Safety and effectiveness of tofacitinib in Korean adult patients with ulcerative colitis: post-marketing surveillance study.

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to identify the safety and effectiveness of tofacitinib in patients with UC in routine clinical settings in Korea. This open-label, observational, prospective, post-marketing surveillance study was conducted at 22 hospitals in the Republic of Korea. Patients with moderate to severe active UC who received tofacitinib were included and followed up for up to 52 weeks. Tofacitinib was administered at a dosage of 10 mg twice daily for at least 8 weeks, followed by 5 or 10 mg twice daily at the investigator's discretion based on clinical evaluation according to the approved Korean label. Safety including adverse events (AEs) and effectiveness including clinical remission, clinical response, and endoscopic mucosal healing were evaluated. Safety analysis set was defined as all patients registered for this study who received at least one dose of tofacitinib according to the approved Korean label and followed up for safety data. Effectiveness analysis set included patients in the safety analysis set who were evaluated for overall effectiveness assessment and excluded patients who had received tofacitinib less than 8 weeks. A total of 110 patients were enrolled, of whom 106 patients were included in the safety population. The median duration of treatment was 370 days and the treatment duration ranged from 16 to 684 days for the safety population. AEs occurred in 42 patients (39.6%). Serious AEs (SAEs) occurred in 7 patients (6.6%) and of them, there were 2 cases of serious infections. These serious infections were reported as Adverse Event of Special Interest (AESI) in this study and no other AESI were reported. There were no cases of death during the study period. Clinical remission rates were 40.0%, 46.7%, 57.6%, and 55.1% at 8, 16, 24, and 52 weeks, and clinical response rates were 77.8%, 87.9%, 56.6%, and 81.4% at each visit, respectively. Endoscopic mucosal healing rates were 58.7% at 16 weeks and 46.2% at 52 weeks. Tofacitinib was effective in Korean patients with moderate to severe active UC and the safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of tofacitinib. This study confirmed the safety and effectiveness of tofacitinib in Korean patients with moderate to severe active UC in routine clinical settings. This study is registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT04071405, registered on 28 August 2019.

Yoon H ，Ye BD ，Kang SB ，Lee KM ，Choi CH ，Jo JY ，Woo J ，Cheon JH ... -  《BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY》

Etrolizumab for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis.

Rosenfeld G ，Parker CE ，MacDonald JK ，Bressler B ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Oral budesonide for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis.

Sherlock ME ，MacDonald JK ，Griffiths AM ，Steinhart AH ，Seow CH ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA; also known as mesalazine or mesalamine) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. In an earlier version of this review, we found that 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis (UC), but had a significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. In this version, we have rerun the search to bring the review up to date. To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness, and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC and to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens. We performed a literature search for studies on 11 June 2019 using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. In addition, we searched review articles and conference proceedings. We included randomized controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of six months. We considered studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of participants with quiescent UC compared with placebo, SASP, or other 5-ASA formulations. We also included studies that compared once-daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose-ranging studies. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes were adherence, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), withdrawals due to AEs, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus SASP, once-daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA (balsalazide, Pentasa, and olsalazine) versus comparator 5-ASA formulation (Asacol and Salofalk), and 5-ASA dose-ranging. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome. We analyzed data on an intention-to-treat basis, and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. The search identified 44 studies (9967 participants). Most studies were at low risk of bias. Ten studies were at high risk of bias. Seven of these studies were single-blind and three were open-label. 5-ASA is more effective than placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. About 37% (335/907) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 12 months compared to 55% (355/648) of placebo participants (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.76; 8 studies, 1555 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication was not reported for this comparison. SAEs were reported in 1% (6/550) of participants in the 5-ASA group compared to 2% (5/276) of participants in the placebo group at six to 12 months (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.84; 3 studies, 826 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18; 5 studies, 1132 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). SASP is more effective than 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. About 48% (416/871) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 43% (336/784) of SASP participants (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27; 12 studies, 1655 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication and SAEs were not reported for this comparison. There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.40; 7 studies, 1138 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in clinical or endoscopic remission rates between once-daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. About 37% (717/1939) of once-daily participants relapsed over 12 months compared to 39% (770/1971) of conventional-dosing participants (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; 10 studies, 3910 participants; high-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in medication adherence rates. About 10% (106/1152) of participants in the once-daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 8% (84/1154) of participants in the conventional-dosing group (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.93; 9 studies, 2306 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). About 3% (41/1587) of participants in the once-daily group experienced a SAE compared to 2% (35/1609) of participants in the conventional-dose group at six to 12 months (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.87; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in the incidence of AEs at six to 13 months' follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 8 studies, 3497 participants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the efficacy of different 5-ASA formulations. About 44% (158/358) of participants in the 5-ASA group relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 41% (142/349) of participants in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28; 6 studies, 707 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in UC. There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is inferior compared to SASP. There is probably little or no difference between 5-ASA and placebo, and 5-ASA and SASP in commonly reported AEs such as flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, and dyspepsia. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily has a similar benefit and harm profile as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC.

