Abstract
Background
The 12-point total Mayo score including a Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) of disease activity has been used to assess outcomes in clinical trials for ulcerative colitis (UC). In 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance advising the removal of the PGA in future trials. We examined how endpoints in UC trials have evolved and conducted a post hoc analysis of the GEMINI 1 and VISIBLE 1 trials to understand how the use of a 9-point modified Mayo score, excluding PGA, compares with the total Mayo score.
Methods
Endpoint definitions of clinical remission in phase 3 trials were extracted from published literature and ClinicalTrials.gov. The difference (%Δ) between the proportions of patients in GEMINI 1 and VISIBLE 1 achieving clinical remission with vedolizumab versus placebo at week 52 was measured according to 4 endpoint definitions.
Results
Trials completed up to the end of 2019 used the total Mayo score to assess clinical remission. Most trials that were completed or estimated to be completed by June 2020 or later used modified Mayo scores. Post hoc analysis revealed decreasing endpoint stringency was associated with increasing %Δ values. The modified Mayo score definition most like the definition recommended by the FDA produced %Δ values like those reported using the total Mayo score in GEMINI 1 and VISIBLE 1.
Conclusions
Endpoint definitions for UC clinical trials have evolved following FDA guidance. The efficacy of vedolizumab, measured using modified Mayo scoring, was comparable to values reported using the total Mayo score.
Keywords: ulcerative colitis, clinical trial, Mayo score, regulatory guidance, vedolizumab
Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract.
Introduction
Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic, relapsing–remitting disease characterized by inflammation of the mucosal layer of the colon and rectum that causes damage to the bowel wall. Symptoms include bloody diarrhea, bowel urgency, and abdominal pain.1 The introduction of advanced therapies including biologics (eg, anti-tumor necrosis factor α treatments and α4β7 integrin antagonists) and other small molecules (eg, Janus kinase [JAK] inhibitors and sphingosine-1-phophate [S1P] modulators) has enabled dramatic improvements in outcomes for patients with UC. However, some patients experience a primary nonresponse or secondary loss of response to existing advanced therapies, so there remains an unmet need for new improved treatments.1 A key to success in trials of new treatments for UC is the ability to accurately measure changes in disease activity. The Mayo score (also known as total Mayo score or complete Mayo score) is a 4-component composite instrument that was developed to measure UC disease activity in clinical trials.2,3 It comprises 2 patient-reported outcomes (stool frequency subscore [SFS] and rectal bleeding subscore [RBS]), an endoscopic assessment of the mucosa (endoscopic subscore [ES]), and a Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) of disease activity, each of which is scored from 0 to 3 to give an overall score ranging from 0 to 12 (higher scores indicate more severe disease).2 Since its introduction in 1987, the Mayo score has been used to define clinical remission endpoints in trials of new treatments for patients with moderate-to-severe UC.4–6 However, in 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance recommending changes to the Mayo score for future clinical trials. First, because the presence of friability (even if considered mild by the reader) is not consistent with clinical remission, the FDA recommended that the ES should be modified so that a score of 1 does not include friability. Second, because the factors that the PGA aims to measure are not clearly distinguishable from those measured by the patient-reported SFS and RBS and the objective ES, the FDA recommended its removal.7 Therefore, the FDA currently recommends that in developing drugs to treat patients with UC, researchers use a primary endpoint of clinical remission based on a 3-component modified Mayo score that includes the SFS (score ≤1), RBS (score = 0), and ES (score ≤1, modified so that a score of 1 does not include friability) but not the PGA.7,8 Note that this modified Mayo score differs from the partial Mayo score, which includes the SFS, RBS, and PGA but does not include the objective ES.3
Although there is some evidence that the 3-component modified Mayo score has a strong correlation with the 4-component total Mayo score,3 it remains unclear how evolving endpoint definitions affect the measurement of investigational drug efficacy. The phase 3 GEMINI 1 and VISIBLE 1 trials of vedolizumab in UC both began before the new FDA guidance, which makes it challenging to interpret their findings alongside recent trials that may adopt modified Mayo scoring. We have examined how clinical remission endpoint definitions in phase 3 clinical trials in UC have evolved in response to FDA guidance, and conducted post hoc analyses of the GEMINI 1 and VISIBLE 1 trials to evaluate how newer modified Mayo score-based definitions may influence the measurement of efficacy compared with the total Mayo score.
