Skip to main content
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics logoLink to Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics
. 2019 May 7;15(10):2482–2490. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2019.1591139

A product review of vedolizumab in inflammatory bowel disease

Robert Battat a,b, Parambir S Dulai a,b, Vipul Jairath b,c,d, Niels Vande Casteele a,b,
PMCID: PMC6816403  PMID: 30897022

ABSTRACT

Vedolizumab is a monoclonal antibody to the α4β7 integrin that selectively reduces intestinal lymphocyte trafficking, thereby providing a safe and effective treatment option for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This product review outlines the unique mechanism of vedolizumab in addition to efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data from clinical trials, observational studies and meta-analyses. Vedolizumab has been shown to be effective as a first- or second-line induction and maintenance therapy in both ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD). Prolonged induction therapy may increase efficacy, particularly in tumor necrosis factor-alpha-exposed CD patients. To date, no drug-specific safety signals have been identified. In addition to the presence of an apparent exposure-response relationship, vedolizumab has demonstrated consistent pharmacodynamic effects on α4β7, mucosal vascular addressin cell adhesion molecule 1 and other cell adhesion molecules. Future efforts should focus on identifying predictive biomarkers capable of guiding personalized IBD treatment with vedolizumab.

KEYWORDS: Anti-integrin therapy, Crohn’s disease, gut-selective, inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis, vedolizumab

Introduction

Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) are chronic idiopathic inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). In North America, UC has an incidence of up to 23.1 per 100,000 person-years and a prevalence of 139.8 to 286.3 per 100,000 persons.1 Patients typically present with rectal bleeding, diarrhea and abdominal pain. Despite the best available pharmacotherapy, up to 25% of patients experience a refractory disease course.2 Given that long-term, uncontrolled inflammation is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer, approximately 30% of these patients ultimately require colectomy.3

The annual incidence and prevalence of CD in North America have been reported to be as high as 23.8 per 100,000 person-years and 318.5 per 100,000 persons, respectively.1 While inflammation is limited to the mucosa of the large bowel in UC, any location in the gastrointestinal tract can be affected by CD and transmural involvement is common. Consequently, CD patients are predisposed to develop penetrating complications such as strictures and fistulas.46 Surgery is required in up to 80% of CD patients due to lack of response and management of disease-related complications.7

Clinical symptoms of IBD vary according to disease phenotype and location. For example, inflammatory disease often manifests as diarrhea and bleeding, strictures may cause bowel obstructions with abdominal pain, and perianal fistulas are frequently associated with leakage, pain, and abscess formation. Extra-intestinal manifestations (EIMs), including arthralgias, aphthous stomatitis, and uveitis can occur in both UC and CD, although they are more common in the latter.8,9

Moderate-to-severe UC is often treated with a tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) antagonist (infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab) – administered either as monotherapy or in combination with an immunosuppressant (thiopurines or methotrexate) – or the Janus kinase (JAK) 1/3 inhibitor tofacitinib. Similarly, in moderate-to-severe CD, TNF-α antagonist (infliximab, adalimumab and certolizumab pegol) monotherapy, combination therapy or the interleukin (IL) 12/23 antagonist ustekinumab are utilized. Corticosteroids are effective for inducing clinical remission, however it is recommended that they be reserved for short-term rescue therapy.10

Unfortunately, IBD patients receiving TNF-α antagonists, ustekinumab and tofacitinib are prone to experience either primary non-response or secondary loss of response.11 Since a substantial proportion of patients require alternative therapeutic options, coupled with the fact that these drugs increase the risk of developing serious infection, there is a need for novel IBD therapies with improved safety profiles.

Vedolizumab (Entyvio, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd, Japan; previous versions: LDP02, MLN02, and MLN0002) is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody directed against the α4β7 integrin that selectively blocks leukocyte binding to gut endothelium. Approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe UC and CD by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014, vedolizumab may be used as a first-line biologic agent or in patients who are refractory to TNF-α antagonist therapy.12,13 This product review outlines the unique mechanism of action of vedolizumab, and summarizes clinical, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic data from clinical trials and real-world cohorts.

Mechanism of action and mechanistic rationale

Natalizumab (Tysabri, Biogen, Cambridge, MA), a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits leukocyte migration to the gut by binding to the α4 subunit of α4β1- and α4β7-integrins on T cells, was the first approved anti-integrin therapy for IBD. While effective in treating moderate-to-severe CD,14,15 clinical application of natalizumab has been limited by an increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). A rare but fatal disease, PML occurs when α4β1-vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1) interactions are impaired. This process disrupts immune surveillance in the kidney, blocks T-cell trafficking to the brain, and ultimately leads to reactivation of the John Cunningham virus.1618

Another anti-integrin therapy, vedolizumab is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody that recognizes a conformational epitope of the α4β7 integrin heterodimer. A transmembrane cell adhesion protein, α4β7 is expressed on naïve T and B cell lymphocytes as well as on innate immune cells.19,20 The ligand for α4β7 (mucosal vascular addressin cell adhesion molecule 1 [MAdCAM-1]) is found primarily in endothelial cells within the gastrointestinal track and gut-associated lymph tissue.21 Thus, the effect of vedolizumab is restricted to these areas. Since vedolizumab has no affinity for the α4 subunit, α4β1-VCAM-1 interactions remain uninhibited and there is no theoretical risk of PML.2225

Pre-clinical development of vedolizumab

Pre-clinical studies initially evaluated murine antibodies targeting various cell adhesion molecules in the cotton top tamarin (CTT), a primate known to spontaneously develop a disease resembling ulcerative colitis. In a randomized, blinded trial in CTTs, the anti-a4 integrin monoclonal antibody was shown to significantly reduce histologic disease activity compared to placebo (P = 0.005).26 Similarly, another CTT study found that a murine monoclonal antibody to α4β7 significantly reduced diarrhea and histologic disease activity within seventy-two hours compared to placebo. Furthermore, no toxicity was observed in this study at day 20. Neither liver function, renal function nor leukopenia were observed. A trend toward lymphocytosis was observed in CTTs on therapy compared to placebo.27 Long-term safety studies in animals have not been performed.

Clinical development of vedolizumab

The clinical development of vedolizumab began with a phase 1b/2a proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial (RCT) in which 29 patients with moderate-to-severe UC received single doses of LPD-02 (0.15 mg/kg subcutaneously, or 0.15, 0.5, or 2.0 mg/kg intravenously), a humanized monoclonal antibody to α4β7 derived from an NS0 mouse myeloma cell line, or placebo (Table 1). Forty percent of patients who received 0.5 mg/kg of LPD-02 achieved deep remission.28 Conversely, none of the placebo patients achieved this outcome. This trial did not demonstrate any signal for adverse events.

Table 1.

Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of vedolizumab.

Study Formulation Patients Phase Duration Clinical Endpoints Notes
Feagan 200028 LDP-02 Moderate-severe UC
N = 29
1b/2a 30 days Mayo Clinic Score
Endoscopic response
Endoscopic remission
-Reported in abstract form only
Feagan 200529 LDP-02/MLN02 Moderate-severe UC
N = 181
2 6 weeks Clinical response
Clinical remission
Endoscopic response
Endoscopic remission
-Patients had received no therapy or mesalamine prior to study
Parikh 201230 Vedolizumab Mild UC
N = 47
2 253 days Clinical response
Fecal calprotectin
-Study not powered for efficacy
Feagan 201331
GEMINI 1
Vedolizumab Moderate-severe UC
N = 895
3 6 weeks
52 weeks
Clinical response
Clinical remission
Mucosal healing
-Integrated induction and maintenance trials
-<50% patients TNF antagonist-exposed
Feagan 200832 LDP-02/
MLN0002
Moderate-severe CD
N = 185
2 57 days Clinical response
Clinical remission
-Concomitant mesalamine and antibiotics were permitted if patient was stable for 2 weeks prior to study
Sandborn 2013
GEMINI 233
Vedolizumab Moderate-severe CD
N = 1115
3 6 weeks
52 weeks
Clinical response
Clinical remission
-Integrated induction and maintenance trials
-<50% patients TNF antagonist-exposed
Sands 2014
GEMINI 334
Vedolizumab Moderate-severe CD
N = 416
3 10 weeks Clinical response
Clinical remission
-Patients had failure to respond/loss of response or intolerance to corticosteroids, immunosuppressants or TNF antagonists within 5 years

