Response to Placebo, Measured by Endoscopic Evaluation of Crohn's Disease Activity, in a Pooled Analysis of Data From 5 Randomized Controlled Induction Trials

Reliability and Responsiveness of Clinical and Endoscopic Outcome Measures in Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND

Regulatory guidance for Crohn's disease trials recommends coprimary efficacy end points that evaluate both symptoms and mucosal inflammation. We aimed to characterize the operating properties of commonly used disease activity assessments alone and in combination.

METHODS

Endoscopic and clinical data were available for 129 participants from the Study of Biologic and Immunomodulator Naïve Patients in Crohn's Disease trial. Readers scored the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease and the Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity using standardized conventions. Index reliability was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients. Index responsiveness was assessed using standardized effect sizes based upon treatment assignment. Outcomes were evaluated for optimal sensitivity to treatment effect.

RESULTS

Substantial inter-rater reliability was observed when the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease and Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity were used as continuous measures (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.73; and 0.62 95% CI, 0.36-0.77) compared with moderate reliability when dichotomized (0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.65; and 0.51; 95% CI, 0.00-0.78). The Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease, Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity, patient-reported outcome-2, and Crohn's Disease Activity Index were similarly responsive (standardized effect size, 0.43, 95% CI, 0.05-0.81; 0.38, 95% CI, 0.0-0.76; 0.53, 95% CI, 0.15-0.91). A composite outcome of Crohn's Disease Activity Index score <150 and Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity score <6 was most sensitive to treatment effect (28.9%; 95% CI, 11.0%-46.8%; P = .003).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic indices were more reliable as continuous measures. Composite outcomes including endoscopy improved sensitivity to treatment effect.

Endoscopic and Histological Placebo Rates in Crohn's Disease Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Precise estimates of placebo response rates help efficient clinical trial design. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed contemporary placebo endoscopic and histological response rates in Crohn's disease (CD) clinical trials.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to April 2022 to identify placebo-controlled studies of pharmacological interventions for CD. Endoscopic response, remission, and mucosal healing rates for participants assigned to placebo in induction and maintenance studies were pooled using a random-effects model. Point estimates and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

In total, 16 studies (11 induction, 3 maintenance, 2 induction and maintenance) that randomized 1646 participants to placebo were eligible. For induction trials, the pooled placebo endoscopic response, endoscopic remission, and mucosal healing rates in participants assigned to placebo were 13% (95% CI, 10-16; I2 = 14.1%; P = .14), 6% (95% CI, 3-11; I2 = 74.7%; P < .001), and 6% (95% CI, 4-9; I2 = 26.9%; P = .29), respectively. The pooled endoscopic remission rate in patients who were bio-naïve was 10% (95% CI, 4-23) compared with only 4% (95% CI, 3-7) in bio-experienced patients. For maintenance trials, the pooled endoscopic response, remission, and mucosal healing rates were 7% (95% CI, 1-31; I2 = 78.2%; P = .004), 11% (95% CI, 4-27; I2 = 70.8%; P = .06), and 7% (95% CI, 3-15; I2 = 29.7; P = .23), respectively. Only 3 trials assessed histological outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic placebo rates vary according to trial phase and prior biologic exposure. These contemporary data will serve to inform CD trial design, sample size calculation, and end point selection for future trials.

Vedolizumab, Adalimumab, and Methotrexate Combination Therapy in Crohn's Disease (EXPLORER)

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although biologics have revolutionized the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD), an efficacy ceiling has been reached. Combining biologic therapies may improve remission rates.

