittent hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, ultrafiltration, or other dialysis and filtration techniques.

In the CONFIRM study, 199 patients with HRS were treated with terlipressin plus albumin, and 101 patients were treated with placebo plus albumin for up to 14 days. In the terlipressin group, 46 patients received liver transplants within the first 2 months of the study, as did 29 in the placebo group. Two patients in the terlipressin group and one in the placebo group received a simultaneous liver-kidney transplant.
 

Meaningful clinical outcomes

In the 12-month follow-up subgroup analysis, verified HRS reversal was statistically comparable between the groups, with a 30% decrease in the terlipressin group and 17% decrease in the placebo group, Dr. Reddy reported.

HRS reversal was higher in the terlipressin group, at 37%, as compared with 14% in the placebo group.

The pretransplant need for RRT was lower in the terlipressin group, at 30%, as compared with 62% in the placebo group. The posttransplant need for RRT remained numerically lower in the terlipressin group at all time points and was significantly lower at day 180 and day 365.

Overall survival for transplant recipients in the terlipressin group was 94%, as compared with 83% in the placebo group. Posttreatment adverse events and severe adverse events were similar between the groups.

“Collectively, these data indicate that terlipressin treatment in patients with HRS led to better long-term clinical outcomes in those who received a liver transplant,” Dr. Reddy said.

The study was funded by Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures terlipressin. One author is an employee of Mallinckrodt, and the other authors have served in an advisory role or received grant support from Mallinckrodt. The authors also disclosed consultant roles and research support from several other pharmaceutical companies.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – RBX2660 could be a new option for people who experience recurrent, debilitating Clostridioides difficile infections.

Following a standard course of antibiotics, a one-time treatment with RBX2660 was successful for three quarters of participants at 8 weeks, according to a new study. It also prevented additional bouts, with 84% of these initial responders remaining free of C. difficile infection at 6 months.

The ongoing phase 3, open-label PUNCH CD3-OLS study expands on clinical trial experience by treating more “real-world” patients. People who might have been excluded from previous research because of comorbidities, such as irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, and immunosuppression, were included.

The study also placed no limit on the number of previous rounds of C. difficile infections.

“Even when you expand the patient population to make it more generalizable, we’re still seeing both a high cure rate and a high success rate,” Sahil Khanna, MBBS, a gastroenterologist and hepatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

“We also are not seeing any kind of safety signals that can be attributed to this particular product,” he said.

Dr. Khanna presented the findings during the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology, which were also published simultaneously in the journal Drugs. The research by Dr. Khanna and associates received an ACG Outstanding Research Award in the colon category.
 

Study design and results

RBX2660 (Rebyota) is a microbiota-based live biotherapeutic in development from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The treatment contains human stool collected from prescreened, qualified donors and is prepared according to good manufacturing standards.

After standard-of-care antibiotics and a 72-hour washout period, participants received a single 150-mL dose rectally by enema. RBX2660 is administered by a health care professional.

The median age of study participants was 63 years, with 45% aged 65 years or older, and 70% were women. Overall, 37% of participants had Crohn’s disease and 4% had ulcerative colitis.

At the time of screening, about half of participants had a history of one or two infections with C. difficile, and the remaining half reported three or more episodes.

Of the 402 participants whose outcomes could be analyzed, 75% reported treatment success, meaning no further C. difficile infections at 8 weeks. This was consistent with the 75% of 60 participants free of C. difficile in the interim analysis reported in 2021. Efficacy results were based on a modified intent-to-treat analysis.

Of the 300 participants who responded to RBX2660 at 8 weeks, 262 were followed up to 6 months, with 84% of these reporting no C. difficile recurrence.

“If you succeeded to 8 weeks, there was a high likelihood that you would succeed up to 6 months,” Dr. Khanna said.

For the subset of participants with inflammatory bowel disease, Dr. Khanna noted that the success rates were in the 80% range, which is higher than what is seen in clinic fecal microbiota transplantation programs.
 

Adverse events

Of the participants, 63% reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Most events were mild to moderate in severity, the researchers reported, with diarrhea and abdominal pain being the most common.

“When you look at the treatment-emergent adverse events, it’s important to put them into context in terms of this patient population,” Dr. Khanna said. “This recurrent population has developed underlying gastrointestinal symptoms like abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and weight loss.”

Some of these adverse events persist beyond resolution of the C. difficile infection, and the adverse-event profile with RBX2660 is consistent with what is seen following fecal microbiota transplantation, he added.

The serious adverse events “were very, very few,” Dr. Khanna said.

Overall, 11% of participants reported a serious adverse event. The majority were related to the C. difficile infection or an underlying comorbidity, he noted.
 

“Excruciating for patients to deal with”

Traditionally, there could be “some hesitation on the patient’s part [to undergo therapy] just because it’s delivered rectally,” session comoderator Lisa Malter, MD, said in an interview.

However, C. difficile can be “excruciating for patients to deal with,” said Dr. Malter, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health. They “may be more than willing to take [this agent] because it gets them feeling better.”

“This is a positive adjunct to our current therapies for C. diff in terms of trying to knock it out once a standard course of antibiotics has been administered,” she added.

Currently, people with recurrent C. difficile seek fecal microbiota material from a biobank or from a close friend or loved one.

But Dr. Malter noted that asking someone you know to donate fecal matter for transplantation requires several steps. Donors are screened to make sure they are free of gastrointestinal illness, are not taking any contraindicated medications, and do not have active infection.

Fecal microbiota samples from a biobank are more standardized, but there have been intermittent shutdowns and availability has been limited during the pandemic, she said.

Dr. Malter added that one unanswered question is how much of the colon is covered by therapy delivery via enema compared with colonoscope delivery during fecal microbiota transplantation.

“If it’s delivered colonoscopically, you get the entire colon. In contrast with an enema, you really only hit the left side of the colon,” she said.
 

FDA advisory committee nod

On Sept. 26, the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee reviewed evidence for RBX2660. The committee voted 13 to 4 that data were adequate to support the effectiveness of RBX2660 to reduce the recurrence of C. difficile infection in adults following antibiotic treatment for recurrent infections.

Members also voted 12 to 4, with one abstention, that the data were adequate to support the product’s safety.

The FDA often follows its advisory committee recommendations but is not required to do so.

“The hope would be that this would get through the usual FDA pipeline of an approval in the near future,” Dr. Khanna said.

The study was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Khanna reported receiving grant and research funding from Ferring. Dr. Malter reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – RBX2660 could be a new option for people who experience recurrent, debilitating Clostridioides difficile infections.

Following a standard course of antibiotics, a one-time treatment with RBX2660 was successful for three quarters of participants at 8 weeks, according to a new study. It also prevented additional bouts, with 84% of these initial responders remaining free of C. difficile infection at 6 months.

The ongoing phase 3, open-label PUNCH CD3-OLS study expands on clinical trial experience by treating more “real-world” patients. People who might have been excluded from previous research because of comorbidities, such as irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, and immunosuppression, were included.

The study also placed no limit on the number of previous rounds of C. difficile infections.

“Even when you expand the patient population to make it more generalizable, we’re still seeing both a high cure rate and a high success rate,” Sahil Khanna, MBBS, a gastroenterologist and hepatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

“We also are not seeing any kind of safety signals that can be attributed to this particular product,” he said.

Dr. Khanna presented the findings during the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology, which were also published simultaneously in the journal Drugs. The research by Dr. Khanna and associates received an ACG Outstanding Research Award in the colon category.
 

Study design and results

RBX2660 (Rebyota) is a microbiota-based live biotherapeutic in development from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The treatment contains human stool collected from prescreened, qualified donors and is prepared according to good manufacturing standards.

After standard-of-care antibiotics and a 72-hour washout period, participants received a single 150-mL dose rectally by enema. RBX2660 is administered by a health care professional.