A phase 2 RCT of was initiated in 181 UC patients using the same LPD-02 compound. Patients with moderate-to-severe disease received MLN02 0.5 mg/kg, 2.0 mg/kg, or placebo intravenously on days 1 and 29.29 Six weeks after starting therapy, higher rates of clinical (0.5 mg/kg: 33%, 19/58; 2 mg/kg: 32%, 19/60; placebo: 14%, 9/63, p = 0.03) and endoscopic (0.5 mg/kg: 28%, 16/58; 2 mg/kg: 12%, 7/60; placebo: 8%, 5/63, p = 0.007) remission were observed in all treatment groups compared to placebo. However, a substantial proportion of patients (44%, 52/118) formed anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) by week eight, with the majority of ADA-positive patients demonstrating high titers (54%, 28/52). The presence of ADAs was associated with reduced drug concentration and clinical remission rates similar to placebo. To reduce the immunogenic potential of MLN-02, a new formulation (vedolizumab) was developed using a Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell-based expression system. The idiotype of the original molecule was unaffected by this change; and a highly similar in vitro potency of the product was observed with the novel processing technology.30 Nevertheless, manufacturing changes in the production of monoclonal antibodies can influence pharmacologic properties in vivo. For example, modifications to the glycosylation pattern may affect immunogenic chracteristics.35 Therefore, a dose-ranging clinical trial in UC patients was conducted to study the clinical pharmacology, safety, and efficacy of CHO cell-derived vedolizumab, given at more frequent and higher doses than in previous studies. In this phase 2 study, patients with mild-to-moderate UC received either vedolizumab (2.0, 6.0, or 10.0 mg/kg) or placebo on days 1, 15, 29, and 85.30 Clinical response rates in treatment groups exceeded 50% between day 29 and day 253, while clinical response rates ranged between 22% and 33% in the placebo group. Furthermore, clinical remission rates were numerically higher in vedolizumab- versus placebo-treated patients (53%-79% vs. 25%-50%, respectively). It should be noted that formal efficacy analyses were not performed as the study was designed to evaluate safety and immunogenicity. Immunogenicity rates were found to be low (11%, 4/37) and no infusion reactions were reported. Thirty-eight patients continued into an open-label extension (OLE) study comprised of 56 UC and 19 CD patients. High rates of clinical remission (88%) were observed at day 491.36

The GEMINI 1 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy in moderate-to-severe UC.31 A single dose of vedolizumab (300 mg IV) or placebo was administered at days 1 and 15. At week 6, there was a statistically significant difference in clinical response (47.1% vs. 25.5%, p < 0.001), clinical remission (16.9% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.001) and mucosal healing (40.9% vs. 24.8%, p = 0.001) rates between the vedolizumab and placebo groups. Week 6 clinical responders, in addition to patients who responded to open-label vedolizumab induction therapy, were enrolled in the maintenance trial and received placebo or vedolizumab every 4 or 8 weeks until week 52. The vedolizumab groups had superior clinical remission (every 8 weeks: 41.8%, p < 0.001; every 4 weeks: 44.8%, p < 0.001; placebo: 15.9%) and mucosal healing rates compared to placebo. A long-term OLE observed high clinical response (98%) and remission (90%) rates at week 248 among patients who finished the GEMINI 1 maintenance trial.37

The first trial to evaluate vedolizumab in CD was a phase 2 RCT in which patients with moderate-to-severe disease were treated with MLN0002 2.0 mg/kg, MLN0002 0.5 mg/kg, or placebo intravenously at days 1 and 29.32 Although the time required to achieve clinical response was shorter in the 2 mg/kg treatment group compared to placebo (17 vs. 42 days, p = 0.04), clinical response rates in treatment groups were only higher at day 15 but not days 8, 29, 43, and 57. However, day 57 clinical response (p = 0.05) and clinical remission rates at days 15, 29 and 57 (p = 0.009, 0.047, and 0.049, respectively) were higher in the 2 mg/kg treatment group compared to placebo. In an OLE bridging study, a high proportion of CD patients achieved clinical remission (40%) and response (70%) by day 491.36

GEMINI 2, a phase 3 RCT of vedolizumab in moderately-to-severely active CD, had an analogous design to GEMINI 1.33 Although the rate of clinical response (defined as a minimum 100-point decrease in CDAI score) was similar between the vedolizumab and placebo groups (31.4% vs. 25.7%, p = 0.23), clinical remission rates were significantly higher with vedolizumab (14.5% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.02). Likewise, clinical remission rates were higher in the treatment groups compared to placebo (every 8 weeks: 39%, p < 0.001, every 4 weeks: 36.4%, p = 0.004, placebo: 21.6%) during the maintenance trial.

Given that a similar proportion of patients in the vedolizumab and placebo groups experienced clinical response in the GEMINI 2 trial, GEMINI 3 was designed to evaluate the efficacy of induction therapy at a later time point (week 10), and the primary analysis was performed in patients who had failed or were intolerant to TNF-α antagonists.34 The clinical remission rates was similar between groups at week 6 (p = 0.433), but higher in the vedolizumab groups by week 10 (26.6% vs. 12.1%, p = 0.001). Furthermore, patients treated with vedolizumab had higher week 6 (p = 0.001) and week 10 (46.8% vs. 24.8%, p < 0.0001) CDAI-100 response rates.