METHODS

EXPLORER, a phase 4, single-arm, open-label study, evaluated triple combination therapy with vedolizumab (300 mg on day 1, weeks 2 and 6, and then every 8 weeks), adalimumab (160 mg on day 2, 80 mg at week 2, then 40 mg every 2 weeks), and methotrexate (15 mg weekly) in biologic-naïve patients with newly diagnosed, moderate- to high-risk CD. Endoscopic remission at week 26 (primary end point; Simple Endoscopic Score for CD ≤2), clinical remission at weeks 10 and 26 (secondary end point; Crohn's Disease Activity Index <150), and incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 55 enrolled patients, the mean CD duration was 0.4 years, the mean baseline Simple Endoscopic Score for CD was 12.6, and the mean baseline Crohn's Disease Activity Index was 265.5. At week 26, 19 patients (34.5%) were in endoscopic remission. At weeks 10 and 26, 34 (61.8%) and 30 patients (54.5%), respectively, were in clinical remission. Post hoc Bayesian analysis showed that the probabilities that triple combination therapy produced a higher endoscopic remission rate (33.5%; 95% credible interval, 22.4-45.7) than placebo (14%), vedolizumab monotherapy (27%), or adalimumab monotherapy (30%) were 99.9% or higher, 86.3%, and 71.4%, respectively. Six patients had serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy resulted in endoscopic and clinical remission at week 26 in 34.5% and 54.5% of patients, respectively, with no safety signal related to the treatment regimen. This supports further evaluation of combination therapy in CD.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov number: NCT02764762.

Efficacy and safety of olorinab, a full agonist of the cannabinoid receptor 2, for the treatment of abdominal pain in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: Results from a phase 2b randomized placebo-controlled trial (CAPTIVATE)

BACKGROUND

Olorinab is a highly selective, peripherally acting, full agonist of cannabinoid receptor 2. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of olorinab to treat abdominal pain in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) and constipation (IBS-C).

METHODS

CAPTIVATE was a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Eligible participants aged 18-70 years with IBS-C and IBS-D diagnosed per Rome IV received olorinab 10 mg, 25 mg, or 50 mg three times daily (TID) or placebo TID for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in patient-reported average abdominal pain score (AAPS) from baseline to Week 12.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 273 participants were randomized to receive olorinab 10 mg (n = 67), olorinab 25 mg (n = 67), olorinab 50 mg (n = 69), or placebo (n = 70). Although a treatment response was observed across all groups, the weekly change in average AAPS from baseline to Week 12 was not significantly different between placebo and any olorinab dose. In a prespecified subgroup analysis of participants with a baseline AAPS ≥6.5, olorinab 50 mg (n = 35) significantly improved AAPS compared with placebo (n = 30) (p = 0.014). Adverse event rates were comparable between olorinab and placebo and there were no reported serious adverse events or deaths.

CONCLUSION AND INFERENCES

Although olorinab was well-tolerated and improved weekly AAPS, the primary endpoint was not met. However, in participants with moderate-to-severe pain at baseline (AAPS ≥6.5), olorinab 50 mg significantly improved weekly AAPS compared with placebo.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov: NCT04043455.

Predictors of Placebo Induction Response and Remission in Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

High placebo response rates in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis (UC) have been reported previously. However, data from patient-level analyses are lacking. We assessed factors associated with clinical and endoscopic placebo response among placebo-treated patients in clinical trials of UC.

METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of pooled clinical trial data from GEMINI-1, ACT-1, ACT-2, PURSUIT, ULTRA-2, OCTAVE-1, and OCTAVE-2. Predictors were assessed in placebo-treated patients for their association with end of induction (week 6 of 8) clinical response (reduction in total Mayo score of ≥3 and ≥30% from baseline with ≥1 point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore [RBS] or absolute RBS ≤1); clinical remission (total Mayo score ≤2 and no subscore >1); endoscopic healing (Mayo endoscopic subscore ≤1); partial Mayo score of 0; patient-reported outcome 2-item remission (RBS of 0 and stool frequency ≤1), resolution of rectal bleeding, and stool frequency normalization. Predictors on univariate analyses with P < .05 were included in multivariate logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Placebo-treated patients with normal serum C-reactive protein and albumin levels were more likely to attain clinical response (71 of 437 [16.3%] vs 49 of 660 [7.4%]; adjusted odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-5.41; P = .018). Compared with patients with a Mayo endoscopic score of 2, patients with a Mayo endoscopic score of 3 were less likely to attain clinical response (105 of 556 [18.8%] vs 179 of 675 [25.9%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.68; P = .003). Similar findings were observed for clinical remission and resolution of rectal bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Biomarkers such as normal serum C-reactive protein and albumin and baseline endoscopic severity were found to affect placebo response rates in clinical trials of UC. These findings have implications for clinical trial design in UC.