The median age of study participants was 63 years, with 45% aged 65 years or older, and 70% were women. Overall, 37% of participants had Crohn’s disease and 4% had ulcerative colitis.

At the time of screening, about half of participants had a history of one or two infections with C. difficile, and the remaining half reported three or more episodes.

Of the 402 participants whose outcomes could be analyzed, 75% reported treatment success, meaning no further C. difficile infections at 8 weeks. This was consistent with the 75% of 60 participants free of C. difficile in the interim analysis reported in 2021. Efficacy results were based on a modified intent-to-treat analysis.

Of the 300 participants who responded to RBX2660 at 8 weeks, 262 were followed up to 6 months, with 84% of these reporting no C. difficile recurrence.

“If you succeeded to 8 weeks, there was a high likelihood that you would succeed up to 6 months,” Dr. Khanna said.

For the subset of participants with inflammatory bowel disease, Dr. Khanna noted that the success rates were in the 80% range, which is higher than what is seen in clinic fecal microbiota transplantation programs.
 

Adverse events

Of the participants, 63% reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Most events were mild to moderate in severity, the researchers reported, with diarrhea and abdominal pain being the most common.

“When you look at the treatment-emergent adverse events, it’s important to put them into context in terms of this patient population,” Dr. Khanna said. “This recurrent population has developed underlying gastrointestinal symptoms like abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and weight loss.”

Some of these adverse events persist beyond resolution of the C. difficile infection, and the adverse-event profile with RBX2660 is consistent with what is seen following fecal microbiota transplantation, he added.

The serious adverse events “were very, very few,” Dr. Khanna said.

Overall, 11% of participants reported a serious adverse event. The majority were related to the C. difficile infection or an underlying comorbidity, he noted.
 

“Excruciating for patients to deal with”

Traditionally, there could be “some hesitation on the patient’s part [to undergo therapy] just because it’s delivered rectally,” session comoderator Lisa Malter, MD, said in an interview.

However, C. difficile can be “excruciating for patients to deal with,” said Dr. Malter, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health. They “may be more than willing to take [this agent] because it gets them feeling better.”

“This is a positive adjunct to our current therapies for C. diff in terms of trying to knock it out once a standard course of antibiotics has been administered,” she added.

Currently, people with recurrent C. difficile seek fecal microbiota material from a biobank or from a close friend or loved one.

But Dr. Malter noted that asking someone you know to donate fecal matter for transplantation requires several steps. Donors are screened to make sure they are free of gastrointestinal illness, are not taking any contraindicated medications, and do not have active infection.

Fecal microbiota samples from a biobank are more standardized, but there have been intermittent shutdowns and availability has been limited during the pandemic, she said.

Dr. Malter added that one unanswered question is how much of the colon is covered by therapy delivery via enema compared with colonoscope delivery during fecal microbiota transplantation.

“If it’s delivered colonoscopically, you get the entire colon. In contrast with an enema, you really only hit the left side of the colon,” she said.
 

FDA advisory committee nod

On Sept. 26, the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee reviewed evidence for RBX2660. The committee voted 13 to 4 that data were adequate to support the effectiveness of RBX2660 to reduce the recurrence of C. difficile infection in adults following antibiotic treatment for recurrent infections.

Members also voted 12 to 4, with one abstention, that the data were adequate to support the product’s safety.

The FDA often follows its advisory committee recommendations but is not required to do so.

“The hope would be that this would get through the usual FDA pipeline of an approval in the near future,” Dr. Khanna said.

The study was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Khanna reported receiving grant and research funding from Ferring. Dr. Malter reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – RBX2660 could be a new option for people who experience recurrent, debilitating Clostridioides difficile infections.

Following a standard course of antibiotics, a one-time treatment with RBX2660 was successful for three quarters of participants at 8 weeks, according to a new study. It also prevented additional bouts, with 84% of these initial responders remaining free of C. difficile infection at 6 months.

The ongoing phase 3, open-label PUNCH CD3-OLS study expands on clinical trial experience by treating more “real-world” patients. People who might have been excluded from previous research because of comorbidities, such as irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, and immunosuppression, were included.

The study also placed no limit on the number of previous rounds of C. difficile infections.

“Even when you expand the patient population to make it more generalizable, we’re still seeing both a high cure rate and a high success rate,” Sahil Khanna, MBBS, a gastroenterologist and hepatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

“We also are not seeing any kind of safety signals that can be attributed to this particular product,” he said.

Dr. Khanna presented the findings during the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology, which were also published simultaneously in the journal Drugs. The research by Dr. Khanna and associates received an ACG Outstanding Research Award in the colon category.
 

Study design and results

RBX2660 (Rebyota) is a microbiota-based live biotherapeutic in development from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The treatment contains human stool collected from prescreened, qualified donors and is prepared according to good manufacturing standards.

After standard-of-care antibiotics and a 72-hour washout period, participants received a single 150-mL dose rectally by enema. RBX2660 is administered by a health care professional.

The median age of study participants was 63 years, with 45% aged 65 years or older, and 70% were women. Overall, 37% of participants had Crohn’s disease and 4% had ulcerative colitis.

At the time of screening, about half of participants had a history of one or two infections with C. difficile, and the remaining half reported three or more episodes.

Of the 402 participants whose outcomes could be analyzed, 75% reported treatment success, meaning no further C. difficile infections at 8 weeks. This was consistent with the 75% of 60 participants free of C. difficile in the interim analysis reported in 2021. Efficacy results were based on a modified intent-to-treat analysis.

Of the 300 participants who responded to RBX2660 at 8 weeks, 262 were followed up to 6 months, with 84% of these reporting no C. difficile recurrence.

“If you succeeded to 8 weeks, there was a high likelihood that you would succeed up to 6 months,” Dr. Khanna said.

For the subset of participants with inflammatory bowel disease, Dr. Khanna noted that the success rates were in the 80% range, which is higher than what is seen in clinic fecal microbiota transplantation programs.
 

Adverse events

Of the participants, 63% reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Most events were mild to moderate in severity, the researchers reported, with diarrhea and abdominal pain being the most common.

“When you look at the treatment-emergent adverse events, it’s important to put them into context in terms of this patient population,” Dr. Khanna said. “This recurrent population has developed underlying gastrointestinal symptoms like abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and weight loss.”

Some of these adverse events persist beyond resolution of the C. difficile infection, and the adverse-event profile with RBX2660 is consistent with what is seen following fecal microbiota transplantation, he added.

The serious adverse events “were very, very few,” Dr. Khanna said.

Overall, 11% of participants reported a serious adverse event. The majority were related to the C. difficile infection or an underlying comorbidity, he noted.
 

“Excruciating for patients to deal with”

Traditionally, there could be “some hesitation on the patient’s part [to undergo therapy] just because it’s delivered rectally,” session comoderator Lisa Malter, MD, said in an interview.

However, C. difficile can be “excruciating for patients to deal with,” said Dr. Malter, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health. They “may be more than willing to take [this agent] because it gets them feeling better.”

“This is a positive adjunct to our current therapies for C. diff in terms of trying to knock it out once a standard course of antibiotics has been administered,” she added.

Currently, people with recurrent C. difficile seek fecal microbiota material from a biobank or from a close friend or loved one.

But Dr. Malter noted that asking someone you know to donate fecal matter for transplantation requires several steps. Donors are screened to make sure they are free of gastrointestinal illness, are not taking any contraindicated medications, and do not have active infection.

Fecal microbiota samples from a biobank are more standardized, but there have been intermittent shutdowns and availability has been limited during the pandemic, she said.

Dr. Malter added that one unanswered question is how much of the colon is covered by therapy delivery via enema compared with colonoscope delivery during fecal microbiota transplantation.

“If it’s delivered colonoscopically, you get the entire colon. In contrast with an enema, you really only hit the left side of the colon,” she said.
 

FDA advisory committee nod

On Sept. 26, the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee reviewed evidence for RBX2660. The committee voted 13 to 4 that data were adequate to support the effectiveness of RBX2660 to reduce the recurrence of C. difficile infection in adults following antibiotic treatment for recurrent infections.

Members also voted 12 to 4, with one abstention, that the data were adequate to support the product’s safety.

The FDA often follows its advisory committee recommendations but is not required to do so.

“The hope would be that this would get through the usual FDA pipeline of an approval in the near future,” Dr. Khanna said.

The study was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Khanna reported receiving grant and research funding from Ferring. Dr. Malter reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHARLOTTE, N.C.– Performing high-quality index colonoscopies may pay off later in your patients’ reduced risk for advanced neoplasia, investigators report.

A study of registry data on more than 2,200 patients who had an index colonoscopy showing no evidence of neoplasia found that, on repeat colonoscopy 10 years later, the absolute risk for advanced neoplasia outcomes was lower for those with a high-quality index exam, compared with those who had a lesser-quality index colonoscopy.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The adjusted odds ratio for patients who underwent high-quality index exams was 0.59%, reported Joseph Anderson, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

“These data demonstrate that high-quality index colonoscopy provides better protection from interval lesions than low-quality exams with no polyps detected at that index exam,” he said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“These data support the importance of high-quality index exams in the prevention of interval colorectal cancer, and support the 10-year interval for normal exams,” Dr. Anderson added.

He recommended that endoscopists focus on the quality of their exams by using adequate scope withdrawal time – 8-10 minutes – to ensure optimal adenoma detection, and by ensuring the use of optimal bowel preparation in their practices.

Registry study

Dr. Anderson and colleagues studied how the quality of index colonoscopies could affect the risk of advanced outcomes in low-risk patients at the 10-year or later follow-up. They used records from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which includes data from 2004 to the present on more than 250,000 exams performed by more than 150 endoscopists in more than 30 Granite State practices.

The investigators also looked at data on patients with less than 5 years of follow-up, and those with follow-up from 5 to less than 10 years.

The study sample included patients with no adenoma or significant serrated polyps on their index exams who had at least one follow-up exam 12 months or more after the index exams. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or familial colon cancer syndromes were excluded.

They defined a high-quality colonoscopy as an exam complete to cecum, with adequate bowel preparation, and performed by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate of 25 or higher.

The adenoma detection rate is calculated as the number of screening colonoscopies with at least one adenoma divided by the total number of screening colonoscopies.

The definition of advanced outcomes included advanced adenomas, colorectal cancer, and/or large serrated polyps (1 cm or greater).

Of the 14,011 patients in the sample, 2,283 had a follow-up exam at 10 years. The absolute risk for advanced outcomes among patients who had a high quality index exam was 4.0% vs. 6.7% for those with lower quality exams.

Among patients with low-quality index exams – but not patients with high quality exams – there was a statistically significant increase in the absolute risk for advanced outcomes at all time periods, from 5.1% in the less than 5-year follow-up group, to 6.7% in the 10-years or more follow-up group.

Patients with initial high-quality exams also had a lower risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer, compared with patients who had low-quality index exams: 0.4% vs. 0.8%. This difference translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for colorectal cancer after a high-quality exam of 0.53.
 

It’s getting better all the time

In an interview, Daniel J. Pambianco, MD, FACG from Charlottesville (Va.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in the study, commented that Dr. Anderson and colleagues highlighted the importance of the quality of the bowel prep and the quality of the examination itself.

He noted that the use of devices such as colonoscopy caps can help further improve adenoma detection rates and pointed to up-and-coming developments such as the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to aid human endoscopists.

Dr. Pambianco comoderated the session where the data were presented.

The investigators did not report a study funding source. Dr. Anderson and Dr. Pambianco reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CHARLOTTE, N.C.– Performing high-quality index colonoscopies may pay off later in your patients’ reduced risk for advanced neoplasia, investigators report.

A study of registry data on more than 2,200 patients who had an index colonoscopy showing no evidence of neoplasia found that, on repeat colonoscopy 10 years later, the absolute risk for advanced neoplasia outcomes was lower for those with a high-quality index exam, compared with those who had a lesser-quality index colonoscopy.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The adjusted odds ratio for patients who underwent high-quality index exams was 0.59%, reported Joseph Anderson, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

“These data demonstrate that high-quality index colonoscopy provides better protection from interval lesions than low-quality exams with no polyps detected at that index exam,” he said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“These data support the importance of high-quality index exams in the prevention of interval colorectal cancer, and support the 10-year interval for normal exams,” Dr. Anderson added.

He recommended that endoscopists focus on the quality of their exams by using adequate scope withdrawal time – 8-10 minutes – to ensure optimal adenoma detection, and by ensuring the use of optimal bowel preparation in their practices.

Registry study

Dr. Anderson and colleagues studied how the quality of index colonoscopies could affect the risk of advanced outcomes in low-risk patients at the 10-year or later follow-up. They used records from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which includes data from 2004 to the present on more than 250,000 exams performed by more than 150 endoscopists in more than 30 Granite State practices.

The investigators also looked at data on patients with less than 5 years of follow-up, and those with follow-up from 5 to less than 10 years.

The study sample included patients with no adenoma or significant serrated polyps on their index exams who had at least one follow-up exam 12 months or more after the index exams. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or familial colon cancer syndromes were excluded.

They defined a high-quality colonoscopy as an exam complete to cecum, with adequate bowel preparation, and performed by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate of 25 or higher.

The adenoma detection rate is calculated as the number of screening colonoscopies with at least one adenoma divided by the total number of screening colonoscopies.

The definition of advanced outcomes included advanced adenomas, colorectal cancer, and/or large serrated polyps (1 cm or greater).

Of the 14,011 patients in the sample, 2,283 had a follow-up exam at 10 years. The absolute risk for advanced outcomes among patients who had a high quality index exam was 4.0% vs. 6.7% for those with lower quality exams.

Among patients with low-quality index exams – but not patients with high quality exams – there was a statistically significant increase in the absolute risk for advanced outcomes at all time periods, from 5.1% in the less than 5-year follow-up group, to 6.7% in the 10-years or more follow-up group.

Patients with initial high-quality exams also had a lower risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer, compared with patients who had low-quality index exams: 0.4% vs. 0.8%. This difference translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for colorectal cancer after a high-quality exam of 0.53.
 

It’s getting better all the time

In an interview, Daniel J. Pambianco, MD, FACG from Charlottesville (Va.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in the study, commented that Dr. Anderson and colleagues highlighted the importance of the quality of the bowel prep and the quality of the examination itself.

He noted that the use of devices such as colonoscopy caps can help further improve adenoma detection rates and pointed to up-and-coming developments such as the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to aid human endoscopists.

Dr. Pambianco comoderated the session where the data were presented.

The investigators did not report a study funding source. Dr. Anderson and Dr. Pambianco reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CHARLOTTE, N.C.– Performing high-quality index colonoscopies may pay off later in your patients’ reduced risk for advanced neoplasia, investigators report.

A study of registry data on more than 2,200 patients who had an index colonoscopy showing no evidence of neoplasia found that, on repeat colonoscopy 10 years later, the absolute risk for advanced neoplasia outcomes was lower for those with a high-quality index exam, compared with those who had a lesser-quality index colonoscopy.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The adjusted odds ratio for patients who underwent high-quality index exams was 0.59%, reported Joseph Anderson, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

“These data demonstrate that high-quality index colonoscopy provides better protection from interval lesions than low-quality exams with no polyps detected at that index exam,” he said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“These data support the importance of high-quality index exams in the prevention of interval colorectal cancer, and support the 10-year interval for normal exams,” Dr. Anderson added.

