Abstract
Background
Vedolizumab is an anti-α4β7 integrin antibody used to treat moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD). This post hoc analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the VISIBLE 1 (NCT02611830) and 2 (NCT02611817) phase 3 studies evaluated onset of treatment effect on patient-reported symptoms during 6-week vedolizumab induction.
Methods
Patient-reported stool frequency (SF) and rectal bleeding (RB) (UC Mayo score), and SF and abdominal pain (AP) in CD were collected via electronic diary from VISIBLE patients receiving one or more open-label intravenous (IV) vedolizumab induction doses (weeks 0 and 2). PRO data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Results
Data from 994 patients (UC 383, CD 611) showed mean ratings for all PROs declined consistently week-on-week from baseline through week 6, with early onset of improvement. By week 2, 22% of patients with UC reported RB improvement (≥1-point reduction in RB subscore, 7-day mean), rising to 45% by week 6. By week 6, 18% of patients with UC achieved SF improvement (SF subscore 0; 21% antitumor necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNFα] naive, 13% anti-TNFα experienced). SF improvement in patients with CD (reduction of ≥3 stools, 7-day mean) was achieved by 32% at week 6 (34% anti-TNFα naive, 30% anti-TNFα experienced). Fewer patients with CD reported severe/moderate AP at week 6 (5.1%/28.5%) than baseline (14.6%/61.5%). SF decline appeared greater and faster for anti-TNFα-naive vs. anti-TNFα-experienced patients (UC and CD).
Conclusion
Results indicate early onset of patient-reported UC and CD symptom improvement during vedolizumab IV induction in VISIBLE 1 and 2.
Keywords: Crohn’s disease, patient-reported outcomes, ulcerative colitis, VISIBLE
Introduction
Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD), chronic inflammatory diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, have debilitating effects that significantly reduce patients’ health-related quality of life [1–4]. Diarrhea and abdominal pain (AP) in CD, and rectal bleeding (RB) in UC are common symptoms recognized as important patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that can be used for measuring disease activity and symptomatic burden in clinical studies [5–9]. In recognition of the strong correlation between symptomatic PROs and patient wellbeing, current treatment guidelines for UC and CD emphasize the need for control of clinical symptoms as an early treatment target [8]. Frequent monitoring of PROs throughout the disease course is also likely to help achieve durable improvements to patient quality of life [8,10–13].
Vedolizumab is an anti-α4β7 integrin antibody that selectively blocks lymphocyte trafficking to the gut [14,15]. The GEMINI clinical trials have established the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) vedolizumab induction and maintenance therapy for patients with moderate to severe UC and CD [16–19]. A post hoc analysis of data from the GEMINI studies showed an early onset of treatment response to vedolizumab 300 mg IV induction. Rates of clinical remission (total Mayo score of ≤2 and no individual subscore of >1 for patients with UC, or CD activity index [CDAI] score of ≤150 for patients with CD) were significantly higher in vedolizumab- vs. placebo-treated patients by the end of induction (week 6 of treatment) [20,21]. Patient-reported symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (combined subscores of RB and stool frequency [SF] in UC, and loose SF and AP in CD) declined weekly from baseline during induction and were significantly improved vs. placebo by the end of the induction period [20].
A post hoc analysis was conducted to assess the onset of responses to vedolizumab IV treatment over the 6-week induction period of the VISIBLE 1 [22] and VISIBLE 2 [23] phase 3 studies. The aim was to confirm the timing of improvement of symptoms after initiation of treatment with vedolizumab, as reported by patients with moderate to severe UC or CD and to evaluate in more detail the changes to early symptomatic PROs within the first 6 weeks of vedolizumab IV induction.
Methods
Patients
Patients participating in the VISIBLE 1 and 2 studies were aged 18–80 years (eligibility criteria have been described previously [22,23]). In VISIBLE 1, enrolled patients had moderate to severe UC (Mayo score of 6–12 and endoscopic subscore of ≥2) diagnosed ≥6 months before enrollment (on the basis of clinical, endoscopic and histologic evidence), as well as evidence of UC extending proximal to the rectum (≥15 cm of involved colon). VISIBLE 2 patients had moderate to severe CD (CDAI score of 220–450) diagnosed ≥3 months before enrollment (on the basis of clinical, endoscopic and histologic evidence). For both VISIBLE studies, eligible patients had also previously demonstrated an inadequate response or intolerance to corticosteroids (CS), immunomodulators and/or antitumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFα) treatments [22,23]. VISIBLE study protocols permitted patients to continue oral CS treatment (prednisone at a stable dose of ≤30 mg/day, budesonide at a stable dose of ≤9 mg/day, or equivalent steroid), with stable dosing for 2 weeks prior to study entry. During the study, stable CS dosing was maintained unaltered until week 6 [22,23].
Study design
VISIBLE 1 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02611830; EudraCT, 2015-000480-14) [22] and VISIBLE 2 [23] (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02611817; EudraCT, 2015-000481-58) were phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical studies. Both included an identical open-label IV induction phase, comprising vedolizumab 300 mg IV dosing at weeks 0 and 2. Concomitant treatment with immunosuppressive agents and oral 5-aminosalicylic acids and stable CS dosing were also permitted. The VISIBLE clinical study protocols and other study-related documents were reviewed and approved by the local or central institutional review boards of all study sites, and studies were conducted in compliance with informed consent regulations of the Declaration of Helsinki, International Conference on Harmonisation Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice and all applicable local laws and regulations [22,23].
Outcome measures and endpoints
The following outcomes collected from patients’ inputs into an electronic diary during the 6-week induction period were included in the post hoc analysis. Patient-reported symptom subscores were recorded daily by patients over the first 14 days of induction and then weekly thereafter.
For patients with UC, patient-reported symptoms related to SF were derived from the SF symptom item subscore of the Mayo disease activity score (where normal SF = 0; 1–2 stools more than normal = 1; 3–4 stools more than normal = 2; and ≥5 stools more than normal = 3). RB was assessed using the RB item subscore of the Mayo score (no blood = 0; visible blood with stool <50% of the time = 1; visible blood with stool ≥50% of the time = 2; and blood passes alone = 3). Other endpoints derived from these PROs included SF improvement (defined as an SF subscore of 0) and RB improvement (defined as a reduction of ≥1 [on the 4-point scale] for the mean RB subscore of 7 days). Patient-reported clinical remission was defined as scores of 0 for the SF and RB subscores of the Mayo score [24].
For patients with CD, SF was defined as the number of liquid or very soft stools per day. AP severity was rated by patients as no pain = 0; mild pain = 1; moderate pain = 2; and severe pain = 3 (same definitions as used for SF and AP components of the CDAI). SF improvement was defined as a reduction of at least three stools for the mean of 7 days. Change in AP severity from baseline over time was also calculated at the end of each week. The exploratory PRO2 endpoint (a two-item PRO, sum of SF and AP) [6–8] was assessed weekly during the induction phase in patients with CD. The definition of patient-reported clinical remission was based on the PRO2 endpoint, where a PRO2 score of ≤8 was considered to be patient-reported clinical remission (cutoff corresponding to a CDAI score of <150) [6].
Statistical analysis
This post hoc analysis included data from all enrolled patients who received at least one dose of vedolizumab during the induction phase of the VISIBLE 1 or VISIBLE 2 studies, termed the full analysis set induction (FAS-I). All analyses were performed based on observed data (no imputation of missing data was applied) from patients who received at least one dose of vedolizumab during induction (week 0 dose). Data from patients who discontinued prior to week 6 were included until the time of discontinuation. PRO scores (SF, RB and AP) were summarized each week as 7-day mean ± SD for weeks 0 (baseline) to 6 of vedolizumab induction, along with weekly mean ± SD change from baseline. Mean ± SD was used to summarize continuous efficacy endpoints (PRO data) and median (interquartile range) was used for variables such as serum biomarker concentrations, as reported in patient baseline characteristics. Number and percentage of patients (with 95% confidence interval [CI]) achieving SF or RB improvement each week were calculated. SF improvement in UC was defined as a SF Mayo subscore of 0; RB improvement was a reduction of ≥1 (on the 4-point scale) for the mean RB subscore of 7 days. SF improvement in CD was defined as a reduction of at least three stools for the mean of 7 days. Change in AP severity during the induction was summarized by frequency tables, overall and separately for patients reporting severe, moderate, mild or no pain at baseline.
Data were analyzed for the overall population, by prior anti-TNFα treatment status (naive vs. experienced), and by baseline disease severity. For patients with UC, a Mayo score of 6–8, inclusive, at baseline was classified as moderate, and a baseline Mayo score of 9–12, inclusive, as severe. For patients with CD, a baseline CDAI score of ≥220 to 330 or >330 to 450 was classified as moderate or severe CD, respectively. Percentage values (with 95% CIs) were calculated for patients achieving SF or RB improvement each week, overall and in each subgroup. Percentage values were also used to show change in AP severity over induction, by subgroup and also separately for patients reporting severe, moderate, mild or no pain at baseline.
Further subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of baseline concomitant CS use on PROs and to investigate improvements for patients in the highest quartile of SF at baseline when compared with those in the other quartiles. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate the characteristics of patients who were early responders (patients achieving SF improvement by week 3). Variables entered in the model were chosen based on their clinical interest and included: gender, age (continuous), smoking status (never smoker vs. current/ex-smoker), geographic region (non-Asia vs. Asia), BMI (continuous), CS use at baseline (yes or no) and prior anti-TNFα treatment failure (yes or no). A backward selection was applied, with a P value cutoff threshold to stay in the model set at 0.25.
Results
Study population
This post hoc analysis included data from 994 patients (383 with UC from VISIBLE 1 and 611 with CD from VISIBLE 2) who received at least one IV dose of vedolizumab at induction (FAS-I population), and had available PRO data (33 patients from VISIBLE 2 did not have PRO data available for this analysis; the numbers of patients providing PRO data at each time point are indicated in Figs. 1–6) [22,23]. Disease characteristics were as expected for patients with moderate to severe disease (Tables 1 and 2). At baseline, patients with UC had a mean ± SD disease duration of 7.5 ± 6.6 years, 39.4% had a disease duration of ≥7 years and 7.3% were current smokers. Overall, 61.6% of the UC patient cohort had severe disease (Mayo score of 9–12) at baseline, 38.1% had moderate disease (Mayo score of 6–8), and one patient (0.3%) had mild disease (Mayo score of <6) included for analysis purposes in the subgroup of patients with moderate UC at baseline. Anti-TNFα-naive patients constituted 56.4% (n = 216) of the UC patient population. Patients with CD had a mean ± SD disease duration of 9.0 ± 8.1 years, 50.1% had a disease duration of ≥7 years, and 19.5% were current smokers. Overall, 62.7% of the CD patient cohort had moderate disease (baseline CDAI score of ≥220 to 330), 37.3% had severe disease (baseline CDAI score of >330 to 450), and 42.7% (n = 261) were anti-TNFα naive. Approximately one-third of patients with UC or CD from the VISIBLE studies had received prior CS treatment, and 163 patients with UC and 210 with CD had ongoing CS treatment at baseline.
Fig. 1.
Patient-reported UC symptoms during vedolizumab intravenous induction: weekly mean changes from baseline. SF subscores: (a) overall population, anti-TNFα-naive patients and anti-TNFα-experienced patients; and (b) overall population and patients with moderate or severe disease at baseline. RB subscores: (c) overall population, anti-TNFα-naive patients and anti-TNFα-experienced patients; and (d) overall population and patients with moderate or severe disease at baseline. Error bars indicate positive or negative SDs of the mean values. Anti-TNFα, antitumor necrosis factor alpha; RB, rectal bleeding; SF, stool frequency; UC, ulcerative colitis.
Fig. 6.
Patient-reported clinical remission during vedolizumab intravenous induction in patients with CD. (a) Overall population, anti-TNFα-naive patients and anti-TNFα-experienced patients; and (b) overall population and patients with moderate or severe disease at baseline. Patient-reported clinical remission in CD was defined as a PRO2 (endpoint comprising the sum of abdominal pain and stool frequency) of ≤8. Anti-TNFα, antitumor necrosis factor alpha; CD, Crohn’s disease; CDAI, Crohn’s disease activity index; CI, confidence interval; PRO2, patient-reported outcome 2 composite score.
Table 1.
Baseline demographics and disease characteristics: Patients with UC from VISIBLE 1
| Parameter | Anti-TNFα naive (n = 216) |
Anti-TNFα experienced (n = 167) |
Overall population (N = 383) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD age, years | 41.3 ± 14.1 | 40.2 ± 13.9 | 40.8 ± 14.0 |
| Male, n (%) | 121 (56.0) | 97 (58.1) | 218 (56.9) |
| White, n (%) | 177 (81.9) | 129 (77.2) | 306 (79.9) |
| Smoking status, n (%) | |||
| Never | 142 (65.7) | 106 (63.5) | 248 (64.8) |
| Current | 14 (6.5) | 14 (8.4) | 28 (7.3) |
| Ex-smoker | 60 (27.8) | 47 (28.1) | 107 (27.9) |
| Mean ± SD duration of UC, years | 6.9 ± 6.5 | 8.2 ± 6.6 | 7.5 ± 6.6 |
| Disease activity, n (%) | |||
| Mild (total Mayo score <6) | 0 | 1 (0.6) | 1 (0.3) |
| Moderate (total Mayo score 6–8) | 83 (38.4) | 63 (37.7) | 146 (38.1) |
| Severe (total Mayo score 9–12) | 133 (61.6) | 103 (61.7) | 236 (61.6) |
| Mean ± SD SF subscore | 2.3 ± 0.7 | 2.3 ± 0.7 | 2.3 ± 0.7 |
| Mean ± SD RB subscore | 1.7 ± 0.7 | 1.6 ± 0.8 | 1.6 ± 0.7 |
| Median (IQR) fecal calprotectin, µg/g | 1450 (630–2969)a | 1657 (741–3428)b | 1530 (673–3084)c |
| Fecal calprotectin, n (%) | |||
| ≤250 µg/g | 16 (7.6)a | 13 (7.9)b | 29 (7.7)c |
| >250 to ≤500 µg/g | 24 (11.4)a | 10 (6.1)b | 34 (9.1)c |
| >500 µg/g | 171 (81.0)a | 141 (86.0)b | 312 (83.2)c |
SF scoring: normal stool frequency = 0; 1–2 stools more than normal = 1; 3–4 stools more than normal = 2; and ≥5 stools more than normal = 3. RB scoring: no blood = 0; visible blood with stool <50% of the time = 1; visible blood with stool ≥50% of the time = 2; and blood passes alone = 3. Some patients had missing data for fecal calprotectin concentration, in these instances the number of patients contributing data (N number) is indicated in labeled footnotes.
N = 211.
N = 164.
N = 375.
Anti-TNFα, antitumor necrosis factor alpha; IQR, interquartile range; RB, rectal bleeding subscore from the Mayo score; SF, stool frequency subscore from the Mayo score; UC, ulcerative colitis.
Table 2.
Baseline demographics and disease characteristics: Patients with CD from VISIBLE 2
| Parameter | Anti-TNFα naive (n = 261) |
Anti-TNFα experienced (n = 350) |
Overall population (N = 611) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD age, years | 38.3 ± 13.8 | 37.0 ± 13.0 | 37.6 ± 13.4 |
| Male, n (%) | 140 (53.6) | 183 (52.3) | 323 (52.9) |
| White, n (%) | 239 (91.6) | 313 (89.4) | 552 (90.3) |
| Smoking status, n (%) | |||
| Never | 152 (58.2) | 202 (57.7) | 354 (57.9) |
| Current | 54 (20.7) | 65 (18.6) | 119 (19.5) |
| Ex-smoker | 55 (21.1) | 83 (23.7) | 138 (22.6) |
| Mean ± SD duration of CD, years | 6.5 ± 7.6a | 10.9 ± 8.0 | 9.0 ± 8.1b |
| Mean ± SD CDAI score | 311.4 ± 60.9 | 314.9 ± 58.6 | 313.4 ± 59.6 |
| Mean ± SD SF | 5.4 ± 2.7 | 5.6 ± 2.6 | 5.5 ± 2.7 |
| Mean ± SD AP | 2.0 ± 0.5 | 2.0 ± 0.6 | 2.0 ± 0.5 |
| Mean ± SD PRO2 score | 20.8 ± 5.9 | 21.0 ± 5.9 | 20.9 ± 5.9 |
| Disease activity, n (%) | |||
| Moderate (CDAI ≥220–330) | 165 (63.2) | 218 (62.3) | 383 (62.7) |
| Severe (CDAI >330–450) | 96 (36.8) | 132 (37.7) | 228 (37.3) |
| Disease location, n (%) | |||
| Colon only | 66 (25.3) | 60 (17.1) | 126 (20.6) |
| Ileocolonic | 115 (44.1) | 157 (44.9) | 272 (44.5) |
| Ileum only | 56 (21.5) | 84 (24.0) | 140 (22.9) |
| Median (IQR) CRP, mg/L | 5.1 (1.9–12.1) | 8.2 (3.7–26.0) | 6.6 (2.6–16.5) |
| CRP, n (%) | |||
| ≤2.87 mg/L | 94 (36.0) | 71 (20.3) | 165 (27.0) |
| >2.87 to ≤5 mg/L | 36 (13.8) | 48 (13.7) | 84 (13.7) |
| >5 to ≤10 mg/L | 46 (17.6) | 74 (21.1) | 120 (19.6) |
| >10 mg/L | 85 (32.6) | 157 (44.9) | 242 (39.6) |
| Median (IQR) fecal calprotectin, µg/g | 620 (268–1561)c | 844 (337–1858)d | 764 (298–1718)e |
| Fecal calprotectin, n (%) | |||
| ≤250 µg/g | 60 (23.3)c | 64 (18.4)d | 124 (20.5)e |
| >250 to ≤500 µg/g | 53 (20.5)c | 55 (15.8)d | 108 (17.8)e |
| >500 µg/g | 145 (56.2)c | 229 (65.8)d | 374 (61.7)e |
AP severity scale: no pain = 0; mild pain = 1; moderate pain = 2; and severe pain = 3. SF is the actual number of liquid or very soft stools per day. Some patients had missing data for duration of CD and fecal calprotectin concentration parameters, in these instances the number of patients contributing data (N number) is indicated in labeled footnotes.
Anti-TNFα, antitumor necrosis factor alpha; AP, abdominal pain; CD, Crohn’s disease; CDAI, Crohn’s disease activity index; CRP, C-reactive protein; IQR, interquartile range; PRO2, composite endpoint of abdominal pain and stool frequency; SF, stool frequency.
N = 260.
N = 610.
N = 258.
N = 348.
N = 606.
Weekly patient-reported symptoms
Patients with UC
Mean SF and RB subscores declined steadily from baseline to week 6 (Fig. 1). The mean ± SD SF subscore was reduced from 2.3 ± 0.7 at baseline to 2.0 ± 0.8 at week 1 and decreased further week-on-week to 1.4 ± 1.0 by week 6. The mean ± SD RB subscore was reduced from 1.6 ± 0.7 at baseline to 0.6 ± 0.8 by week 6, with reductions already seen after week 1. The decline in SF and RB symptom subscores week-on-week from baseline to week 6 was observed consistently across the patient subgroups analyzed, in anti-TNFα-naive and anti-TNFα-experienced patients (Fig. 1a and c) and in patients with moderate or severe disease at baseline (Fig. 1b and d).
In anti-TNFα-naive patients and those with severe UC at baseline, mean SF subscores had declined by 1.0 point from baseline to week 6. Mean ± SD change from baseline was 0.8 ± 0.9 points for anti-TNFα-experienced patients and patients with moderate UC and 0.9 ± 0.9 points for the overall population (Fig. 1a and b). By week 2, 6.6% of patients overall, 11.6% with moderate UC and 7.9% in the subgroup of anti-TNFα-naive patients reported SF improvement (SF subscore of 0 or normal SF), rising to 17.5%, 26.6% and 21.1% by week 6 in these patient groups, respectively. By week 6, 11.8% of patients in the subgroup with severe disease and 12.9% of anti-TNFα-experienced patients had achieved SF improvement or normal SF (Fig. 2a and b).
Fig. 2.
UC symptom improvement during vedolizumab intravenous induction. SF improvement in patients with UC: (a) overall population, anti-TNFα-naive patients; and anti-TNFα-experienced patients and (b) overall population and patients with moderate or severe disease at baseline. RB improvement in patients with UC: (c) overall population, anti-TNFα-naive patients and anti-TNFα-experienced patients; and (d) overall population and patients with moderate or severe disease at baseline. SF improvement was defined as a Mayo SF subscore of 0. RB improvement was defined as a reduction of ≥1 (on the 4-point RB subscore from the Mayo score, where no blood = 0; visible blood with stool <50% of the time = 1; visible blood with stool ≥50% of the time = 2; and blood passes alone = 3) for the mean RB subscore of 7 days. aOne patient with UC had a baseline Mayo score of <6. Anti-TNFα, antitumor necrosis factor alpha; CI, confidence interval; RB, rectal bleeding; SF, stool frequency; UC, ulcerative colitis.
Reductions in mean ± SD RB subscores from baseline to week 6 were 1.0 ± 0.8, 1.0 ± 0.8 and 0.9 ± 0.9 points in the overall population, the anti-TNFα-naive subgroup and the anti-TNFα-experienced subgroup, respectively (Fig. 1c). At week 6, patients with severe disease reported a mean ± SD reduction of 1.1 ± 0.8 points from baseline; the corresponding decrease was 0.8 ± 0.7 for patients with moderate disease (Fig. 1d). By week 2, 21.8% of patients overall, 32.2% of the subgroup with moderate UC and 15.3% in the severe disease subgroup reported an improvement in RB symptoms (a reduction of ≥1 [on the 4-point scale] for the mean RB subscore of 7 days) (Fig. 2c and d). At the end of induction, 44.9% of the overall population, over half (52.4%) of the patients with moderate disease and 40.2% of the subgroup with severe disease had achieved RB improvement (Fig. 2d). The proportions achieving RB improvement after induction at week 6 were similar for anti-TNFα-naive and anti-TNFα-experienced patients (45.9% and 43.6%, respectively) (Fig. 2c).
Patients with CD
Mean SF, AP and PRO2 scores declined each week from baseline to week 6 of vedolizumab IV induction (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Fig. 1, supplemental digital content 2, http://links.lww.com/EJGH/A997). Week-on-week reductions in these PROs from baseline were observed consistently across patient subgroups separated by prior anti-TNFα treatment experience (Fig. 3a and c) and by baseline disease severity (moderate or severe) (Fig. 3b and d).
Fig. 3.
Patient-reported CD symptoms during vedolizumab intravenous induction: weekly mean changes from baseline. SF: (a) overall population, anti-TNFα-naive patients and anti-TNFα-experienced patients; and (b) overall population and patients with moderate or severe disease at baseline. AP: (c) overall population, anti-TNFα-naive patients and anti-TNFα-experienced patients; and (d) overall population and patients with moderate or severe disease at baseline. Data are from mean weekly patient-reported SF and AP (error bars indicate negative SDs of the mean values), where SF was the number of liquid or very soft stools per day and AP severity was rated as no pain = 0; mild pain = 1; moderate pain = 2; and severe pain = 3. Anti-TNFα, antitumor necrosis factor alpha; AP, abdominal pain; CD, Crohn’s disease; CDAI, Crohn’s disease activity index; SF, stool frequency.
Mean ± SD SF declined by 2.1 ± 2.3 liquid or very soft stools per day from baseline in the overall population, from a mean ± SD of 5.5 ± 2.7 at baseline to 3.4 ± 2.6 at week 6. The largest SF reductions at week 6 were reported for the patient subgroup with severe CD at baseline (mean ± SD reduction of 2.7 ± 2.6), and the subgroup of anti-TNFα-naive patients (mean ± SD reduction of 2.3 ± 2.4). By week 6, SF was also reduced from baseline in anti-TNFα-experienced patients and those with moderate CD (Fig. 3a and b). SF changes across patient subgroups indicate reductions from baseline were more pronounced in patients with severe disease and those who were anti-TNFα naive. By week 2, SF improvement (a reduction of at least three stools for the mean of 7 days) was reported by 13.0% of patients overall and 20.3% in the subgroup with severe CD compared with 8.7% with moderate CD at baseline (Fig. 4). Also, 13.5% and 12.6% in the subgroups of anti-TNFα-naive and -experienced patients, respectively, achieved SF improvement by week 2 (Fig. 4a). At week 6, 31.5% of the overall population and 42.7% of patients with severe CD achieved SF improvement compared with 24.8% of the subgroup with moderate disease (Fig. 4b). The proportion of anti-TNFα-naive patients who achieved SF improvement (34.2%) was also numerically greater than that of anti-TNFα-experienced patients (29.5%) (Fig. 4a).
Fig. 4.
CD symptom improvement during vedolizumab intravenous induction. SF improvement in patients with CD: (a) overall population, anti-TNFα-naive patients and anti-TNFα-experienced patients; and (b) overall population and patients with moderate or severe disease at baseline. AP: (c) overall population; (d) patients with moderate disease at baseline; and (e) patients with severe AP at baseline. Data are from mean weekly patient-reported SF and AP, where SF was the number of liquid or very soft stools per day. SF improvement was defined as a reduction of at least three stools for the mean of 7 days. AP severity was rated as no pain = 0; mild pain = 1; moderate pain = 2; and severe pain = 3. Anti-TNFα, antitumor necrosis factor alpha; AP, abdominal pain; CD, Crohn’s disease; CDAI, Crohn’s disease activity index; CI, confidence interval; SF, stool frequency.
Mean ± SD AP scores were reduced weekly from 2.0 ± 0.5 at baseline to 1.2 ± 0.7 at week 6 in the overall population (Fig. 3c and d). Mean reductions in baseline AP scores at week 6 were similar in anti-TNFα-naive and -experienced patients and appeared greater in the subgroup of patients with severe CD. The proportion of patients reporting moderate or severe AP decreased from baseline to week 6 (Fig. 4c). For most patients rating AP as moderate or severe at baseline (61.5% and 14.6%, respectively, compared with 21.9%/2.0% for mild/no AP), AP severity ratings had improved after vedolizumab IV induction at week 6 (moderate/severe AP, 28.5%/5.1%; mild/no AP, 43.9%/22.4%) (Fig. 4d). In the subgroup with severe AP at baseline (n = 89), approximately four in five patients rated their pain as nonsevere by week 6, with 14.6% reporting no pain (Fig. 4e).
Mean ± SD PRO2 scores declined weekly from 20.9 ± 5.9 at baseline to 12.8 ± 7.4 at week 6, corresponding to a mean ± SD reduction of 8.1 ± 7.3 points (Supplementary Fig. 1, supplemental digital content 2, http://links.lww.com/EJGH/A997). Patients in the subgroup with severe CD had mean ± SD reductions from baseline to week 6 of 10.0 ± 7.9 for this composite endpoint, compared with reductions of 7.1 ± 6.7 for the moderate disease subgroup. Mean changes from baseline to week 6 in weekly PRO2 scores were similar for anti-TNFα-naive and -experienced patients during induction.
Patient-reported clinical remission rates
At week 6, the overall proportion of patients with UC in patient-reported clinical remission (SF subscore of 0; RB subscore of 0) was 15.9%; the proportion of patients in remission was numerically higher in the subgroup of anti-TNFα-naive (18.7%) patients vs. anti-TNFα experienced (12.3%) and in those with moderate (24.5%) vs. severe (10.5%) disease at baseline (Fig. 5a and b). The proportion of patients with CD in patient-reported clinical remission (PRO2 score of ≤8, corresponding to a CDAI score of <150) at week 6 after vedolizumab IV induction was 28.5% for the overall population (31.5% and 26.4% for anti-TNFα-naive and -experienced subgroups, respectively) (Fig. 6a). Contrasting with the data on SF improvement, patients with moderate CD at baseline had numerically higher rates of patient-reported clinical remission (34.6%) compared with those with severe disease (18.5%) (Fig. 6b).
Fig. 5.
Patient-reported clinical remission during vedolizumab intravenous induction in patients with UC. (a) Overall population, anti-TNFα-naive patients and anti-TNFα-experienced patients; and (b) overall population and patients with moderate or severe disease at baseline. Patient-reported clinical remission in UC was defined as a Mayo stool frequency subscore of 0 and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0. aOne patient with UC had a baseline Mayo score of <6. Anti-TNFα, antitumor necrosis factor alpha; CI, confidence interval; UC, ulcerative colitis.
Analyses of predictors of PRO responses
Univariate analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of patient characteristics on PROs and the early onset of PRO responses. An analysis of PRO measures during vedolizumab IV induction in patient subgroups with or without ongoing CS therapy at baseline indicated that this variable had no impact on any of the patient-reported UC and CD symptom improvements analyzed. In UC, of the patients with (n = 163) or without (n = 220) ongoing CS at baseline, 14.8% (24/162) and 19.5% (41/210), respectively, achieved SF improvement at week 6, and 42.6% (69/162) and 46.7% (98/210), respectively, achieved RB improvement at week 6. The proportions of patients with CD achieving SF improvement at week 6 for the groups with (n = 210) or without (n = 401) ongoing CS at baseline were 32.2% (67/208) and 31.2% (124/398), respectively. For AP severity, the proportions of patients rating AP as severe, moderate, mild or none at baseline and week 6 were similar for patients with or without baseline CS treatment.
There were some differences to note for week 6 improvements in PROs achieved by patients in the upper quartile of SF at baseline vs. the remaining patients. Patients with CD in the highest SF quartile at baseline (n = 154; 66.9% with severe CD at baseline and 54.5% with a disease duration of ≥7 years) were compared with those in the other three quartiles (n = 457; 27.4% had severe CD at baseline and 48.6% had a disease duration of ≥7 years). In line with SF improvement data analyzed using CDAI-determined disease severity at baseline, 59.2% (90/152) of patients in the upper SF quartile achieved SF improvement at week 6 compared with 22.2% (101/454) of patients in the other three quartiles. AP severity ratings appeared comparable between the upper SF quartile and the other SF quartiles. For patients with UC in the upper SF quartile at baseline (n = 102; 90.2% with severe disease and 38.2% with a disease duration of ≥7 years) vs. other quartiles (n = 281; 51.2% with severe disease at baseline and 39.9% with a disease duration of ≥7 years), SF improved for 11.2% (11/98) in the upper quartile vs. 19.7% (54/274) of remaining patients. This is reflective of the data on SF improvement, which was numerically higher in subgroups with moderate vs. severe UC (as determined by baseline Mayo score). RB improvement was comparable between the upper quartile vs. the other quartiles.
For analyses conducted to evaluate the impact of patient characteristics on early onset of PRO response (SF improvement by week 3), patient parameters (age, sex, BMI, smoking status, geographic region, CS use at baseline and anti-TNFα treatment failure) were investigated as potential predictors of early PRO response. None of the patient parameters tested in logistic regression analyses were found to be associated with early PRO response to vedolizumab induction. In the logistic regression analysis based on patients with UC from VISIBLE 1, the following patient parameters were selected as potential predictors (with a P value <0.25) of early onset response (SF improvement at week 3): age (10 year difference, OR = 0.84; P = 0.173), BMI (1 point difference, OR = 1.04, P = 0.234); CS use at baseline (OR = 0.56, P = 0.107) and prior anti-TNFα treatment failure (OR = 0.56, P = 0.109). For patients with CD from VISIBLE 2, potential predictors of early onset response (SF improvement at week 3) were sex (female vs. male, OR = 1.26, P = 0.232); geographic region (others vs. Asia, OR = 1.91, P = 0.191) and prior anti-TNFα treatment failure (OR = 0.79, P = 0.216) (for further details see Supplementary Table 1, supplemental digital content 2, http://links.lww.com/EJGH/A997).
Discussion
All PRO measures of IBD symptoms analyzed in patients with moderate to severe UC or CD from the phase 3 VISIBLE studies were consistently reduced week-on-week from baseline to week 6 of vedolizumab IV induction. Vedolizumab induction treatment had an early onset of effect on patient-reported symptoms, with mean reductions in baseline symptomatic PROs reported from week 1 for SF and RB symptoms of UC, and for SF and AP symptoms of CD.
In the UC cohort, clinically meaningful reductions in symptoms were achieved by the end of vedolizumab IV induction, including a 1-point decrease in mean RB subscores from baseline. Almost half of the patients with UC reported improvements in RB symptoms by week 6 (52.4% in the subgroup with moderate disease, with 32.2% achieving RB improvement by week 2 in this subgroup), and 40.2% of patients with severe UC at baseline also reported improvement in RB symptoms by the end of induction at week 6. Improvement in SF symptoms was reported by 11.6% of patients with moderate UC by week 2, rising to 26.6% by week 6. Weekly reductions in baseline SF over time followed a similar pattern for both the UC and CD disease cohorts and were apparently faster and of a greater magnitude in anti-TNFα-naive compared with anti-TNFα-experienced patients. In the CD cohort, 34.2% of anti-TNFα-naive patients reported SF improvement by week 6 compared with 29.5% in anti-TNFα-experienced patients. Patients with severe CD at baseline appeared to achieve the fastest and greatest magnitude of SF improvement of any subgroup analyzed. The proportion of patients with CD who rated their AP as moderate or severe at baseline was also reduced over the induction period; in the patient subgroup with severe AP at baseline, only 21.3% rated their pain as severe by week 6 and 14.6% reported no pain.
Prior anti-TNFα treatment did not have an obvious impact on the improvement in RB symptoms reported by patients with UC during vedolizumab induction treatment. Mean reductions in AP from baseline were also similar for anti-TNFα-naive and -experienced patients with CD. Further analyses conducted to identify the characteristics of rapid responder patients with early reductions in SF, including the potential influence of CS treatment at baseline or prior anti-TNFα treatment failure, did not find any evidence of factors associated with PRO improvement during induction. In a post hoc analysis of week 6 efficacy outcomes (clinical response, remission and mucosal healing) in patients with UC from the GEMINI 1 study, absolute differences between placebo and vedolizumab treatment were greater for anti-TNFα treatment-naive vs. -experienced patients, although risk ratios were similar for each group [25].
Improvements in patient-reported symptoms from baseline during induction were also consistent with reductions in other measures of disease activity (clinical activity scores and biomarkers) reported at week 6 after vedolizumab IV induction during the VISIBLE 1 and 2 studies [22,23]. Clinical response (defined as a reduction in total Mayo score of ≥3 points and ≥30% from baseline, with an accompanying decrease in RB subscore of ≥1 point or absolute RB subscore of ≤1) was achieved in 56% (215/383) of patients with UC in the VISIBLE 1 study at week 6 [22]. In VISIBLE 2, clinical response (defined as a ≥70-point decrease in CDAI score from baseline) was achieved by 64% (412/644) of patients with CD after vedolizumab IV induction [23]. Levels of the inflammatory biomarkers fecal calprotectin (FCP) and C-reactive protein measured at week 6 were also numerically lower compared with baseline in both studies [22,23]. In line with these findings from the VISIBLE studies, post hoc analyses of GEMINI study data also reported the early onset of patient-reported responses to vedolizumab IV induction [20].
In a comparative efficacy study (VARSITY), the speed of onset of vedolizumab’s therapeutic effect was compared favorably with that of adalimumab treatment in patients with moderate to severe UC. A difference in the rate of clinical response with vedolizumab vs. adalimumab treatment (defined as a reduction in partial Mayo score of ≥2 points and ≥25% from baseline, with an accompanying ≥1-point decrease in RB subscore or absolute RB subscore of ≤1 point) was observed from week 6 to week 52 [26]. Onset of response to vedolizumab treatment is known to be influenced by several patient factors including anti-TNFα treatment exposure [27], disease duration and baseline albumin and endoscopic activity. A clinical decision support tool, used to predict vedolizumab exposure-efficacy relationships and onset of action in patients with UC or CD, has been developed on the basis of these parameters using GEMINI 1 and 2 trial data and validated in separate study cohorts [28,29]. An analysis of efficacy data from vedolizumab-treated patients with UC in GEMINI 1 showed that levels of gut inflammation (as indicated by inflammatory biomarker FCP concentrations <100 µg/g) were predictive of clinical remission, mucosal healing and endoscopic remission outcomes achieved by patients at week 52 [30]. Across the time course of vedolizumab treatment, FCP levels at week 14 after induction dosing were the most predictive of disease activity outcomes in these patients at week 52 [31]. This included the disease control endpoint combining clinical, endoscopic, and histologic activity outcomes analyzed in the VARSITY study [32].
Utilizing PROs to facilitate disease management has become pivotal in many chronic diseases, including IBD [7,8]. From the patient’s perspective, a reduction in symptoms related to SF and abdominal discomfort may better signify remission than a complete absence of clinical symptoms [33]. STRIDE II guidelines also note the strong correlation between PROs and patient wellbeing in IBD, emphasizing the importance of early and frequent PRO assessment to monitor disease activity, with symptom relief considered to be the earliest treatment target [8]. Although there are currently no validated PRO tools for UC and CD [6,34], symptom-based PRO measures adapted from the Mayo score and CDAI are considered useful [8], especially for remote patient management settings necessitated during the COVID-19 pandemic owing to the suspension of in-person patient visits [35]. There is also evidence of PROs being responsive to treatment effects and showing correlations with some clinical and endoscopic endpoints [5,6,34]. As one example, the SF subscore component derived from the CDAI has been shown to independently correlate with mucosal ulceration, inflammation and strictures [36]. However, further work is needed in IBD to determine whether changes in PRO scores are well correlated with endoscopic, biochemical and histologic markers of disease activity.
Other limitations of this post hoc analysis are related to the design of the VISIBLE studies, including the open-label vedolizumab IV induction dosing, the limited number of patients contributing PRO data (especially in some subgroups), and the absence of a placebo control arm; however, an analysis of PRO data collected during vedolizumab IV induction from the double-blind placebo-controlled GEMINI studies demonstrated significant improvements in PROs compared with placebo through 6 weeks of vedolizumab IV induction in patients with UC or CD [20].
In conclusion, patient-reported symptoms of SF and RB in UC, and SF and AP in CD, were consistently reduced from baseline through 6 weeks of vedolizumab IV induction. Although some group sizes were small, meaningful reductions in patient-reported symptoms were measured, with many patients reporting early improvements in SF and RB symptoms, as well as reduced AP severity ratings for CD during induction. Patients who were anti-TNFα naive appeared to report greater and faster improvements in SF symptoms over the induction period compared with anti-TNFα-experienced patients, whereas reduction of RB and AP symptoms during vedolizumab induction was apparently less influenced by previous anti-TNFα treatment. These findings support the early onset of response to vedolizumab IV induction therapy in patients with moderate to severe UC or CD, as reported by improvements in patient-reported symptoms during this period.
Acknowledgements
We thank the patients who participated in the trials, their caregivers and the study investigators. Medical writing support was provided by Milena Wagner, PhD, and Isobel Lever, PhD, of Excel Scientific Solutions Inc., and funded by Takeda.
This study was funded by Takeda.
W.J.S. and E.G.M. contributed to the conception and design of the study. G.D.H., F.B., S.D., T.K., E.V.L. Jr, W.J.S. and S.V. contributed to the acquisition of the data. Q.D., D.L. and E.G.M. contributed to the analysis of the data. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the data, drafting the article or critically revising for intellectual content, and approved the final version for submission.
The datasets, 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 its de-identification, in compliance with applicable privacy laws, data protection and requirements for consent and anonymization.
Conflicts of interest
G.D.H. reports research support from Alimentiv, Bühlmann Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Prometheus, Pfizer and Takeda; lecture fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Takeda and Tillotts; consulting fees from AbbVie, Alimentiv, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Immunic, Johnson & Johnson, Protagonist, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Takeda, Tillotts and Ventyx. F.B. reports grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen and Takeda; honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Sandoz and Takeda; and was on speaker bureaus for AbbVie, Arena, Ferring, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer and Takeda. S.D. reports lecture fees from AbbVie, Allergan, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Hospira, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda, TiGenix, UCB and Vifor; consulting fees from AbbVie, Allergan, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Hospira, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda, TiGenix, UCB and Vifor. T.K. reports research support from AbbVie, Alfresa, Asahi Kasei Medical, EA Pharma, Kyorin, Mochida, Nippon Kayaku, Otsuka, Thermo Fisher Scientific and Zeria; consulting fees from AbbVie, Alfresa, Bristol Myers Squibb, Covidien, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Janssen, Kyorin, Mochida, Nippon Kayaku, Pfizer, Takeda and Thermo Fisher Scientific; lecture fees from AbbVie, Ajinomoto Bio-Pharma, Alfresa, Asahi Kasei Medical, Astellas, Celltrion, EA Pharma, Eisai, Gilead, Janssen, JIMRO, Kyorin, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mochida, Nippon Kayaku, Takeda and Zeria. E.V.L. Jr reports research support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, Pfizer, Receptos, Robarts Clinical Trials, Takeda, Theravance Biopharma and UCB; consulting fees from AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calibr, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Heatlh, Iota Biosciences, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic Therapeutics, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Protagonist, Scipher Medicine, Sun Pharma, Surrozen, Takeda and UCB; is a shareholder of Exact Sciences; and served as a medical editor for Healio/SLACK. W.J.S. reports research grants from AbbVie, Abivax, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Seres, Shire, Takeda and Theravance Biopharma; consulting fees from AbbVie, Abivax, Alfasigma, Alimentiv (previously Robarts Clinical Trials, owned by Alimentiv Health Trust), Allakos, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Atlantic, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, ClostraBio, Eli Lilly, Forbion, Galapagos, Genentech (Roche), GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Index, Iota Biosciences, Janssen, Morphic, Novartis, Oppilan Pharma (now Ventyx Biosciences), Pfizer, Pharm-Olam, Polpharma, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Protagonist, PTM, Seres, Shoreline Biosciences, Sublimity, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance Biopharma, Vedanta Biosciences, Ventyx Biosciences, Vimalan Biosciences, Vivreon Gastrosciences, Xencor and Zealand; stock or stock options from Allakos, BeiGene, Gossamer Bio, Oppilan Pharma (now Ventyx Biosciences), Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonist, Shoreline Biosciences, Ventyx Biosciences, Vimalan Biosciences and Vivreon Gastrosciences; and is an employee of Shoreline Biosciences. Spouse of W.J.S. reports being a consultant and holds stock/stock options in IVERIC Bio and Prometheus Laboratories; holds stock in Progenity and Oppilan Pharma (now Ventyx Biosciences); is an employee of and holds stock/stock options in Prometheus Biosciences; and holds stock/stock options in Ventyx Biosciences and Vimalan Biosciences. Q.D. is an employee of Cytel, subcontracted to Takeda at the time of the study. D.L., K.K. and E.G.M. are employees of and hold stock/stock options in Takeda. S.V. reports research support from AbbVie, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and Takeda; lecture fees from AbbVie, Centocor, Ferring, Genentech/Roche, Hospira, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Takeda and Tillotts; consulting fees from AbbVie, AbolerIS Pharma, AgomAb, Alimentiv, Arena, AstraZeneca, Avaxia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CVasThera, Dr Falk Pharma, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech-Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospira, IMIDomics, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Materia Prima, Merck Sharp & Dohme, MiroBio, Morphic, MRM Health, Mundipharma, Pfizer, ProDigest, Progenity, Prometheus, Robarts Clinical Trials, Second Genome, Shire, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, Tillotts and Zealand.
Supplementary Material
Footnotes
Graphical Abstract supplemental digital content 1, http://links.lww.com/EJGH/A996
Supplemental Digital Content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s website, www.eurojgh.com.
References
- 1.Cushing K, Higgins PDR. Management of Crohn disease: a review. JAMA. 2021; 325:69–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ordás I, Eckmann L, Talamini M, Baumgart DC, Sandborn WJ. Ulcerative colitis. Lancet. 2012; 380:1606–1619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Torres J, Mehandru S, Colombel JF, Peyrin-Biroulet L. Crohn’s disease. Lancet. 2017; 389:1741–1755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Irvine EJ. Quality of life of patients with ulcerative colitis: past, present, and future. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2008; 14:554–565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Jairath V, Khanna R, Zou GY, Stitt L, Mosli M, Vandervoort MK, et al. Development of interim patient-reported outcome measures for the assessment of ulcerative colitis disease activity in clinical trials. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015; 42:1200–1210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Khanna R, Zou G, D’Haens G, Feagan BG, Sandborn WJ, Vandervoort MK, et al. A retrospective analysis: the development of patient reported outcome measures for the assessment of Crohn’s disease activity. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015; 41:77–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Peyrin-Biroulet L, Sandborn W, Sands BE, Reinisch W, Bemelman W, Bryant RV, et al. Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE): determining therapeutic goals for treat-to-target. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015; 110:1324–1338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Turner D, Ricciuto A, Lewis A, D’Amico F, Dhaliwal J, Griffiths AM, et al.; International Organization for the Study of IBD. STRIDE-II: an update on the Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE) initiative of the International Organization for the Study of IBD (IOIBD): determining therapeutic goals for treat-to-target strategies in IBD. Gastroenterology. 2021; 160:1570–1583. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Spiegel BM, Bolus R, Agarwal N, Sayuk G, Harris LA, Lucak S, et al. Measuring symptoms in the irritable bowel syndrome: development of a framework for clinical trials. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010; 32:1275–1291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Peyrin-Biroulet L, Bressenot A, Kampman W. Histologic remission: the ultimate therapeutic goal in ulcerative colitis? Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014; 12:929–934.e2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Mohammed N, Subramanian V. Clinical relevance of endoscopic assessment of inflammation in ulcerative colitis: can endoscopic evaluation predict outcomes? World J Gastroenterol. 2016; 22:9324–9332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Feuerstein JD, Isaacs KL, Schneider Y, Siddique SM, Falck-Ytter Y, Singh S; AGA Institute Clinical Guidelines Committee. AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2020; 158:1450–1461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Torres J, Bonovas S, Doherty G, Kucharzik T, Gisbert JP, Raine T, et al. ECCO Guidelines on therapeutics in Crohn’s disease: medical treatment. J Crohns Colitis. 2020; 14:4–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc. Entyvio (vedolizumab) prescribing information. Lexington, MA; 2023. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Takeda Pharma A/S. Entyvio INN-vedolizumab summary of product characteristics. Vallensbaek Strand, Denmark; 2023. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, Sands BE, Hanauer S, Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, et al.; GEMINI 1 Study Group. Vedolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369:699–710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Loftus EV, Jr, Feagan BG, Panaccione R, Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Sands BE, et al. Long-term safety of vedolizumab for inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020; 52:1353–1365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, Hanauer S, Colombel JF, Sands BE, et al.; GEMINI 2 Study Group. Vedolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369:711–721. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Sands BE, Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Sy R, et al. Effects of vedolizumab induction therapy for patients with Crohn’s disease in whom tumor necrosis factor antagonist treatment failed. Gastroenterology. 2014; 147:618–627.e3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Feagan BG, Lasch K, Lissoos T, Cao C, Wojtowicz AM, Khalid JM, et al. Rapid response to vedolizumab therapy in biologic-naive patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019; 17:130–138.e7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Sands BE, Sandborn WJ, Van Assche G, Lukas M, Xu J, James A, et al. Vedolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for Crohn’s disease in patients naïve to or who have failed tumor necrosis factor antagonist therapy. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017; 23:97–106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Sandborn WJ, Baert F, Danese S, Krznarić Ž, Kobayashi T, Yao X, et al. Efficacy and safety of vedolizumab subcutaneous formulation in a randomized trial of patients with ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2020; 158:562–572.e12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Vermeire S, D’Haens G, Baert F, Danese S, Kobayashi T, Loftus EV, Jr, et al. Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous vedolizumab in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease: results from the VISIBLE 2 randomised trial. J Crohns Colitis. 2022; 16:27–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Ulcerative colitis: clinical trial endpoints guidance for industry. Silver Spring Maryland; 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Feagan BG, Rubin DT, Danese S, Vermeire S, Abhyankar B, Sankoh S, et al. Efficacy of vedolizumab induction and maintenance therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis, regardless of prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor antagonists. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; 15:229–239.e5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Sands BE, Peyrin-Biroulet L, Loftus EV, Jr, Danese S, Colombel JF, Törüner M, et al.; VARSITY Study Group. Vedolizumab versus adalimumab for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2019; 381:1215–1226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Nagahori M, Watanabe K, Motoya S, Ogata H, Kanai T, Matsui T, et al. Week 2 symptomatic response with vedolizumab as a predictive factor in Japanese anti-TNFα-naive patients with ulcerative colitis: a post hoc analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Digestion. 2021; 102:742–752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Dulai PS, Singh S, Vande Casteele N, Meserve J, Winters A, Chablaney S, et al. Development and validation of clinical scoring tool to predict outcomes of treatment with vedolizumab in patients with ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020; 18:2952–2961.e8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Dulai PS, Peyrin-Biroulet L, Demuth D, Lasch K, Hahn KA, Lindner D, et al. Early intervention with vedolizumab on longer term surgery rates in Crohn’s disease: post hoc analysis of the GEMINI phase 3 and long-term safety programs. J Crohns Colitis. 2020; 15:195–202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Reinisch W, Bressler B, Curtis R, Parikh A, Yang H, Rosario M, et al. Fecal calprotectin responses following induction therapy with vedolizumab in moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: a post hoc analysis of GEMINI 1. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2019; 25:803–810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Dulai PS, Feagan BG, Sands BE, Chen J, Lasch K, Lirio RA. Prognostic value of fecal calprotectin to inform treat-to-target monitoring in ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023; 21:456–466. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Schreiber S, Galinsky K, Aubrecht J, Juarez J, Agboton C, Loftus EV, Jr, et al. P547 Early modification of inflammatory burden through treatment with vedolizumab or adalimumab is predictive of long-term treatment success in patients with ulcerative colitis from the VARSITY Study. J Crohns Colitis. 2022; 16(Suppl 1):i494–i495. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Kitchen H, Farrar M, Al-zubeidi T, Pegram H, Hunter T, Naegeli AN, et al. Patient’s perspective on disease burden, remission definition, and symptoms associated with treatment seeking: a qualitative study in adult and adolescent patients with Crohn’s disease. Crohns Colitis 360. 2020; 2:otaa033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Higgins PDR, Harding G, Revicki DA, Globe G, Patrick DL, Fitzgerald K, et al. Development and validation of the ulcerative colitis patient-reported outcomes signs and symptoms (UC-pro/SS) diary. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017; 2:26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Pinto S, Loddo E, Paba S, Favale A, Chicco F, Onali S, et al. Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis patient-reported outcomes signs and symptoms for the remote management of inflammatory bowel disease during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021; 5:48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Lewis JD, Rutgeerts P, Feagan BG, D’Haens G, Danese S, Colombel JF, et al. Correlation of stool frequency and abdominal pain measures with simple endoscopic score for Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2020; 26:304–313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.