Methods
Endpoint Definition Search
To identify relevant clinical trials, ClinicalTrials.gov was searched using the term “ulcerative colitis” and results were filtered to include only active (recruiting and not recruiting) or completed phase 3 interventional clinical trials that enrolled adult patients. Results of initial searches were subsequently manually screened to identify studies that met the following criteria: was a trial of maintenance therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe UC; included a primary (or high-ranked secondary) endpoint of clinical remission (that included details of the endpoint definition); was a trial of advanced biologic or small-molecule therapy (adalimumab, etrasimod, etrolizumab, filgotinib, golimumab, guselkumab, infliximab, mirikizumab, obefazimod, ontamalimab, ozanimod, risankizumab, tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ustekinumab, vedolizumab) versus placebo; was a study based in the United States or a global study with sites in the United States. If required, further details on endpoint definitions were also extracted from primary published data associated with the identified trials (obtained via searching PubMed) and other relevant websites (eg, press releases).
Post Hoc Analysis
Post hoc analyses were performed using data from the vedolizumab GEMINI 1 (NCT00783718) and VISIBLE 1 (NCT02611830) phase 3 clinical trials.6,9 The difference in the proportion of patients who had clinical remission at week 52 between those who received vedolizumab and those who received placebo (treatment difference or %Δ) was measured using 4 endpoint definitions. The chosen endpoint definitions were based on findings from the prior literature search and reflected 3-component modified Mayo score-based endpoints ranging from most (A) to least stringent (D) – A: SFS ≤1 with a ≥1-point decrease from baseline, RBS = 0, ES = 0; B: SFS ≤1, RBS = 0, ES = 0; C: SFS ≤1 with a ≥1-point decrease from baseline, RBS = 0, ES ≤1; D: SFS ≤1, RBS = 0, ES ≤1. The treatment differences with definitions A to D were compared with the definitions used in the original clinical trials (E: total Mayo score at week 52 ≤2 with no individual subscore >1).
Results
Evolving Endpoints
The initial search of ClinicalTrials.gov identified 145 phase 3 clinical trials in patients with UC. Following manual screening, 19 studies met the eligibility criteria. Except for the True North study, which began in June 2015, all identified trials that began up to, and including, December 2015 used definitions of clinical remission based on the 4-component total Mayo score that included the PGA (Table 1). All trials that began after the publication of updated FDA guidance in August 2016 used a 3-component modified Mayo score-based definition of clinical remission (which excluded the PGA). No trial completed before March 2020 used the modified Mayo score (Table 1). Most trials that adopted a modified Mayo score-based definition used SFS ≤1, RBS = 0, and ES ≤1. Some differences were observed among definitions relating to how friability was assessed as part of the ES (Table 1).
Table 1.
Endpoint definitions of clinical remission during the maintenance treatment component of phase 3 UC trials.
| Advanced therapy name | Mechanism of action | Trial name (ClinicalTrials.gov number) | Trial start date | Trial completion date | Endpoint definition (clinical remission, maintenance phase) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obefazimod | miR-124 regulator | ABTECT Maintenance (NCT05535946) | Jan 2023 | Jun 2025a | Modified Mayo score at week 44.b SFS ≤1, RBS = 0, and ES ≤1 (friability is scored as 2) |
| Guselkumab | IL-23 antagonist | QUASAR (NCT04033445) | Sep 2019 | Oct 2027a | Modified Mayo score at week 44.b SFS ≤1 (with no increase from baseline), RBS = 0, and ES ≤1 (excluding friability) |