Murray A ，Nguyen TM ，Parker CE ，Feagan BG ，MacDonald JK ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Efficacy and safety of filgotinib as induction and maintenance therapy for Crohn's disease (DIVERSITY): a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

There is a need for efficacious therapies for patients with Crohn's disease that are better tolerated and more durable than available treatments. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of filgotinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 preferential inhibitor, for treating Crohn's disease. This phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 371 centres in 39 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease for at least 3 months before enrolment. Patients were enrolled into one of two induction studies on the basis of their experience with biological agents (induction study A included biologic-naive and later biologic-experienced patients and induction study B included biologic-experienced patients). In both induction studies, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using an interactive web response system, to receive oral filgotinib 200 mg, filgotinib 100 mg, or placebo once daily for 11 weeks. Patients who received filgotinib and had two-item patient-reported outcome (PRO2) clinical remission or an endoscopic response at week 10 were re-randomised (2:1) to receive their induction dose or placebo orally, once daily to the end of week 58 in the maintenance study. Co-primary endpoints were PRO2 clinical remission and an endoscopic response at week 10 (induction studies) and week 58 (maintenance study). PRO2 clinical remission was defined as an abdominal pain subscore of not more than 1 and a liquid or very soft stool frequency subscore of not more than 3 (from eDiary data) and endoscopic response was defined as a reduction of at least 50% in Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's disease from induction baseline (from central reading of endoscopy). For the induction studies, efficacy was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. For the maintenance study, efficacy was assessed in all patients from either filgotinib treatment group in the induction studies who reached PRO2 clinical remission or an endoscopic response at week 10, and who were re-randomised and received at least one dose of study drug in the maintenance study. Patients who received placebo throughout the induction and maintenance studies were not included in the full analysis set for the maintenance study. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02914561. Between Oct 31, 2016, and Nov 11, 2022, 2634 patients were screened, of whom 1372 were enrolled (induction study A: n=707, induction study B: n=665, and maintenance study: n=481). There were 346 (49%) women and 358 (51%) men in induction study A, 356 (54%) women and 303 (46%) men in induction study B, and 242 women (51%) and 236 men (49%) in the maintenance study. Significantly more patients had PRO2 clinical remission at week 10 with filgotinib 200 mg than with placebo in induction study B (29·7% vs 17·9%, difference 11·9%; 95% CI 3·7 to 20·2, p=0·0039) but not induction study A (32·9% vs 25·7%, 6·9%; -1·4 to 15·2, p=0·0963); there was no significant difference for endoscopic response (induction study A: 23·9% vs 18·1%, difference 5·5%; 95% CI -2·0 to 12·9, p=0·1365; induction study B: 11·9% vs 11·4%, 0·1%; -6·5 to 6·6, p=0·9797). At week 58, both co-primary endpoints were reported in greater proportions of patients who received filgotinib 200 mg than in those who received placebo (PRO2 clinical remission: 43·8% vs 26·4%, difference 16·8%; 95% CI 2·0 to 31·6, p=0·0382; endoscopic response: 30·4% vs 9·4%, difference 20·6%; 95% CI 8·2 to 33·1, p=0·0038). Co-primary endpoints were not met for filgotinib 100 mg in any study. In the induction studies, the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; ≥5% of patients in any group) were abdominal pain; arthralgia; an exacerbation, flare, or worsening of Crohn's disease; headache; nasopharyngitis; nausea; and pyrexia. In the maintenance study, the most frequently reported TEAEs (≥5% of patients in any filgotinib or associated placebo group) were those reported in the induction studies (except for headache) and abdominal distension, upper abdominal pain, anaemia, and flatulence. Serious TEAEs were reported in 49 patients in induction study A (18 [8%]) of 222 patients in the filgotinib 200 mg group, 16 [7%] of 245 patients in the filgotinib 100 mg group, and 15 [6%] of 237 patients in the placebo group), 81 patients in induction study B (19 [9%] of 202 patients in the filgotinib 200 mg group, 36 [16%] of 228 patients in the filgotinib 100 mg group, and 26 [11%] of 229 patients in the placebo group), and 49 patients in the maintenance study (13 [11%] of 118 patients in the filgotinib 200 mg-filgotinib 200 mg group, five [9%] of 56 patients in the filgotinib 200 mg-placebo group, 14 [13%] of 104 patients in the filgotinib 100 mg-filgotinib 100 mg group, three [5%] of 55 patients in the filgotinib 100 mg-placebo group, and 14 [10%] of 145 patients in the placebo-placebo group). No deaths were reported during the induction and maintenance studies. Filgotinib 200 mg did not meet the co-primary endpoints of clinical remission and an endoscopic response at week 10, but did meet the co-primary endpoints at week 58. Filgotinib treatment was well tolerated, and no new safety signals were reported. Galapagos.

Vermeire S ，Schreiber S ，Rubin DT ，D'Haens G ，Reinisch W ，Watanabe M ，Mehta R ，Roblin X ，Beales I ，Gietka P ，Hibi T ，Hospodarskyy I ，Ritter T ，Genovese MC ，Kwon P ，Santermans E ，Le Brun FO ，Barron R ，Masior T ，Danese S ... -  《The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology》