Literature DB >> 34798039

Etrolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis in patients previously treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (HICKORY): a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet1, Ailsa Hart2, Peter Bossuyt3, Millie Long4, Matthieu Allez5, Pascal Juillerat6, Alessandro Armuzzi7, Edward V Loftus8, Elham Ostad-Saffari9, Astrid Scalori9, Young S Oh10, Swati Tole10, Akiko Chai10, Jennifer Pulley9, Stuart Lacey9, William J Sandborn11.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted, anti-β7 integrin, monoclonal antibody. In an earlier phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission compared with placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who had been previously treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents.
METHODS: HICKORY was a multicentre, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in adult (18-80 years) patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6-12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) previously treated with TNF inhibitors. Patients were recruited from 184 treatment centres across 24 countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and the Middle East. Patients needed to have an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. In cohort 1, patients received open-label etrolizumab 105 mg every 4 weeks for a 14-week induction period. In cohort 2, patients were randomly assigned (4:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for the 14-week induction phase. Patients in either cohort achieving clinical response to etrolizumab induction were eligible for the maintenance phase, in which they were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg or placebo every 4 weeks through to week 66. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants (induction randomisation only), baseline disease activity, week 14 MCS remission status (maintenance randomisation only), and induction cohort (maintenance randomisation only). All patients and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were remission (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] ≤2, with individual subscores of ≤1 and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0) at week 14, and remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response (MCS with ≥3-point decrease and ≥30% reduction from baseline, plus ≥1 point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore or absolute rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1) at week 14. Efficacy was analysed using a modified intent-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug during the induction phase. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02100696.
FINDINGS: HICKORY was conducted from May 21, 2014, to April 16, 2020, during which time 1081 patients were screened, and 609 deemed eligible for inclusion. 130 patients were included in cohort 1. In cohort 2,479 patients were randomly assigned to the induction phase (etrolizumab n=384, placebo n=95). 232 patients were randomly assigned to the maintenance phase (etrolizumab to etrolizumab n=117, etrolizumab to placebo n=115). At week 14, 71 (18·5%) of 384 patients in the etrolizumab group and six (6·3%) of 95 patients in the placebo group achieved the primary induction endpoint of remission (p=0·0033). No significant difference between etrolizumab and placebo was observed for the primary maintenance endpoint of remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response at week 14 (27 [24·1%] of 112 vs 23 [20·2%] of 114; p=0·50). Four patients in the etrolizumab group reported treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. The proportion of patients reporting at least adverse event was similar between treatment groups for induction (etrolizumab 253 [66%] of 384; placebo 63 [66%] of 95) and maintenance (etrolizumab to etrolizumab 98 [88%] of 112; etrolizumab to placebo 97 [85%] of 114). The most common adverse event in both groups was ulcerative colitis flare. Most adverse events were mild or moderate. During induction, the most common serious adverse event was ulcerative colitis flare (etrolizumab ten [3%] of 384; placebo: two [2%] of 95). During maintenance, the most common serious adverse event in the etrolizumab to etrolizumab group was appendicitis (two [2%] of 112) and the most common serious adverse events in the etrolizumab to placebo group were ulcerative colitis flare (two [2%] of 114) and anaemia (two [2%] of 114).
INTERPRETATION: HICKORY demonstrated that a significantly higher proportion of patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who had been previously treated with anti-TNF agent were able to achieve remission at week 14 when treated with etrolizumab compared with placebo; however, there was no significant difference between groups in remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response at week 14. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34798039     DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00298-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol


  8 in total

1.  IBD therapeutics: what is in the pipeline?

Authors:  Alexandros Toskas; Ayesha Akbar
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-06-15

Review 2.  Gut immune cell trafficking: inter-organ communication and immune-mediated inflammation.

Authors:  Sebastian Zundler; Claudia Günther; Andreas E Kremer; Mario M Zaiss; Veit Rothhammer; Markus F Neurath
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2022-08-09       Impact factor: 73.082

Review 3.  Positioning biologics in the treatment of IBD: A practical guide - Which mechanism of action for whom?

Authors:  Pascal Juillerat; Maude Martinho Grueber; Roseline Ruetsch; Giulia Santi; Marianne Vuillèmoz; Pierre Michetti
Journal:  Curr Res Pharmacol Drug Discov       Date:  2022-04-28

Review 4.  An Overview of Tissue-Resident Memory T Cells in the Intestine: From Physiological Functions to Pathological Mechanisms.

Authors:  Yangbao Lyu; Yuming Zhou; Jun Shen
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 8.786

5.  Identification of useful genes from multiple microarrays for ulcerative colitis diagnosis based on machine learning methods.

Authors:  Lin Zhang; Rui Mao; Chung Tai Lau; Wai Chak Chung; Jacky C P Chan; Feng Liang; Chenchen Zhao; Xuan Zhang; Zhaoxiang Bian
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 4.996

Review 6.  Gut immune cells-A novel therapeutical target for cardiovascular disease?

Authors:  Naresh Ganesh; Emiel P C van der Vorst; Jens Spiesshöfer; Shun He; Mathias Burgmaier; Hannes Findeisen; Michael Lehrke; Filip K Swirski; Nikolaus Marx; Florian Kahles
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-08-15

7.  Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Safety of Etrolizumab in Children With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis or Crohn's Disease: Results from a Phase 1 Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Wenhui Zhang; Astrid Scalori; Franklin Fuh; Jacqueline McBride; Gaohong She; Jaroslaw Kierkus; Bartosz Korczowksi; Regan Li; Mariam Abouhossein; Alysha Kadva; K T Park; Meina Tao Tang
Journal:  Inflamm Bowel Dis       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 7.290

Review 8.  Management of inflammatory bowel disease beyond tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: novel biologics and small-molecule drugs.

Authors:  Soo-Young Na; You Sun Kim
Journal:  Korean J Intern Med       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 3.165

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.