| Etrasimod | S1P receptor modulator | ELEVATE UC 52 (NCT03945188) | Jun 2019 | Feb 2022 | Modified Mayo score at week 52. SFS = 0 (or = 1 with a ≥1-point decrease from baseline), RBS = 0, and ES ≤1 (excluding friability) |
| Mirikizumab | IL-23 antagonist | LUCENT 2 (NCT03524092) | Oct 2018 | Apr 2026a | Modified Mayo score at week 40.c SFS ≤1 (with ≥1-point decrease from baseline), RBS = 0, and ES ≤1 (excluding friability) |
| Risankizumab | IL-23 antagonist | M16-066 (NCT03398135) | Aug 2018 | May 2024a | Modified Mayo score at week 52. SFS ≤1 (with no increase from baseline), RBS = 0, and ES ≤1 (excluding friability) |
| Ontamalimab | anti-MAdCAM-1 | FIGARO UC 303 (NCT03290781) | Apr 2018 | Jul 2021 | Modified Mayo score at week 52. SFS ≤1 (with a ≥1-point decrease from baseline), RBS = 0, and ES ≤1 (modified, excluding friability) |
| Filgotinib | JAK inhibitor | SELECTION (NCT02914522) | Nov 2016 | Mar 2020 | Modified Mayo score at week 58. SFS ≤1 (with a ≥1-point decrease from baseline), RBS = 0, and ES ≤1 |
| Upadacitinib | JAK inhibitor | U-ACHIEVE (NCT02819635) | Sep 2016 | Dec 2021 | Modified Mayo score at week 52. SFS ≤1 and not greater than baseline, RBS = 0, and ES ≤1 (includes friabilityd) |
| Vedolizumab | α4β7 integrin antagonist | VISIBLE 1 (NCT02611830) | Dec 2015 | Aug 2018 | Total Mayo score at week 52 ≤2 and no individual subscore >1 |
| Ustekinumab | IL-12/IL-23 antagonist | UNIFI (NCT02407236) | Jul 2015 | Nov 2021 | Total Mayo score at week 44b ≤2 and no individual subscore >1 |
| Vedolizumab | α4β7 integrin antagonist | VARSITY (NCT02497469) | Jun 2015 | Jan 2019 | Total Mayo score at week 52 ≤2 and no individual subscore >1 |
| Ozanimod | S1P receptor modulator | True North (NCT02435992) | Jun 2015 | Jun 2020 | Modified Mayo score at week 52. SFS ≤1 (with a ≥1-point decrease from baseline), RBS = 0, and ES ≤1 |
| Etrolizumab | α4β7 integrin antagonist | LAUREL (NCT02165215) | Aug 2014 | Apr 2020 | Total Mayo score at week 62 ≤2, RBS = 0, and no individual subscore >1 |
| Etrolizumab | α4β7 integrin antagonist | HICKORY (NCT02100696) | May 2014 | Apr 2020 | Total Mayo score at week 66 ≤2, RBS = 0, and no individual subscore >1 |
| Tofacitinib | JAK inhibitor | OCTAVE Sustain (NCT01458574) | July 2012 | May 2016 | Total Mayo score at week 52e ≤2, RBS = 0, and no individual subscore >1 |
| Vedolizumab | α4β7 integrin antagonist | GEMINI 1 (NCT00783718) | Jan 2009 | Mar 2012 | Total Mayo score at week 52 ≤2 and no individual subscore >1 |
| Golimumab | anti-TNFα | PURSUIT-M (NCT00488631) | Sep 2007 | Feb 2015 | Total Mayo score at weeks 30 and 54 ≤2 and no individual subscore >1 |
| Adalimumab | anti-TNFα | ULTRA 2 (NCT00408629) | Nov 2006 | Mar 2010 | Total Mayo score at week 52 ≤2 and no individual subscore >1 |
| Infliximab | anti-TNFα | ACT 1 (NCT00036439) | Feb 2002 | Jan 2007 | Total Mayo score at week 54 ≤2 and no individual subscore >1 |
Modified Mayo score excludes PGA. Total Mayo score includes PGA.
Abbreviations: ES, endoscopic subscore; IL, interleukin; JAK, Janus kinase; MAdCAM, mucosal addressin cell adhesion molecule; miR, micro-RNA; PGA, Physician’s Global Assessment; RBS, rectal bleeding subscore; S1P, sphingosine-1-phosphate; SFS, stool frequency subscore; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; UC, ulcerative colitis.
aEstimated completion date according to ClinicalTrials.gov (accessed May 16, 2023).
bEligible patients will already have completed 8 weeks of induction therapy, so week 44 is equivalent to week 52 in trials that combine the induction and maintenance parts.
cEligible patients will already have completed 12 weeks of induction therapy, so week 40 is equivalent to week 52 in trials that combine the induction and maintenance parts.
dEvidence of friability during endoscopy in participants with otherwise mild endoscopic activity conferred an endoscopic subscore of 2.
eEligible patients will already have completed 8 weeks of induction therapy, so week 52 is equivalent to week 60 in trials that combine the induction and maintenance parts.
Post Hoc Vedolizumab Efficacy Assessment
In total, 410 patients with UC from the GEMINI 1 (N = 248) and VISIBLE 1 (N = 162) trials were included. As previously reported, baseline patient characteristics and demographics were similar for patients who received vedolizumab and those who received a placebo in both trials.6,9 The treatment differences measured using endpoint definitions of differing stringency are shown for the GEMINI 1 trial (placebo, n = 126; vedolizumab 300 mg intravenously once every 8 weeks, n = 122) and the VISIBLE 1 trial (placebo, n = 56; vedolizumab 108 mg subcutaneously once every 2 weeks, n = 106) in Figure 1. For both GEMINI 1 and VISIBLE 1, there was a trend of increasing treatment difference values as the stringency of the endpoint definition decreased. Endpoint definition C (SFS ≤1 with a ≥1-point decrease from baseline, RBS = 0, ES ≤1) produced treatment differences most like those found using the total Mayo score-based definition (Figure 1, definition E).
Figure 1.
Difference in the proportion of patients with clinical remission at week 52 (%Δ) between those who received vedolizumab and those who received placebo in the GEMINI 1 and VISIBLE 1 trials according to 4 endpoint definitions of differing stringency and the endpoint definitions used in the primary analyses. 95% CIs were calculated based on the exact method. aPatients received intravenous vedolizumab once every 8 weeks. bPatients received subcutaneous vedolizumab once every 2 weeks. cNew definitions are based on most (A) to least (D) stringent criteria. A, SFS ≤1 with a ≥1-point decrease from baseline, RBS = 0, ES = 0. B, SFS ≤1, RBS = 0, ES = 0. C, SFS ≤1 with a ≥1-point decrease from baseline, RBS = 0, ES ≤1. D, SFS ≤1, RBS = 0, ES ≤1. E, Total Mayo score at week 52 ≤2 with no individual subscore >1. CI, confidence interval; ES, endoscopic subscore; RBS, rectal bleeding subscore; SFS, stool frequency subscore.
Discussion
In 2016, the US FDA issued new guidance on definitions of clinical remission for use as an endpoint in clinical trials in UC. Because of this guidance, endpoint definitions have evolved. In our review of endpoint definitions, we found that all phase 3 trials of investigational drugs aiming for approval in the United States that began in 2016 or later adopted a 3-component modified Mayo score-based definition for their clinical remission endpoints. In our post hoc analyses, the endpoint definitions that were like those most recently recommended by the FDA8 and those used in more recent clinical trials (Table 1) were the 2 least stringent that were tested (C and D). Both of these definitions produced treatment differences that were similar to those previously reported using the total Mayo score in the GEMINI 1 and VISIBLE 1 trials. Thus, our findings show that the efficacy of both intravenous and subcutaneous vedolizumab is similar when measured using the newer modified Mayo score-based definitions and the total Mayo score. The similarity among the outcomes measured with modified Mayo scores and total Mayo scores in patients with UC in our analysis also supports previous findings that suggested a strong correlation between these 2 instruments.3 Similar studies with other biologics in patients with UC are also supported by our findings. In the UNIFI study of ustekinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe UC, the primary endpoint during the maintenance phase of the trial was clinical remission based on the total Mayo score. However, the study also contained an alternative primary endpoint that used a modified Mayo score, excluding the PGA. The proportion of patients who had clinical remission at week 52 was 43.8% (ustekinumab 90 mg once every 8 weeks) when the total Mayo score was used and 42.6% when the modified Mayo score was used.10 In a post hoc analysis of data from the OCTAVE program, clinical remission at week 52, defined by total Mayo score, was observed in 40.6% of patients who received tofacitinib (10 mg twice daily) compared with 42.1% when a modified Mayo score was used.11
Furthermore, the lack of notable discrepancies between treatment differences measured using an instrument including the PGA and one excluding the PGA suggests that the PGA, when performed by an experienced gastroenterologist, can provide a reliable assessment of disease activity. The PGA may, therefore, continue to have use in clinical practice or as a component of the partial Mayo score, in which it can be used as an interim assessment of disease activity in clinical trials when endoscopic data are not available. Overall, our findings suggest that comparisons of clinical remission endpoints can be made between older trials that used the total Mayo score, including the PGA, and newer trials using modified Mayo score-based endpoint definitions.
Contributor Information
William J Sandborn, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Bruce E Sands, Dr. Henry D. Janowitz Division of Gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Sharif Uddin, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Lexington, MA, USA.
Rana M Qasim Khan, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Lexington, MA, USA.
Richa Sagar Mukherjee, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Lexington, MA, USA.
Author Contributions
W.J.S. and B.E.S. conceived the study, interpreted the data, and drafted and critically revised the manuscript. S.U., R.M. Q.K., and R.S.M. conceived the study, collected, analyzed and interpreted the data, and drafted and critically revised the manuscript.