A secondary analysis in TNF-α antagonist naïve CD patients demonstrated that vedolizumab was statistically superior to placebo for induction of clinical remission at week 10 (35.3% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.025). A long-term OLE study in patients enrolled in the GEMINI 2 trial also found high clinical response (95%) and remission (89%) rates in those who finished the maintenance trial with a consistent benefit observed between weeks 52 and 248.38

Real-world use of vedolizumab

Clinical use of vedolizumab has been widespread in both UC and CD since regulatory approval in 2014, and data from multiple real-world cohorts are now available.39 In UC, pooled efficacy data from nine open-label cohorts (n = 571) identified week 6 clinical response and remission rates of 43% (95% confidence interval [CI] 37–49%) and 25% (95% CI 12–45%), respectively.40 Furthermore, the maintenance of clinical remission rate was approximately 40% at one year. However, evidence suggest that approximately 40% of patients discontinue vedolizumab therapy for a variety of reasons (e.g. loss of response, intolerance, patient or physician preference or access to medications).41,42

The Groupe d’Etude Therapeutique des Affections Inflammatoires du tube Digestif (GETAID) reported data from 121 patients in 41 centers in France. All patients had failed TNF-α antagonist therapy and the rate of corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 14 was 36% after initiating vedolizumab therapy.43

A cohort study of 115 UC patients from Germany demonstrated week 6 and week 14 clinical remission rates of 11.3% and 23.5%, respectively.44 Nearly three quarters of the patients were TNF-α antagonist naïve, and higher clinical remission rates were observed in these patients compared to those with prior TNF-α antagonist exposure (39.3 vs.18.5%, p = 0.023).

The VICTORY (Vedolizumab for Health Outcomes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease) consortium evaluated 321 vedolizumab-treated UC patients in the United States. Most patients (71%) in this cohort had previously failed TNF-α antagonist therapy. Cumulative rates of clinical and endoscopic remission were 51% and 41% at 12 months, respectively.45 Prior TNF-α antagonist exposure was associated with lower clinical (hazard ratio [HR] 0.53, 95% CI 0.38–0.75) and endoscopic remission rates (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29–0.88).

In CD, a pooled analysis (n = 994) reported week 6 clinical response and remission rates of 54% (95% CI 41–66%) and 22% (95% CI 13–35%), respectively.40 The pooled week 52 clinical remission rate was 32% (95% CI 12–62%).

A total of 212 patients with moderate-to-severe CD were analyzed by the VICTORY consortium.46 Clinical remission, mucosal healing, and deep remission rates at 12 months were 35%, 63%, and 26%, respectively. In this cohort, prior TNF-α antagonist exposure had a HR of 0.40 (95% CI 0.20–0.81) for treatment response in comparison to TNF-α antagonist-naïve patients44,4749 which is consistent with results of other studies.42,46,48,50

Safety of vedolizumab

In GEMINI 1, the between-group differences in adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) rates were not statistically significant. Of the 154 patients enrolled in the OLE study, 17 experienced AEs that led to discontinuation. While 44 SAEs were reported in the OLE, a minority (7/44) were considered to be drug-related.37 In the GEMINI 2 trial SAEs occurred more often (24.4%) in vedolizumab-treated patients relative to placebo (15.3%).33 Four deaths occurred in the vedolizumab group compared with one in the placebo group. However, it should be acknowledged that these rates were not exposure adjusted. In the GEMINI 3 trial34 patients receiving vedolizumab and placebo experienced similar rates of AEs, with SAEs occurring in fewer than 1% of patients. While 41 CD patients in the GEMINI OLE study experienced SAEs, all but three of these were deemed drug-related.38 In total, 15 patients discontinued treatment due to AEs.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs that included 1122 UC patients reported similar SAE rates for vedolizumab- and placebo-treated patients (12% [97/775] vs. 12% [43/347] RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.73–1.42).51 Another pooled analysis of vedolizumab safety data based on six RCTs enrolling a total of 2830 UC and CD patients demonstrated lower exposure-adjusted incidence rates for AEs and SAEs in vedolizumab compared to placebo groups.52 Prolonged exposure to vedolizumab did not appear to increase the AE and SAE rates. Furthermore, no between-group difference was observed with respect to infection and serious infection rates. Serious infections (including Clostridium difficile infection) occurred in less than 0.6% of patients. The VICTORY consortium reported safety data from 1087 patients (650 with CD and 437 with UC). The SAE rate was 5.9 per 100 patient years of exposure (PYE) while the infection rate was 7.9 per 100 PYE.53 No cases of PML have been reported in any controlled trials or OLE studies. In July 2018, one HIV-positive CD patient receiving vedolizumab developed PML, which an adjudication committee attributed to HIV in combination with prolonged immunosuppressant medication use. A systematic review of safety data from six observational open-label cohorts54 comprised of 1049 patients found a total non-infectious AE rate of 15.8%, with the most common individual AE being arthralgias (3.1%). These findings are consistent with data reported by the VICTORY consortium. Although observational studies suggest that vedolizumab use results in post-operative complications5558, safety analyses from the GEMINI trials and a meta-analysis of observational studies do not support this association.59,60