He recommended that endoscopists focus on the quality of their exams by using adequate scope withdrawal time – 8-10 minutes – to ensure optimal adenoma detection, and by ensuring the use of optimal bowel preparation in their practices.

Registry study

Dr. Anderson and colleagues studied how the quality of index colonoscopies could affect the risk of advanced outcomes in low-risk patients at the 10-year or later follow-up. They used records from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which includes data from 2004 to the present on more than 250,000 exams performed by more than 150 endoscopists in more than 30 Granite State practices.

The investigators also looked at data on patients with less than 5 years of follow-up, and those with follow-up from 5 to less than 10 years.

The study sample included patients with no adenoma or significant serrated polyps on their index exams who had at least one follow-up exam 12 months or more after the index exams. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or familial colon cancer syndromes were excluded.

They defined a high-quality colonoscopy as an exam complete to cecum, with adequate bowel preparation, and performed by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate of 25 or higher.

The adenoma detection rate is calculated as the number of screening colonoscopies with at least one adenoma divided by the total number of screening colonoscopies.

The definition of advanced outcomes included advanced adenomas, colorectal cancer, and/or large serrated polyps (1 cm or greater).

Of the 14,011 patients in the sample, 2,283 had a follow-up exam at 10 years. The absolute risk for advanced outcomes among patients who had a high quality index exam was 4.0% vs. 6.7% for those with lower quality exams.

Among patients with low-quality index exams – but not patients with high quality exams – there was a statistically significant increase in the absolute risk for advanced outcomes at all time periods, from 5.1% in the less than 5-year follow-up group, to 6.7% in the 10-years or more follow-up group.

Patients with initial high-quality exams also had a lower risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer, compared with patients who had low-quality index exams: 0.4% vs. 0.8%. This difference translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for colorectal cancer after a high-quality exam of 0.53.
 

It’s getting better all the time

In an interview, Daniel J. Pambianco, MD, FACG from Charlottesville (Va.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in the study, commented that Dr. Anderson and colleagues highlighted the importance of the quality of the bowel prep and the quality of the examination itself.

He noted that the use of devices such as colonoscopy caps can help further improve adenoma detection rates and pointed to up-and-coming developments such as the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to aid human endoscopists.

Dr. Pambianco comoderated the session where the data were presented.

The investigators did not report a study funding source. Dr. Anderson and Dr. Pambianco reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – In a real-world setting, a 1-liter polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid combination produced a high level of adequate or better bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.

Among more than 13,000 patients who used the combination, abbreviated as 1L PEG+ASC (Plenvu), the overall rate of adequate quality bowel prep was 89.3%, reported Cátia Arieira, MD, from the Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira in Guimarães, Portugal.

The rate of adequate prep was significantly higher with a split-dose regimen (evening-morning) than with a same-day regimen, at 94.7% versus 86.7%, respectively.

“Results from this large study confirm the high cleansing effectiveness and good tolerability of 1 liter of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid in real-world settings,” she said in an oral abstract session during the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Designed for tolerability

The 1L PEG+ASC regimen is intended to make precolonoscopy bowel prep a little easier both to take, by reducing the volume of liquid patients need to ingest, and to reduce indigestion with two asymmetric doses, with the second dose having a high ascorbate content.

The 1-liter regimen has been shown to be safe and effective both in clinical trials and in smaller practice-based studies, Dr. Arieira said.

To see how well 1L PEG+ASC performs on a larger scale, the investigators conducted a retrospective observational study of patients underwent a colonoscopy from June 2019 to September 2021 at 12 centers in Spain and Portugal.

The sample included patients who had either a screening, diagnostic, or surveillance colonoscopy and used 1L PEG+ASC in either a split or same-day dose.

The investigators used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) to evaluate the quality of cleansing. They defined an adequate cleansing as a total BBPS score of 6 or greater, with all segmental scores 2 or greater, and a high-quality cleansing as segmental scores of 3.

They enrolled a total of 13,169 patients, 6,406 men and 6,763 women. The same-day regimen was used by two-thirds of patients, and the split-dose regimen by one-third.

In all, 41.9% of procedures were for screening, 29.4% for diagnosis, 26.2% for surveillance, and 2.6% for other, unspecified reasons.

Results

As noted, the overall rate of adequate prep was 89.3%, with rates of 94.7% and 86.7% for the split and same-day doses, respectively.

A breakdown of cleansing by bowel segment showed that, for each segment, the split-dose regimen was numerically superior to the same-day regimen, with rates of 95.6% versus 89.5% for the right colon, 97.1% versus 91.9% for the left colon, and 97.8% versus 93.1% for the transverse colon, respectively.

Mean BBPS scores were significantly better with split dosing, at 8.02 versus 6.96. Higher scores were seen with split-dosing for each colon segment.

The incidence of adverse events was low, at 2.3% overall, 1.4% for same-day dosing, and 3.9% for split dosing, with nausea the most common.

Tolerability is key

Renee L. Williams, MD, MHPE, FACG, from New York University, who moderated the session but was not involved in the study, commented that the more convenient 1L PEG+ASC regimen may be helpful with improving compliance with bowel prep in underserved populations.

“My population of patients is very different from the one in this study,” she said in an interview. “Normally, if you’re looking at people who are not prepped, at least in the United States, people who have a lot of comorbidities, who are underserved, or have insurance uncertainty tend to have a lower level of bowel prep. So I’d be curious to see whether this would work in that population.”

Dr. Williams noted that she prefers split dosing for bowel prep because it offers better tolerability for patients, adding that when her center introduced split-dose prep, the percentage of adequate prep rose from around 60% to more than 90%.

Comoderator John R. Saltzman, MD, FACG, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham & Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said that while he’s not familiar with this specific bowel prep formulation, “I’m looking for whatever is most palatable to patients and most effective in practice. Still, most of our patients tolerate these 2-liter overnight preps very well.”

The 1L-PEG+ASC regimen may be a suitable option for patients whose colonoscopies are scheduled for later in the day, Dr. Saltzman added.

The study was supported by Norgine and Xolomon Tree. Dr. Arieira, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Saltzman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – In a real-world setting, a 1-liter polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid combination produced a high level of adequate or better bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.

Among more than 13,000 patients who used the combination, abbreviated as 1L PEG+ASC (Plenvu), the overall rate of adequate quality bowel prep was 89.3%, reported Cátia Arieira, MD, from the Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira in Guimarães, Portugal.

The rate of adequate prep was significantly higher with a split-dose regimen (evening-morning) than with a same-day regimen, at 94.7% versus 86.7%, respectively.

“Results from this large study confirm the high cleansing effectiveness and good tolerability of 1 liter of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid in real-world settings,” she said in an oral abstract session during the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Designed for tolerability

The 1L PEG+ASC regimen is intended to make precolonoscopy bowel prep a little easier both to take, by reducing the volume of liquid patients need to ingest, and to reduce indigestion with two asymmetric doses, with the second dose having a high ascorbate content.

The 1-liter regimen has been shown to be safe and effective both in clinical trials and in smaller practice-based studies, Dr. Arieira said.

To see how well 1L PEG+ASC performs on a larger scale, the investigators conducted a retrospective observational study of patients underwent a colonoscopy from June 2019 to September 2021 at 12 centers in Spain and Portugal.

The sample included patients who had either a screening, diagnostic, or surveillance colonoscopy and used 1L PEG+ASC in either a split or same-day dose.

The investigators used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) to evaluate the quality of cleansing. They defined an adequate cleansing as a total BBPS score of 6 or greater, with all segmental scores 2 or greater, and a high-quality cleansing as segmental scores of 3.

They enrolled a total of 13,169 patients, 6,406 men and 6,763 women. The same-day regimen was used by two-thirds of patients, and the split-dose regimen by one-third.

In all, 41.9% of procedures were for screening, 29.4% for diagnosis, 26.2% for surveillance, and 2.6% for other, unspecified reasons.

Results

As noted, the overall rate of adequate prep was 89.3%, with rates of 94.7% and 86.7% for the split and same-day doses, respectively.

A breakdown of cleansing by bowel segment showed that, for each segment, the split-dose regimen was numerically superior to the same-day regimen, with rates of 95.6% versus 89.5% for the right colon, 97.1% versus 91.9% for the left colon, and 97.8% versus 93.1% for the transverse colon, respectively.

Mean BBPS scores were significantly better with split dosing, at 8.02 versus 6.96. Higher scores were seen with split-dosing for each colon segment.

The incidence of adverse events was low, at 2.3% overall, 1.4% for same-day dosing, and 3.9% for split dosing, with nausea the most common.

Tolerability is key

Renee L. Williams, MD, MHPE, FACG, from New York University, who moderated the session but was not involved in the study, commented that the more convenient 1L PEG+ASC regimen may be helpful with improving compliance with bowel prep in underserved populations.

“My population of patients is very different from the one in this study,” she said in an interview. “Normally, if you’re looking at people who are not prepped, at least in the United States, people who have a lot of comorbidities, who are underserved, or have insurance uncertainty tend to have a lower level of bowel prep. So I’d be curious to see whether this would work in that population.”

Dr. Williams noted that she prefers split dosing for bowel prep because it offers better tolerability for patients, adding that when her center introduced split-dose prep, the percentage of adequate prep rose from around 60% to more than 90%.

Comoderator John R. Saltzman, MD, FACG, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham & Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said that while he’s not familiar with this specific bowel prep formulation, “I’m looking for whatever is most palatable to patients and most effective in practice. Still, most of our patients tolerate these 2-liter overnight preps very well.”

The 1L-PEG+ASC regimen may be a suitable option for patients whose colonoscopies are scheduled for later in the day, Dr. Saltzman added.

The study was supported by Norgine and Xolomon Tree. Dr. Arieira, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Saltzman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – In a real-world setting, a 1-liter polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid combination produced a high level of adequate or better bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.

Among more than 13,000 patients who used the combination, abbreviated as 1L PEG+ASC (Plenvu), the overall rate of adequate quality bowel prep was 89.3%, reported Cátia Arieira, MD, from the Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira in Guimarães, Portugal.

The rate of adequate prep was significantly higher with a split-dose regimen (evening-morning) than with a same-day regimen, at 94.7% versus 86.7%, respectively.

“Results from this large study confirm the high cleansing effectiveness and good tolerability of 1 liter of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid in real-world settings,” she said in an oral abstract session during the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Designed for tolerability

The 1L PEG+ASC regimen is intended to make precolonoscopy bowel prep a little easier both to take, by reducing the volume of liquid patients need to ingest, and to reduce indigestion with two asymmetric doses, with the second dose having a high ascorbate content.

The 1-liter regimen has been shown to be safe and effective both in clinical trials and in smaller practice-based studies, Dr. Arieira said.

To see how well 1L PEG+ASC performs on a larger scale, the investigators conducted a retrospective observational study of patients underwent a colonoscopy from June 2019 to September 2021 at 12 centers in Spain and Portugal.

The sample included patients who had either a screening, diagnostic, or surveillance colonoscopy and used 1L PEG+ASC in either a split or same-day dose.

The investigators used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) to evaluate the quality of cleansing. They defined an adequate cleansing as a total BBPS score of 6 or greater, with all segmental scores 2 or greater, and a high-quality cleansing as segmental scores of 3.

They enrolled a total of 13,169 patients, 6,406 men and 6,763 women. The same-day regimen was used by two-thirds of patients, and the split-dose regimen by one-third.

In all, 41.9% of procedures were for screening, 29.4% for diagnosis, 26.2% for surveillance, and 2.6% for other, unspecified reasons.

Results

As noted, the overall rate of adequate prep was 89.3%, with rates of 94.7% and 86.7% for the split and same-day doses, respectively.

A breakdown of cleansing by bowel segment showed that, for each segment, the split-dose regimen was numerically superior to the same-day regimen, with rates of 95.6% versus 89.5% for the right colon, 97.1% versus 91.9% for the left colon, and 97.8% versus 93.1% for the transverse colon, respectively.

Mean BBPS scores were significantly better with split dosing, at 8.02 versus 6.96. Higher scores were seen with split-dosing for each colon segment.

The incidence of adverse events was low, at 2.3% overall, 1.4% for same-day dosing, and 3.9% for split dosing, with nausea the most common.

Tolerability is key

Renee L. Williams, MD, MHPE, FACG, from New York University, who moderated the session but was not involved in the study, commented that the more convenient 1L PEG+ASC regimen may be helpful with improving compliance with bowel prep in underserved populations.

“My population of patients is very different from the one in this study,” she said in an interview. “Normally, if you’re looking at people who are not prepped, at least in the United States, people who have a lot of comorbidities, who are underserved, or have insurance uncertainty tend to have a lower level of bowel prep. So I’d be curious to see whether this would work in that population.”

Dr. Williams noted that she prefers split dosing for bowel prep because it offers better tolerability for patients, adding that when her center introduced split-dose prep, the percentage of adequate prep rose from around 60% to more than 90%.

Comoderator John R. Saltzman, MD, FACG, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham & Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said that while he’s not familiar with this specific bowel prep formulation, “I’m looking for whatever is most palatable to patients and most effective in practice. Still, most of our patients tolerate these 2-liter overnight preps very well.”

The 1L-PEG+ASC regimen may be a suitable option for patients whose colonoscopies are scheduled for later in the day, Dr. Saltzman added.

The study was supported by Norgine and Xolomon Tree. Dr. Arieira, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Saltzman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – People with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis benefit from stronger treatment from the start – a combination of monoclonal antibodies – compared with induction with either agent alone, a phase 2a study demonstrates.

Researchers compared the combination therapy of guselkumab and golimumab (both from Janssen) for 12 weeks, followed by guselkumab monotherapy up to week 38, versus either agent as monotherapy for the full 38 weeks.

Guselkumab is an interleukin-23p19 subunit antagonist being studied to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Golimumab is a TNF-alpha antagonist being evaluated for ulcerative colitis.

University of Western Ontario, London

The combination induction strategy “achieved higher rates of clinical remission, endoscopic improvement, composite endpoint of histologic remission, and endoscopic improvement,” said Brian G. Feagan, MD, senior scientific director at the contract research organization Alimentiv and a gastroenterologist at Western University in London, Ont.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
 

Study design

The current research builds on previous week 12 VEGA study results. The earlier findings indicated that blocking interleukin-23p19 by guselkumab and TNF-alpha with golimumab was superior on multiple measures, compared with monotherapy.

The new findings are from a randomized, double-blind, proof-of-concept study that included 214 adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Participants were naive to TNF-alpha antagonists and refractory or intolerant to conventional therapy.

Of the participants, 71 were randomly assigned to receive guselkumab, 200 mg intravenous (IV) at baseline and at weeks 4 and 8, plus 100 mg subcutaneous (SC) every 8 weeks.

Another 72 participants received golimumab, 200 mg SC at baseline, and 100 mg SC at weeks 2, 6, and 10, and every 4 weeks thereafter.

The combination group of 71 participants received guselkumab 200 mg IV and golimumab 200 mg SC at baseline, followed by golimumab 100 mg SC at weeks 2, 6, and 10, and guselkumab 200 mg IV at weeks 4 and 8. At week 12, this group switched to monotherapy with guselkumab, 100 mg SC every 8 weeks.

Overall, 13% of patients discontinued treatment prior to week 34, the time of final dose of study intervention.

Dr. Feagan noted that they did not see differences between any adverse event, serious adverse event, or adverse event leading to discontinuation among the treatment groups.
 