Funding
This study was funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Adam Errington, PhD, of PharmaGenesis Cardiff, Cardiff, UK, and funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP 2022) guidelines (www.ismpp.org/gpp-2022).
Conflicts of Interest
W.J.S. has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Abivax, Alfasigma, Alimentiv, BeiGene, Biora (Progenity), Celltrion, Forbion, Genentech, Gossamer Biosciences, Index Pharmaceuticals, Prometheus Biosciences, Protagonist Therapeutics, Shoreline Biosciences, Vendata Biosciences, Ventyx Biosciences, and Zealand Pharma; has stock or stock options from BeiGene, Biora (Progenity), Gossamer Bio, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Shoreline Biosciences, Ventyx Biosciences, Vimalan Biosciences, and Vivreon Biosciences; and is an employee at Shoreline Biosciences and Ventyx Biosciences. His spouse has received consulting fees from Iveric Bio and has stock or stock options in Iveric Bio, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Ventyx Biosciences, and Vimalan Biosciences. B.E.S. has received consultancy fees from AbbVie, Alimentiv, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Artugen Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calibr, Celgene, Celltrion Healthcare, ClostraBio, Equillium, Enthera, Evommune, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Genentech (Roche), Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, InDex Pharmaceuticals, Innovation Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Kaleido, Kallyope, Merck, Morphic Therapeutic, MRM Health, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonist Therapeutics, Q32 Bio, Sun Pharma Global, Surrozen, Target RWE, Teva, TLL Pharmaceutical, Ventyx Biosciences, and Viela Bio; has received consultancy fees, speaking fees, research grants, or other support from Abivax, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda, and Theravance Biopharma; has stock or stock options in Ventyx Biosciences. S.U. and R.S.M. are employees of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and hold stock or stock options. R.M.Q.K. is a former employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and holds stock or stock options.
Conference Presentation
These data were previously presented at the American College of Gastroenterology 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting & Postgraduate Course, October 22–27, 2021, Las Vegas, NV, USA. Poster P1659.
Data Availability
The data sets, including the redacted study protocol, redacted statistical analysis plan, and individual participants’ data supporting the results reported in this article, will be made available within 3 months from initial request to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal. The data will be provided after their de-identification, in compliance with applicable privacy laws, data protection, and requirements for consent and anonymization.
References
- 1. Kobayashi T, Siegmund B, Le Berre C, et al. Ulcerative colitis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020;6(1):74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Schroeder KW, Tremaine WJ, Ilstrup DM.. Coated oral 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis: a randomized study. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(26):1625–1629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Naegeli AN, Hunter T, Dong Y, et al. Full, partial, and modified permutations of the Mayo score: characterizing clinical and patient-reported outcomes in ulcerative colitis patients. Crohns Colitis 360. 2021;3(1):otab007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Rutgeerts P, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. Infliximab for induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(23):2462–2476. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Sandborn WJ, van Assche G, Reinisch W, et al. Adalimumab induces and maintains clinical remission in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2012;142(2):257–65.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, Sands BE, et al. ; GEMINI 1 Study Group. Vedolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(8):699–710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. US Food and Drug Administration. Ulcerative colitis: clinical trial endpoints guidance for industry2016. Accessed May 17, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Ulcerative-Colitis--Clinical-Trial-Endpoints-Guidance-for-Industry.pdf
- 8. US Food and Drug Administration. Ulcerative colitis: developing drugs for treatment guidance for industry. 2022. Accessed May 17, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/media/158016/download
- 9. Sandborn WJ, Baert F, Danese S, et al. Efficacy and safety of vedolizumab subcutaneous formulation in a randomized trial of patients with ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(3):562–572.e12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Sands BE, Sandborn WJ, Panaccione R, et al. ; UNIFI Study Group. Ustekinumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(13):1201–1214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Sandborn WJ, Sands BE, Vermeire S, et al. Modified Mayo score versus Mayo score for evaluation of treatment efficacy in patients with ulcerative colitis: data from the tofacitinib OCTAVE program. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2022;15:17562848221136331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data sets, including the redacted study protocol, redacted statistical analysis plan, and individual participants’ data supporting the results reported in this article, will be made available within 3 months from initial request to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal. The data will be provided after their de-identification, in compliance with applicable privacy laws, data protection, and requirements for consent and anonymization.