Subcutaneous formulation

Recently, a phase 3 RCT of a novel subcutaneous vedolizumab formulation was performed in UC (VISIBLE 1). After receiving an open-label IV vedolizumab induction dose identical to that in the GEMINI trials, 216 patients were randomized to vedolizumab 108 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks, vedolizumab 300 mg IV every 8 weeks, or placebo for up to 52 weeks. Clinical remission rates at week 52 were higher with both subcutaneous vedolizumab (46.2%, 49/106) and IV vedolizumab (42.6%, 23/54) compared to placebo (14.3%, 8/56, p < 0.001). Additionally, mucosal healing rates were higher with subcutaneous vedolizumab (56.6%, 61/108) relative to placebo (21.4%, 12/56, p < 0.001). Consistent ADA rates were demonstrated with both SC (5.7%) and IV vedolizumab (5.6%).61

Immunogenicity

The first study to report immunogenicity rates associated with the current formulation of vedolizumab was the open-label “bridging” study. Four percent (3/72) of patients developed ADAs, and one patient experienced an infusion reaction.36 In GEMINI 1, ADAs were detected in 3.7% of patient samples. However, only 1.0% of patients had persistently positive ADAs at a consecutive measurement. Concomitant immunosuppressive therapy was associated with decreased immunogenicity. Two patients experienced clinically-important infusion reactions that were ADA-related. The GEMINI 2 and 3 trials had comparably low ADA rates and effects of concomitant immunosuppressive therapy. Of note, these trials measured ADAs using assays that were not drug-tolerant, which have limited ADA detection in the presence of vedolizumab.62

Therapeutic drug monitoring with vedolizumab

There is emerging evidence supporting an association between serum vedolizumab concentration and efficacy outcomes. In the GEMINI 1 and 2 trials, it was observed that increased vedolizumab serum concentrations were associated with higher clinical response and remission rates.31,33 Detailed exposure-response analyses of these clinical studies found that the probability of achieving clinical remission, clinical response, and mucosal healing in patients with UC at week 6 increased by 31%, 34%, and 43% respectively, from concentration quartile 1 to 4.63,64 A similar exposure-response for clinical remission was observed for patients with CD, although the trend was less pronounced in this population. Factors associated with a higher probability of clinical remission included higher serum albumin, lower fecal calprotectin (in patients with UC), lower C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations (in patients with CD), and no prior TNF-α exposure.63,64 The positive relationship between vedolizumab serum concentration and efficacy outcomes has been observed in several cohort studies.6571 In a study by Dreesen and colleagues that included 179 patients (66 UC, 113 CD), thresholds of >30.0 µg/mL at week 2, >24.0 µg/mL at week 6, and >14.0 µg/mL during maintenance therapy were associated with a higher probability of attaining effectiveness endpoints.70 Similarly, in a study by Yacoub et al. (n = 82; 43 UC, 39 CD) a vedolizumab serum concentration of >18 µg/mL at week 6 was associated with mucosal healing in the first year of therapy.68 Since the aforementioned studies were retrospective, the causal relationship between exposure and response cannot be assessed. Furthermore, comparison of absolute concentrations across different studies is hampered by a lack of cross-comparative studies evaluating the operating characteristics of vedolizumab serum concentration assays.

Pharmacokinetics of vedolizumab

The pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of vedolizumab was evaluated in healthy volunteers and patients with IBD using a 2-compartment model with parallel components of linear and nonlinear elimination.72 The linear elimination half-life of vedolizumab was estimated to be 25.5 days, with linear clearance values of 0.159 L/day and 0.155 L/day in patients with UC and CD, respectively. Interindividual variability was partly explained by differences between patients in albumin concentration and body weight. Since albumin and CRP were strongly correlated, any potential effect of CRP on linear vedolizumab clearance was already accounted for in the model by incorporating albumin. In contrast to observations for other monoclonal antibodies (i.e. infliximab)73 use of concomitant immunosuppressants and presence of ADAs did not affect clearance, but inferences regarding this impact are limited by the low rate of ADAs observed in the GEMINI trials. Interindividual variabilities (% coefficient of variation [CV]) for the final population PK model were 35% for linear clearance and 19% for volume of distribution; residual variance was 24%.

Using a MAdCAM-1 assay, it was observed that α4β7 receptor occupation was maintained at serum vedolizumab concentrations considered to be subtherapeutic.72 Full saturation is expected to occur at vedolizumab serum concentrations of 1 µg/mL, based on the EC50 estimate of 0.093 µg/mL from the population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model. This raises the question whether receptor occupation is necessary but not sufficient for efficacy. Future studies are needed to further examine receptor occupation and drug exposure in mucosal tissue.

Pharmacodynamics of vedolizumab

A substantial proportion of patients do not respond to vedolizumab. Thus, markers are needed to determine appropriate candidates for treatment initiation and continuation.31,33,51,66,7477 Understanding the pharmacodynamic effect of vedolizumab may help to identify predictive biomarkers capable of facilitating clinical decision making.

Studies have assessed the effect of vedolizumab on its target, α4β7, and its ligand, s-MAdCAM1. Transmembrane α4β7 expression has been evaluated using flow cytometry on peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) in vedolizumab-treated patients.78,79 Importantly, transmembrane α4β7 has consistently demonstrated to have near-complete occupancy during both induction and maintenance therapy.66 Studies have also demonstrated that vedolizumab therapy is associated with increased circulating lymphocytes.26 Consistent with this finding and evidence that lymphocyte trafficking to the gut is mediated by α4β725 symptom reduction is associated with increased expression of α4β7.79 Furthermore, a recent study in 32 UC patients found that soluble α4β7 consistently increased compared to baseline levels in all vedolizumab treated patients. Additionally, α4β7 concentration increased more rapidly and was higher in those achieving remission.80 Another study utilizing flow cytometry in UC patients demonstrated that those achieving clinical response had higher baseline surface α4β7 expression on peripheral lymphocytes prior to therapy and more T cells in which transmembrane α4β7 was bound to vedolizumab.78

In the context of inflammatory pathways, TNF-α induces expression of transmembrane MAdCAM-1 in gastrointestinal tissue.81,82 Based on flow cytometry, vedolizumab administration completely inhibits MAdCAM-1 binding to α4β7 in IBD patients.30,83 Furthermore, pharmacodynamic changes in a soluble form of MAdCAM (s-MAdCAM-1) with therapy has been demonstrated. s-MAdCAM1 is detectable in serum and may provide an indirect measure of MAdCAM-1 expression.84 In a randomized phase 2 study, a humanized monoclonal antibody against MAdCAM-1, PF-00547659, showed efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis with a dose-dependent reduction in s-MAdCAM1. There was 90–98% suppression of s-MAdCAM-1 at the higher treatment doses.85 A retrospective study in both CD and UC patients treated with vedolizumab demonstrated that clinical remission was associated with undetectable s-MAdCAM-1 concentrations. s-MAdCAM-1 concentrations decreased in all patients, but baseline s-MAdCAM-1 concentrations were not associated with outcomes.86 A recent study in UC patients showed similar findings but also demonstrated a more rapid decline in s-MAdCAM-1 those achieving remission.80

Several studies also support increased compensatory expression of alternative cell adhesion molecules with vedolizumab therapy. Vedolizumab-treated UC patients with worse outcomes have higher increases in α4β1+ on T cells.79 Consistent with this, a recent study in UC patients demonstrated soluble transmembrane VCAM-1 and soluble intracellular adhesion molecule concentrations declined more rapidly in patients achieving remission.80 In CD patients, α4β1 measurement increased in intestinal samples of patients receiving vedolizumab and in vivo homing of CD T cells to the ileum was not reduced by α4β7 blockade.87

Expert opinion

Vedolizumab is an effective therapy for achieving durable remission in both patients with UC and CD. Furthermore, it has a favorable safety profile. Although the efficacy of vedolizumab is affected by prior TNF antagonist exposure, future studies are needed to delineate the use of predictive biomarkers in guiding patient selection towards the most effective first-line or subsequent vedolizumab therapy. Furthermore, future research is needed to determine the effects of central compartment exposure in relation to target organ tissue, given the advent of locally-acting biologic medications.88

Conclusions

Vedolizumab has a unique, gut-specific mechanism of action that confers both a favorable efficacy and safety profile in UC and CD patients. A substantial amount of published data originating from both clinical trials and large real-world cohorts is available. Observed immunogenicity rates with vedolizumab are low, and an exposure-response relationship is apparent. Vedolizumab therapy has consistent pharmacodynamic effects on α4β7, MAdCAM-1 and other cell adhesion molecules, which may serve as biomarkers of response. and ultimately enable personalized vedolizumab management in patients with IBD.

Abbreviations

ADA

Anti-drug antibody

AE

Adverse event

CD

Crohn’s disease

CHO

Chinese hamster ovary cell

CI

Confidence interval

CRP

C-reactive protein

EIM

Extra-intestinal manifestation

EMA

European Medicines Agency

FDA

Food and Drug Administration

IBD

Inflammatory bowel disease

IL

Interleukin

JAK

Janus kinase

PML

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy

MAdCAM-1

Mucosal vascular addressin cell adhesion molecule 1

PYE

Patient years of exposure

RCT

Randomized controlled trial

SAE

Serious adverse event

TNF-α

Tumor necrosis factor-alpha

UC

Ulcerative colitis

VCAM-1

vascular cell adhesion molecule 1

Funding Statement

NVC holds a Research Scholar Award [RSA] from the American Gastroenterological Association [AGA].

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

Robert Battat: has no conflicts to declare.

Parambir S. Dulai: has received grants and other funding from Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and grants from Pfizer.

Vipul Jairath: has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Genetech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Pendopharm, Robarts Clinical Trials, Sandoz, Takeda, and Topivert; and speaker’s fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and Shire.

Niels Vande Casteele: has received grant/research support from R-Biopharm and Takeda; and consulting fees from Janssen, Pfizer, Progenity, Prometheus, Takeda and UCB.