Key findings through week 38

The rate of clinical remission in the combination group was 44%. The rate was lower with guselkumab monotherapy at 31% and golimumab monotherapy at 22% at week 38. These percentages were based on a full Mayo Score of 2 or less and no individual subscore greater than 1.

At the same time, the rates of clinical remission by modified Mayo score also favored the combination group at 48%, followed by 31% in the guselkumab group and 21% in the golimumab cohort.

Endoscopic improvement, endoscopic normalization, histologic remission, and composite histologic-endoscopic endpoints were also greater in the combination group than in the monotherapy groups.

“Quite striking differences were maintained up to week 38,” Dr. Feagan said. “This combination treatment warrants further investigation, and phase 3 trials are underway.”

He added that, while they were concerned about serious infection, they did not see any differences, with only two serious infections in each of the three groups.

Opportunistic infections were reported for two patients in the combination group: extrapulmonary tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus colitis. No opportunistic infections occurred in the monotherapy groups.
 

Valuable data

“The early study results, such as the VEGA study, appear promising for combination biologics with a good safety profile,” Jean-Paul Achkar, MD, staff physician in the Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Cleveland Clinic and the Kenneth Rainin Endowed Chair for IBD Research, said when asked to comment.

“These data are particularly valuable as we have seemingly reached a therapeutic response ceiling for single-biologic therapy, and we need to determine the added benefit and safety profile of a combination of two biologics or the combination of a biologic and a small molecule,” added Dr. Achkar, who served as the session comoderator.

A meeting attendee asked about the likelihood of regulatory approval for this combination based on evidence like this study.

“I think they have to,” Dr. Feagan said. “We’ve probably seen our best results yet in Crohn’s disease, and we’re still at 50% [response rate for monotherapy]. If we’re ever going to come to terms with IBD, I don’t think it’s monotherapy.”

Dr. Feagan added that with combination therapy, “physicians will often worry about economics, but I think that’s a surrogate for their concerns about infection.”

However, he noted that “the better the agents we have, the better the incremental cost effectiveness. So, I don’t think economics is the issue; the issue is safety.”

Another meeting attendee asked if the results might apply to other biologic combinations.

“This model was picked to show the additive effect of the anti-p19 and the TNF antagonist,” Dr. Feagan said.

Similar results could be expected with a combination of treatments from the same classes, he said, but the treatment potential of other drug-class combination is unclear.

The study was funded by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Feagan reports being a consultant for Janssen. Dr. Achkar reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – People with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis benefit from stronger treatment from the start – a combination of monoclonal antibodies – compared with induction with either agent alone, a phase 2a study demonstrates.

Researchers compared the combination therapy of guselkumab and golimumab (both from Janssen) for 12 weeks, followed by guselkumab monotherapy up to week 38, versus either agent as monotherapy for the full 38 weeks.

Guselkumab is an interleukin-23p19 subunit antagonist being studied to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Golimumab is a TNF-alpha antagonist being evaluated for ulcerative colitis.

University of Western Ontario, London

The combination induction strategy “achieved higher rates of clinical remission, endoscopic improvement, composite endpoint of histologic remission, and endoscopic improvement,” said Brian G. Feagan, MD, senior scientific director at the contract research organization Alimentiv and a gastroenterologist at Western University in London, Ont.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
 

Study design

The current research builds on previous week 12 VEGA study results. The earlier findings indicated that blocking interleukin-23p19 by guselkumab and TNF-alpha with golimumab was superior on multiple measures, compared with monotherapy.

The new findings are from a randomized, double-blind, proof-of-concept study that included 214 adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Participants were naive to TNF-alpha antagonists and refractory or intolerant to conventional therapy.

Of the participants, 71 were randomly assigned to receive guselkumab, 200 mg intravenous (IV) at baseline and at weeks 4 and 8, plus 100 mg subcutaneous (SC) every 8 weeks.

Another 72 participants received golimumab, 200 mg SC at baseline, and 100 mg SC at weeks 2, 6, and 10, and every 4 weeks thereafter.

The combination group of 71 participants received guselkumab 200 mg IV and golimumab 200 mg SC at baseline, followed by golimumab 100 mg SC at weeks 2, 6, and 10, and guselkumab 200 mg IV at weeks 4 and 8. At week 12, this group switched to monotherapy with guselkumab, 100 mg SC every 8 weeks.

Overall, 13% of patients discontinued treatment prior to week 34, the time of final dose of study intervention.

Dr. Feagan noted that they did not see differences between any adverse event, serious adverse event, or adverse event leading to discontinuation among the treatment groups.
 

Key findings through week 38

The rate of clinical remission in the combination group was 44%. The rate was lower with guselkumab monotherapy at 31% and golimumab monotherapy at 22% at week 38. These percentages were based on a full Mayo Score of 2 or less and no individual subscore greater than 1.

At the same time, the rates of clinical remission by modified Mayo score also favored the combination group at 48%, followed by 31% in the guselkumab group and 21% in the golimumab cohort.

Endoscopic improvement, endoscopic normalization, histologic remission, and composite histologic-endoscopic endpoints were also greater in the combination group than in the monotherapy groups.

“Quite striking differences were maintained up to week 38,” Dr. Feagan said. “This combination treatment warrants further investigation, and phase 3 trials are underway.”

He added that, while they were concerned about serious infection, they did not see any differences, with only two serious infections in each of the three groups.

Opportunistic infections were reported for two patients in the combination group: extrapulmonary tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus colitis. No opportunistic infections occurred in the monotherapy groups.
 

Valuable data

“The early study results, such as the VEGA study, appear promising for combination biologics with a good safety profile,” Jean-Paul Achkar, MD, staff physician in the Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Cleveland Clinic and the Kenneth Rainin Endowed Chair for IBD Research, said when asked to comment.

“These data are particularly valuable as we have seemingly reached a therapeutic response ceiling for single-biologic therapy, and we need to determine the added benefit and safety profile of a combination of two biologics or the combination of a biologic and a small molecule,” added Dr. Achkar, who served as the session comoderator.

A meeting attendee asked about the likelihood of regulatory approval for this combination based on evidence like this study.

“I think they have to,” Dr. Feagan said. “We’ve probably seen our best results yet in Crohn’s disease, and we’re still at 50% [response rate for monotherapy]. If we’re ever going to come to terms with IBD, I don’t think it’s monotherapy.”

Dr. Feagan added that with combination therapy, “physicians will often worry about economics, but I think that’s a surrogate for their concerns about infection.”

However, he noted that “the better the agents we have, the better the incremental cost effectiveness. So, I don’t think economics is the issue; the issue is safety.”

Another meeting attendee asked if the results might apply to other biologic combinations.

“This model was picked to show the additive effect of the anti-p19 and the TNF antagonist,” Dr. Feagan said.

Similar results could be expected with a combination of treatments from the same classes, he said, but the treatment potential of other drug-class combination is unclear.

The study was funded by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Feagan reports being a consultant for Janssen. Dr. Achkar reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – People with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis benefit from stronger treatment from the start – a combination of monoclonal antibodies – compared with induction with either agent alone, a phase 2a study demonstrates.

Researchers compared the combination therapy of guselkumab and golimumab (both from Janssen) for 12 weeks, followed by guselkumab monotherapy up to week 38, versus either agent as monotherapy for the full 38 weeks.

Guselkumab is an interleukin-23p19 subunit antagonist being studied to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Golimumab is a TNF-alpha antagonist being evaluated for ulcerative colitis.

University of Western Ontario, London

The combination induction strategy “achieved higher rates of clinical remission, endoscopic improvement, composite endpoint of histologic remission, and endoscopic improvement,” said Brian G. Feagan, MD, senior scientific director at the contract research organization Alimentiv and a gastroenterologist at Western University in London, Ont.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
 

Study design

The current research builds on previous week 12 VEGA study results. The earlier findings indicated that blocking interleukin-23p19 by guselkumab and TNF-alpha with golimumab was superior on multiple measures, compared with monotherapy.

The new findings are from a randomized, double-blind, proof-of-concept study that included 214 adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Participants were naive to TNF-alpha antagonists and refractory or intolerant to conventional therapy.

Of the participants, 71 were randomly assigned to receive guselkumab, 200 mg intravenous (IV) at baseline and at weeks 4 and 8, plus 100 mg subcutaneous (SC) every 8 weeks.

Another 72 participants received golimumab, 200 mg SC at baseline, and 100 mg SC at weeks 2, 6, and 10, and every 4 weeks thereafter.

The combination group of 71 participants received guselkumab 200 mg IV and golimumab 200 mg SC at baseline, followed by golimumab 100 mg SC at weeks 2, 6, and 10, and guselkumab 200 mg IV at weeks 4 and 8. At week 12, this group switched to monotherapy with guselkumab, 100 mg SC every 8 weeks.

Overall, 13% of patients discontinued treatment prior to week 34, the time of final dose of study intervention.

Dr. Feagan noted that they did not see differences between any adverse event, serious adverse event, or adverse event leading to discontinuation among the treatment groups.
 

Key findings through week 38

The rate of clinical remission in the combination group was 44%. The rate was lower with guselkumab monotherapy at 31% and golimumab monotherapy at 22% at week 38. These percentages were based on a full Mayo Score of 2 or less and no individual subscore greater than 1.

At the same time, the rates of clinical remission by modified Mayo score also favored the combination group at 48%, followed by 31% in the guselkumab group and 21% in the golimumab cohort.

Endoscopic improvement, endoscopic normalization, histologic remission, and composite histologic-endoscopic endpoints were also greater in the combination group than in the monotherapy groups.

“Quite striking differences were maintained up to week 38,” Dr. Feagan said. “This combination treatment warrants further investigation, and phase 3 trials are underway.”

He added that, while they were concerned about serious infection, they did not see any differences, with only two serious infections in each of the three groups.

Opportunistic infections were reported for two patients in the combination group: extrapulmonary tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus colitis. No opportunistic infections occurred in the monotherapy groups.
 

Valuable data

“The early study results, such as the VEGA study, appear promising for combination biologics with a good safety profile,” Jean-Paul Achkar, MD, staff physician in the Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Cleveland Clinic and the Kenneth Rainin Endowed Chair for IBD Research, said when asked to comment.

“These data are particularly valuable as we have seemingly reached a therapeutic response ceiling for single-biologic therapy, and we need to determine the added benefit and safety profile of a combination of two biologics or the combination of a biologic and a small molecule,” added Dr. Achkar, who served as the session comoderator.

A meeting attendee asked about the likelihood of regulatory approval for this combination based on evidence like this study.

“I think they have to,” Dr. Feagan said. “We’ve probably seen our best results yet in Crohn’s disease, and we’re still at 50% [response rate for monotherapy]. If we’re ever going to come to terms with IBD, I don’t think it’s monotherapy.”

Dr. Feagan added that with combination therapy, “physicians will often worry about economics, but I think that’s a surrogate for their concerns about infection.”

However, he noted that “the better the agents we have, the better the incremental cost effectiveness. So, I don’t think economics is the issue; the issue is safety.”

Another meeting attendee asked if the results might apply to other biologic combinations.

“This model was picked to show the additive effect of the anti-p19 and the TNF antagonist,” Dr. Feagan said.

Similar results could be expected with a combination of treatments from the same classes, he said, but the treatment potential of other drug-class combination is unclear.

The study was funded by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Feagan reports being a consultant for Janssen. Dr. Achkar reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Several factors appear to influence the risk for acute pancreatitis among patients who start taking glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist medications for weight management, a new study has found.

Type 2 diabetes, advanced chronic kidney disease, and tobacco use were associated with greater risk for acute pancreatitis, researchers report.

On the other hand, a higher body mass index (BMI) – 36 kg/m² or higher – appeared to protect people against developing the condition.

“As this class of medications becomes increasingly popular in the United States, it is important for providers to know which patients are at a higher or lower risk of developing acute pancreatitis after being started on them,” said lead study author Robert Postlethwaite, MD, a gastroenterology resident at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology in Charlotte, N.C., being held in person and virtually.
 

Popularity comes at a price

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved two GLP-1s for weight management – liraglutide (Victoza) in 2014 and semaglutide (Wegovy) in 2021. They work by targeting areas of the brain that control food intake and appetite. Other GLP-1s approved to treat type 2 diabetes include dulaglutide (Trulicity) and two other formulations of semaglutide (Rybelsus and Ozempic).

The demand for Wegovy has been so great that there is an ongoing shortage of the medication in the United States.

Although GLP-1s demonstrate a favorable side-effect profile, compared with other types of antiobesity medications, acute pancreatitis remains a serious and sometimes life-threatening complication, the researchers note. Some patients require hospitalization.

Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues performed a retrospective, single-center study of 2,245 patients who attended an academic medical center’s Weight Wellness program from 2015 to 2019. The average age was about 50 years, and 81% were female. The average BMI of all patients was 39.7 kg/m².

The study only included patients starting GLP-1s for treating obesity, not for diabetes.

Of the 2,245 patients, 49 (2.2%) developed acute pancreatitis after starting a GLP-1.

A history of type 2 diabetes mellitus made acute pancreatitis twice as likely (95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.96; P = .04).

Stage 3 or higher chronic kidney disease increased risk 2.3 times (95% CI, 1.18-4.55; P = .01), while tobacco use upped it 3.3 times (95% CI, 1.70-6.50; P < .001).

In contrast, researchers found those with a BMI of 36-40 kg/m² were 88% less likely to develop acute pancreatitis (95% CI, 0.07-0.67; P = .007), compared with patients with a BMI of less than or equal to 30 kg/m². Patients with a BMI of greater than 40 kg/m² had a 73% lower risk (95% CI, 0.10-0.73; P = .01).

Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues found no association with age, sex, or history of bariatric surgery or acute pancreatitis.

Because a history of acute pancreatitis was not a risk factor, he advised that clinicians not withhold these medications for this reason, “especially given the significant glycemic, cardiovascular, and weight-loss effects.”

“We hope that we can arm clinicians with evidence in order to risk stratify their patients and determine who is at high risk of developing pancreatitis,” Dr. Postlethwaite said.

“Hopefully, we can prevent the development of pancreatitis in some patients, especially high-risk individuals, or at least allow clinicians to be aware of it in higher-risk patients to identify it early enough to prevent complications of acute pancreatitis,” he added.
 

Larger studies needed

The study is “promising,” said session comoderator Baharak Moshiree, MD, a gastroenterologist at Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., who was not affiliated with the research.

However, because the study was retrospective and relatively small, it needs to be validated in larger, prospective studies, she added.

“With obesity being such a global issue, there are many patients on these GLP-1 agonists,” Dr. Moshiree said.

Generally, these medications are prescribed by endocrinologists, not gastroenterologists, she noted, and she said that gastroenterologists should be aware of the risks associated with them, including minor gastrointestinal side effects, like nausea and vomiting, that can occur because of delayed gastric emptying.

Dr. Postlethwaite noted that being unable to assess how much alcohol or tobacco individuals used was a limitation. The relatively low proportion of people who developed acute pancreatitis in the study also means larger studies are warranted, he added.

Going forward, Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues want to study the risks for each individual GLP-1 and other therapies used to control high blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes, such as DPP4 (dipeptidyl-peptidase 4) inhibitors.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Postlethwaite and Dr. Moshiree report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Several factors appear to influence the risk for acute pancreatitis among patients who start taking glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist medications for weight management, a new study has found.

Type 2 diabetes, advanced chronic kidney disease, and tobacco use were associated with greater risk for acute pancreatitis, researchers report.

On the other hand, a higher body mass index (BMI) – 36 kg/m² or higher – appeared to protect people against developing the condition.

“As this class of medications becomes increasingly popular in the United States, it is important for providers to know which patients are at a higher or lower risk of developing acute pancreatitis after being started on them,” said lead study author Robert Postlethwaite, MD, a gastroenterology resident at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology in Charlotte, N.C., being held in person and virtually.
 

Popularity comes at a price

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved two GLP-1s for weight management – liraglutide (Victoza) in 2014 and semaglutide (Wegovy) in 2021. They work by targeting areas of the brain that control food intake and appetite. Other GLP-1s approved to treat type 2 diabetes include dulaglutide (Trulicity) and two other formulations of semaglutide (Rybelsus and Ozempic).

The demand for Wegovy has been so great that there is an ongoing shortage of the medication in the United States.

Although GLP-1s demonstrate a favorable side-effect profile, compared with other types of antiobesity medications, acute pancreatitis remains a serious and sometimes life-threatening complication, the researchers note. Some patients require hospitalization.

Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues performed a retrospective, single-center study of 2,245 patients who attended an academic medical center’s Weight Wellness program from 2015 to 2019. The average age was about 50 years, and 81% were female. The average BMI of all patients was 39.7 kg/m².

The study only included patients starting GLP-1s for treating obesity, not for diabetes.

Of the 2,245 patients, 49 (2.2%) developed acute pancreatitis after starting a GLP-1.

A history of type 2 diabetes mellitus made acute pancreatitis twice as likely (95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.96; P = .04).

Stage 3 or higher chronic kidney disease increased risk 2.3 times (95% CI, 1.18-4.55; P = .01), while tobacco use upped it 3.3 times (95% CI, 1.70-6.50; P < .001).

In contrast, researchers found those with a BMI of 36-40 kg/m² were 88% less likely to develop acute pancreatitis (95% CI, 0.07-0.67; P = .007), compared with patients with a BMI of less than or equal to 30 kg/m². Patients with a BMI of greater than 40 kg/m² had a 73% lower risk (95% CI, 0.10-0.73; P = .01).

Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues found no association with age, sex, or history of bariatric surgery or acute pancreatitis.

Because a history of acute pancreatitis was not a risk factor, he advised that clinicians not withhold these medications for this reason, “especially given the significant glycemic, cardiovascular, and weight-loss effects.”

“We hope that we can arm clinicians with evidence in order to risk stratify their patients and determine who is at high risk of developing pancreatitis,” Dr. Postlethwaite said.

“Hopefully, we can prevent the development of pancreatitis in some patients, especially high-risk individuals, or at least allow clinicians to be aware of it in higher-risk patients to identify it early enough to prevent complications of acute pancreatitis,” he added.
 

Larger studies needed

The study is “promising,” said session comoderator Baharak Moshiree, MD, a gastroenterologist at Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., who was not affiliated with the research.

However, because the study was retrospective and relatively small, it needs to be validated in larger, prospective studies, she added.

“With obesity being such a global issue, there are many patients on these GLP-1 agonists,” Dr. Moshiree said.

Generally, these medications are prescribed by endocrinologists, not gastroenterologists, she noted, and she said that gastroenterologists should be aware of the risks associated with them, including minor gastrointestinal side effects, like nausea and vomiting, that can occur because of delayed gastric emptying.

Dr. Postlethwaite noted that being unable to assess how much alcohol or tobacco individuals used was a limitation. The relatively low proportion of people who developed acute pancreatitis in the study also means larger studies are warranted, he added.

Going forward, Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues want to study the risks for each individual GLP-1 and other therapies used to control high blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes, such as DPP4 (dipeptidyl-peptidase 4) inhibitors.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Postlethwaite and Dr. Moshiree report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Several factors appear to influence the risk for acute pancreatitis among patients who start taking glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist medications for weight management, a new study has found.

Type 2 diabetes, advanced chronic kidney disease, and tobacco use were associated with greater risk for acute pancreatitis, researchers report.

On the other hand, a higher body mass index (BMI) – 36 kg/m² or higher – appeared to protect people against developing the condition.

“As this class of medications becomes increasingly popular in the United States, it is important for providers to know which patients are at a higher or lower risk of developing acute pancreatitis after being started on them,” said lead study author Robert Postlethwaite, MD, a gastroenterology resident at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology in Charlotte, N.C., being held in person and virtually.
 

Popularity comes at a price

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved two GLP-1s for weight management – liraglutide (Victoza) in 2014 and semaglutide (Wegovy) in 2021. They work by targeting areas of the brain that control food intake and appetite. Other GLP-1s approved to treat type 2 diabetes include dulaglutide (Trulicity) and two other formulations of semaglutide (Rybelsus and Ozempic).

The demand for Wegovy has been so great that there is an ongoing shortage of the medication in the United States.

Although GLP-1s demonstrate a favorable side-effect profile, compared with other types of antiobesity medications, acute pancreatitis remains a serious and sometimes life-threatening complication, the researchers note. Some patients require hospitalization.

Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues performed a retrospective, single-center study of 2,245 patients who attended an academic medical center’s Weight Wellness program from 2015 to 2019. The average age was about 50 years, and 81% were female. The average BMI of all patients was 39.7 kg/m².

The study only included patients starting GLP-1s for treating obesity, not for diabetes.

Of the 2,245 patients, 49 (2.2%) developed acute pancreatitis after starting a GLP-1.

A history of type 2 diabetes mellitus made acute pancreatitis twice as likely (95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.96; P = .04).

Stage 3 or higher chronic kidney disease increased risk 2.3 times (95% CI, 1.18-4.55; P = .01), while tobacco use upped it 3.3 times (95% CI, 1.70-6.50; P < .001).

In contrast, researchers found those with a BMI of 36-40 kg/m² were 88% less likely to develop acute pancreatitis (95% CI, 0.07-0.67; P = .007), compared with patients with a BMI of less than or equal to 30 kg/m². Patients with a BMI of greater than 40 kg/m² had a 73% lower risk (95% CI, 0.10-0.73; P = .01).

Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues found no association with age, sex, or history of bariatric surgery or acute pancreatitis.

Because a history of acute pancreatitis was not a risk factor, he advised that clinicians not withhold these medications for this reason, “especially given the significant glycemic, cardiovascular, and weight-loss effects.”

“We hope that we can arm clinicians with evidence in order to risk stratify their patients and determine who is at high risk of developing pancreatitis,” Dr. Postlethwaite said.

“Hopefully, we can prevent the development of pancreatitis in some patients, especially high-risk individuals, or at least allow clinicians to be aware of it in higher-risk patients to identify it early enough to prevent complications of acute pancreatitis,” he added.
 

Larger studies needed

The study is “promising,” said session comoderator Baharak Moshiree, MD, a gastroenterologist at Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., who was not affiliated with the research.

However, because the study was retrospective and relatively small, it needs to be validated in larger, prospective studies, she added.

“With obesity being such a global issue, there are many patients on these GLP-1 agonists,” Dr. Moshiree said.

Generally, these medications are prescribed by endocrinologists, not gastroenterologists, she noted, and she said that gastroenterologists should be aware of the risks associated with them, including minor gastrointestinal side effects, like nausea and vomiting, that can occur because of delayed gastric emptying.

Dr. Postlethwaite noted that being unable to assess how much alcohol or tobacco individuals used was a limitation. The relatively low proportion of people who developed acute pancreatitis in the study also means larger studies are warranted, he added.

Going forward, Dr. Postlethwaite and colleagues want to study the risks for each individual GLP-1 and other therapies used to control high blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes, such as DPP4 (dipeptidyl-peptidase 4) inhibitors.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Postlethwaite and Dr. Moshiree report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.