DOP43 Rapidity of ozanimod-induced symptomatic response and remission in patients with moderately to severely active Ulcerative Colitis: Results from the induction period of True North
Siegmund, B.(1);Axelrad, J.(2);Pondel, M.(3);Osterman, M.T.(3);Ahmad, H.A.(3);Memaj, A.(3);Regueiro, M.(4);Armuzzi, A.(5);Afzali, A.(6);
(1)Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Gastroenterology, Berlin, Germany;(2)NYU Langone Health, Gastroenterology, New York, United States;(3)Bristol Myers Squibb, Department of Immunology and Fibrosis Development, Princeton, United States;(4)Cleveland Clinic, Gastroenterology, Cleveland, United States;(5)Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Catholic University of Rome, Rome, Italy;(6)The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, United States;
Background
Ozanimod, a sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator selectively targeting S1P1 and S1P5, is approved in the US for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). In the pivotal phase 3 True North randomised controlled trial in moderate-to-severe UC, significantly more patients (pts) achieved clinical response and remission with ozanimod vs placebo (PBO) at week (wk) 10 of the induction period. Here, we report the rapidity of ozanimod-induced symptomatic response and remission in pts from True North (NCT02435992).
Methods
In True North, pts were randomised to once-daily ozanimod 0.92 mg (equivalent to ozanimod HCl 1 mg) or PBO (Cohort 1) or received open-label ozanimod (Cohort 2) during induction. This analysis evaluated symptomatic response (defined as ≥1 point and ≥30% decrease from baseline in adapted partial Mayo score and ≥1 point decrease from baseline in rectal bleeding score [RBS] or absolute RBS ≤1) and symptomatic remission (defined as RBS of 0 and stool frequency score [SFS] ≤1 point and ≥1 point decrease from baseline at each study visit from wk 2 through 10.
Results
During induction, 645 pts were randomised to ozanimod (n=429) or PBO (n=216) in Cohort 1, and 367 pts received open-label ozanimod in Cohort 2. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were well balanced across groups. Differences in symptomatic response were observed between ozanimod and PBO recipients in Cohort 1 as early as 2 wk after ozanimod initiation (1 wk post-titration) for the overall population (36.1% vs 26.4%; difference: 9.6% [95% CI, 2.1–17.0]; Figure 1) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naïve pts (38.5%, n=301 vs 29.1%, n=151; difference: 9.4% [95% CI, 0.2–18.5]), and as early as 4 wk for TNFi-exposed pts (42.2%, n=128 vs 27.7%, n=65; difference: 15.8% [95% CI, 1.8–29.8]). Differences in symptomatic remission were observed between ozanimod and PBO recipients in Cohort 1 as early as 5 wk after ozanimod initiation (4 wk post-titration) for the overall population (26.3% vs 16.7%; difference: 8.6% [95% CI, 1.8–15.4] Figure 2), as early as 4 wk for TNFi-naïve pts (27.2% vs 17.9%; difference: 9.4% [95% CI, 1.5–17.4]), and as early as 8 wk for TNFi-exposed pts (22.7% vs 12.3%; difference: 11.7% [95% CI, 1.3–22.1]). Rates of symptomatic response and remission in pts receiving open-label ozanimod (Cohort 2) were similar to those in pts receiving randomised ozanimod (Cohort 1).
Conclusion
In the overall population, ozanimod was associated with higher rates of symptomatic response and remission vs PBO as early as 2 and 5 wk, respectively, after treatment initiation. Both clinical endpoints were more rapidly achieved in TNFi-naïve vs TNFi-exposed pts.