Ozanimod as a novel oral small molecule therapy for the treatment of Crohn's disease: The YELLOWSTONE clinical trial program

BACKGROUND

Ozanimod, an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator currently approved for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis and relapsing multiple sclerosis, showed clinical, endoscopic, and histological benefit in the phase 2 STEPSTONE trial for Crohn's disease (CD). We aim to describe the trial design of the YELLOWSTONE phase 3 program evaluating the safety and efficacy of ozanimod in patients with moderately to severely active CD.

METHODS

The YELLOWSTONE program consists of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled induction (NCT03440372 and NCT03440385) and maintenance (NCT03464097) trials and an open-label extension (OLE) study (NCT03467958). Patients with inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 CD treatment are randomized to receive daily ozanimod 0.92 mg (equivalent to ozanimod HCl 1 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks during induction. Those who respond to ozanimod are rerandomized to continue ozanimod or placebo maintenance therapy for 52 weeks. Patients who do not meet criteria for maintenance, experience relapse during maintenance, or complete maintenance or ≥ 1 year of STEPSTONE are eligible for open-label treatment for up to 234 weeks. Efficacy endpoints include clinical, endoscopic, and histologic outcomes.

RESULTS

Expected 2023 (induction studies), 2024 (maintenance study), and 2026 (OLE).

CONCLUSION

YELLOWSTONE will provide pivotal phase 3 data on the safety and efficacy of ozanimod in patients with moderately to severely active CD using state-of-the-art methods, including centrally read endoscopic and histologic measurements, along with subjective assessments of symptom control based on the Crohn's Disease Activity Index. These studies could enable approval of ozanimod as a new CD therapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT03440372, NCT03440385, NCT03464097, NCT03467958.

Clinical, Endoscopic, and Safety Placebo Rates in Induction and Maintenance Trials of Crohn's Disease: Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Precision in estimating placebo rates is important for clinical trial design.

AIM

To quantify placebo rates across relevant endpoints in Crohn's disease [CD] trials and identify the factors influencing these rates in a contemporary meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from inception to March 2021. Eligible studies were placebo-controlled trials of pharmacological interventions for CD. Placebo response and remission rates for induction and maintenance trials were extracted and pooled by random-effects to quantify placebo rates across studies. Mixed-effects meta-regression was used to evaluate the effects of study-level characteristics on placebo rates.

RESULTS

In 125 studies [91 induction, 46 maintenance], placebo clinical remission and response rates for induction studies were 18% (95% confidence interval [CI] 16, 21%], and 32% [95% CI 29, 35%], respectively, and for maintenance studies were 28% [95% CI 23, 34%] and 30% [95% CI 24, 37%], respectively. Endoscopic remission and response rates in induction studies were 8% [95% CI 4, 18%] and 16% [95% CI 11, 23%], respectively. Trials enrolling patients with prior biologic exposure, longer disease duration, and higher CD activity index scores were associated with lower placebo clinical remission rates. Increased duration of follow-up, more follow-up visits, and a greater proportion of patients with colonic disease distribution were associated with higher clinical placebo rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Placebo remission and response rates in CD trials vary according to the phase of the trial, endpoint assessed, and induction or maintenance design. These contemporary estimates will help to inform future CD trial design.

Endoscopic Assessment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Activity in Clinical Trials

In patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, poor correlation between symptoms and active luminal inflammation has been well established. As a result, the field has moved towards the use of endoscopic assessment to evaluate inflammatory activity. Numerous endoscopic indices have been used for this purpose although none are completely validated. The Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease and the Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity have been used most frequently; however in addition to incomplete validation, they have important limitations for clinical use, including complexity of scoring and poor reliability of items such as stenosis. The Rutgeerts' score for postoperative Crohn's disease was developed primarily as a prognostic rather than evaluative tool and also requires additional validation. In ulcerative colitis, the Mayo endoscopic subscore has been used as the regulatory standard, although the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity may provide a more granular assessment of individual components of disease activity. The use of combined outcomes with patient reported outcomes (PROs) and endoscopic indices has received favor by regulatory bodies but require further validation. This review describes the indications for endoscopic assessment in trials, the indices most frequently utilized for these purposes, and potential future approaches to assessment of disease activity.

Mucosal Healing in Crohn's Disease: Bull's Eye or Bust? The "Relative" Con Position

BACKGROUND

Crohn's disease is a progressive inflammatory bowel disease. Persistent untreated inflammation can cumulatively result in bowel damage in the form of strictures, fistulas, and fibrosis, which can ultimately result in the need for major abdominal surgery. Mucosal healing has emerged as an attractive, yet ambitious goal in the hope of preventing long-term complications.

SUMMARY

Clinical remission is an inadequate measure of disease activity. Noninvasive markers such as fecal calprotectin, CRP, or small bowel ultrasound are useful adjunct tools. However, endoscopic assessment remains the cornerstone in building a treatment plan. Achieving complete mucosal healing has proved to be an elusive goal even in the ideal setting of a clinical trial.

KEY MESSAGES

Aiming for complete mucosal healing in all patients may result in overuse of medications, higher costs, and potential side effects of aggressive immunosuppressive treatment. More practical goals such as relative or partial healing, for example, 50% improvement in inflammation and reduction in size of ulcers, ought to be considered, particularly in difficult-to-treat populations.

The Placebo and Nocebo Responses in Clinical Trials in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Placebo and nocebo responses are mostly discussed in clinical trials with functional bowel disorders. Much less has been investigated and is known in gastrointestinal diseases beyond irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), especially in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). For the purpose of this review, we screened the Journal of Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (JIPS) database with approximately 4,500 genuine placebo research articles and identified nine meta-analyses covering more than 135 randomized and placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) with more than 10,000 patients with Crohn´s disease (CD) and another five meta-analyses with 150 RCTs and more than 10,000 patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Only three discussed nocebo effects, especially in the context of clinical use of biosimilars to treat inflammation. The articles were critically analyzed with respect to the size of the placebo response in CD and UC, its effects on clinical improvement versus maintenance of remission, and mediators and moderators of the response identified. Finally, we discussed and compared the differences and similarities of the placebo responses in IBD and IBS and the nocebo effect in switching from biologics to biosimilars in IBD management.

Current Status of Medical Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: The Wealth of Medications

Previously, the natural history of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis included significant morbidity due to limited treatment options that were not without serious side effects. Early treatment options included corticosteroids as well as mesalamine, thiopurines, and methotrexate. In 1998, monoclonal antibodies to a key inflammatory cytokine, TNFα, became available. Over the next 22 years, the field of gastroenterology has seen multiple new treatments emerging for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that target different aspects of the inflammatory cascade, significantly changing the therapeutic landscape. Additional monoclonal antibodies are available that target the integrins, which are adhesion proteins that traffic inflammatory leukocytes. Small molecule inhibitors block the inflammatory signals of several cytokines. New therapies that modulate lymphocyte escape from lymphoid tissue are promising. Lastly, stem cell technology has emerged as a platform to successfully treat perianal fistulizing disease. Our aim is to summarize the currently available therapies for IBD beyond steroids, mesalamine, and immune modulators. We highlight the most important clinical trials that have brought these treatments to clinical practice, and we discuss the ongoing clinical trials of novel therapies that have a high probability of eventual regulatory approval.

Ozanimod induction therapy for patients with moderate to severe Crohn's disease: a single-arm, phase 2, prospective observer-blinded endpoint study

BACKGROUND

Although treatment of Crohn's disease has improved with development of tumour necrosis factor antagonists, fewer than 50% of patients have sustained benefit. Durable maintenance therapy with orally administered alternative treatments remains an unmet need. We aimed to evaluate the effects of ozanimod, an oral agent selectively targeting sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor subtypes 1 and 5, on endoscopic disease activity in Crohn's disease.

METHODS

STEPSTONE was a phase 2, uncontrolled, multicentre trial in adults with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease recruited at 28 hospital and community research centres in Canada, the USA, Hungary, Poland, and Ukraine. All patients began treatment with a 7-day dose escalation (4 days on ozanimod 0·25 mg daily followed by 3 days at 0·5 mg daily). Patients then received ozanimod 1·0 mg oral capsule daily for a further 11 weeks, for a 12-week induction period, followed by a 100-week extension. The primary endpoint was change in Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD) from baseline to week 12, as determined by a blinded central reader. Data are reported for the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02531113 and EudraCT, number 2015-002025-19, and is completed.

FINDINGS

69 patients were enrolled between Nov 17, 2015, and Aug 18, 2016. At week 12, the mean change from baseline in SES-CD was -2·2 (SD 6·0); 16 (23·2%, 95% CI 13·9-34·9) patients experienced endoscopic response. A reduction from baseline in Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score also was observed (mean change -130·4 [SD 103·9]). Clinical remission (CDAI <150 points) was shown in 27 (39·1%, 95% CI 27·6-51·6) patients and response (CDAI decrease from baseline ≥100) in 39 (56·5%, 95% CI 44·0-68·4) of patients. The mean change from baseline in two-item patient-reported outcome (PRO2, stool frequency, abdominal pain scores) score was -66·1 (SD 65·4). Mean change from baseline in Geboes Histology Activity Score (GHAS) was -5·9 (SD 11·0) and in Robart's Histopathology Index (RHI) -10·6 (25·1). Adverse events were most frequently those attributed to Crohn's disease, most commonly Crohn's disease (flare) in 18 (26%) patients. The most commonly reported serious treatment-related adverse events were Crohn's disease (six [9%]) and abdominal abscess (two [3%]).

INTERPRETATION

Endoscopic, histological, and clinical improvements were seen within 12 weeks of initiating ozanimod therapy in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. Phase 3 placebo-controlled trials have been initiated.

FUNDING

Celgene Corporation.

Head-to-head trials in inflammatory bowel disease: past, present and future

With the increase in the number of novel drugs for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), comparing therapeutic options or strategies has become a key challenge in IBD trials. Head-to-head trials designed and powered to enable formal comparisons are the gold standard in comparative research. Indeed, these trials are requested by some health authorities for evaluating the positioning of new treatments in IBD, as well as helping prescribing physicians to select the most appropriate treatment options for their patients. Despite head-to-head trials including aminosalicylate therapy in IBD having been performed decades ago, the first results of a randomized controlled trial directly comparing biologic agents with different modes of action have only now been published, mainly owing to important methodological issues. This Perspective provides an overview of the past, current and future concepts in IBD trial design, with a detailed focus on the role of comparative research and the challenges and pitfalls in undertaking and interpreting the results from such studies.

Placebo Responses and Placebo Effects in Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders

Much has been written about the placebo effects in functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGD), especially in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), driven by the early hypothesis that in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of IBS, the placebo effect might be specifically high and thus, corrupts the efficacy of novel drugs developed for this condition. This narrative review is based on a specific search method, a database (www.jips.online) developed since 2004 containing more than 4,500 papers (data papers, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, reviews) pertinent to the topic placebo effects/placebo response. Three central questions-deducted from the body of current literature-are addressed to explore the evidence behind this hypothesis: What is the size placebo effect in FGD, especially in IBS, and is it different from the placebo effect seen in other gastrointestinal disorders? Is the placebo effect in FGD different from other functional, non-intestinal disorders, e.g. in other pain syndromes? Is the placebo effect in FGD related to placebo effects seen in psychiatry, e.g. in depression, anxiety disorders, and alike? Following this discussion, a fourth question is raised as the result of the three: What are the consequences of this for future drug trials in FGD? In summary it is concluded that, contrary to common belief and discussion, the placebo effect seen in RCT in FGD is not specifically high and extraordinary as compared to other comparable (i.e. functional) disorders. It shares less than expected commonalities with the placebo effect in psychiatry, and very few predictors have yet been identified that determine its effect size, especially some that are driven by design features of the studies. Current practice of RCT in IBS seems to limit and control the placebo effect quite well, and future trial practice, e.g. head-to-head trial, still offers options to maintain this control, even in the absence of placebos used.