References

  • 1.Ng SC, Shi HY, Hamidi N, Underwood FE, Tang W, Benchimol EI, Panaccione R, Ghosh S, Wu JCY, Chan FKL, et al. Worldwide incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in the 21st century: A systematic review of population-based studies. Lancet. 2018;390(10114):2769–78. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32448-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lutgens MW, van Oijen MG, van der Heijden GJ, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD, Oldenburg B.. Declining risk of colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: an updated meta-analysis of population-based cohort studies. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013;19(4):789–99. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0b013e31828029c0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bitton A, Buie D, Enns R, Feagan BG, Jones JL, Marshall JK, Whittaker S, Griffiths AM, Panaccione R. Treatment of hospitalized adult patients with severe ulcerative colitis: toronto consensus statements. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(2):179–94. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2011.386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Danese S, Fiocchi C. Ulcerative colitis. N Eng J Med. 2011;365(18):1713–25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1102942. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ananthakrishnan AN. Epidemiology and risk factors for IBD. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;12(4):205–17. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2015.34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cosnes J, Cattan S, Blain A, Beaugerie L, Carbonnel F, Parc R, Gendre JP. Long-term evolution of disease behavior of Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2002;8:244–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Munkholm P, Langholz E, Davidsen M, Binder V. Disease activity courses in a regional cohort of Crohn’s disease patients. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1995;30:699–706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Baumgart DC, Sandborn WJ. Crohn’s disease. Lancet. 2012;380(9853):1590–605. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60026-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Vavricka SR, Brun L, Ballabeni P, Pittet V, Prinz Vavricka BM, Zeitz J, Rogler G, Schoepfer AM. Frequency and risk factors for extraintestinal manifestations in the Swiss inflammatory bowel disease cohort. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106(1):110–19. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2010.343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lichtenstein GR, Loftus EV, Isaacs KL, Regueiro MD, Gerson LB, Sands BE. ACG clinical guideline: management of Crohn’s disease in adults. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(4):481–517. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2018.27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ben-Horin S, Kopylov U, Chowers Y. Optimizing anti-TNF treatments in inflammatory bowel disease. Autoimmun Rev. 2014;13(1):24–30. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2013.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bressler B, Marshall JK, Bernstein CN, Bitton A, Jones J, Leontiadis GI, Panaccione R, Steinhart AH, Tse F, Feagan B, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the medical management of nonhospitalized ulcerative colitis: the Toronto consensus. Gastroenterology. 2015;148(5):1035–1058.e1033. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Dassopoulos T, Cohen RD, Scherl EJ, Schwartz RM, Kosinski L, Regueiro MD. Ulcerative colitis care pathway. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(1):238–45. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.05.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Targan SR, Feagan BG, Fedorak RN, Lashner BA, Panaccione R, Present DH, Spehlmann ME, Rutgeerts PJ, Tulassay Z, Volfova M, et al. Natalizumab for the treatment of active Crohn’s disease: results of the encore trial. Gastroenterology. 2007;132(5):1672–83. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.03.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sandborn WJ, Colombel JF, Enns R, Feagan BG, Hanauer SB, Lawrance IC, Panaccione R, Sanders M, Schreiber S, Targan S, et al. Natalizumab induction and maintenance therapy for Crohn’s disease. N Eng J Med. 2005;353(18):1912–25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa043335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kuehn BM. Rare neurological condition linked to newer monoclonal antibody biologics. JAMA. 2009;301(14):1423–24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chen Y, Bord E, Tompkins T, Miller J, Tan CS, Kinkel RP, Stein MC, Viscidi RP, Ngo LH, Koralnik IJ. Asymptomatic reactivation of JC virus in patients treated with natalizumab. N Eng J Med. 2009;361(11):1067–74. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0904267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hunt D, Giovannoni G. Natalizumab-associated progressive multifocal leucoencephalopathy: A practical approach to risk profiling and monitoring. Pract Neurol. 2012;12(1):25–35. doi: 10.1136/practneurol-2011-000092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hamann A, Andrew DP, Jablonski-Westrich D, Holzmann B, Butcher EC. Role of alpha 4-integrins in lymphocyte homing to mucosal tissues in vivo. J Immunol. 1994;152:3282–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.von Andrian UH, Engelhardt B. Alpha4 integrins as therapeutic targets in autoimmune disease. N Eng J Med. 2003;348(1):68–72. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe020157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Nakache M, Berg EL, Streeter PR, Butcher EC. The mucosal vascular addressin is a tissue-specific endothelial cell adhesion molecule for circulating lymphocytes. Nature. 1989;337(6203):179–81. doi: 10.1038/337179a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fedyk ER, Wyant T, Yang -L-L, Csizmadia V, Burke K, Yang H, Kadambi VJ. Exclusive antagonism of the α4β7 integrin by vedolizumab confirms the gut-selectivity of this pathway in primates. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2012;18(11):2107–19. doi: 10.1002/ibd.22940. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Haanstra KG, Hofman SO, Estêvão DML, Blezer EL, Bauer J, Yang -L-L, Wyant T, Csizmadia V, ‘T Hart BA, Fedyk ER. Antagonizing the α4β1 integrin, but not α4β7, inhibits leukocytic infiltration of the central nervous system in rhesus monkey experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. J Immunol. 2013;190(5):1961–73. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1202490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Milch C, Wyant T, Xu J, Kent W, Berger J, Fox I. Vedolizumab does not reduce the cd4+: cd8+ ratio in the CSF of healthy volunteers: P-136. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2011;17: S54.21381153 [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Soler D, Chapman T, Yang LL, Wyant T, Egan R, Fedyk ER. The binding specificity and selective antagonism of vedolizumab, an anti-alpha4beta7 integrin therapeutic antibody in development for inflammatory bowel diseases. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2009;330(3):864–75. doi: 10.1124/jpet.109.153973. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Podolsky DK, Lobb R, King N, Benjamin CD, Pepinsky B, Sehgal P, deBeaumont M. Attenuation of colitis in the cotton-top tamarin by anti-alpha 4 integrin monoclonal antibody. J Clin Invest. 1993;92(1):372–80. doi: 10.1172/JCI116575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hesterberg PE, Winsor-Hines D, Briskin MJ, Soler-Ferran D, Merrill C, Mackay CR, Newman W, Ringler DJ. Rapid resolution of chronic colitis in the cotton-top tamarin with an antibody to a gut-homing integrin alpha 4 beta 7. Gastroenterology. 1996;111:1373–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Feagan BG, McDonald J, Greenberg G, Wild G, Pare P, Fedorak RN, Landau SB, Brettrnan LR. An ascending dose trial of a humanized a4 b7 antibody in ulcerative colitis (UC). Gastroenterology. 2000;118(4):A874. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(00)85637-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Feagan BG, Greenberg GR, Wild G, Fedorak RN, Pare P, McDonald JW, Dube R, Cohen A, Steinhart AH, Landau S, et al. Treatment of ulcerative colitis with a humanized antibody to the alpha4beta7 integrin. N Eng J Med. 2005;352(24):2499–507. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa042982. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Parikh A, Leach T, Wyant T, Scholz C, Sankoh S, Mould DR, Ponich T, Fox I, Feagan BG. Vedolizumab for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis: A randomized controlled phase 2 dose-ranging study. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2012;18(8):1470–79. doi: 10.1002/ibd.21896. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, Sands BE, Hanauer S, Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Van Assche G, Axler J, Kim HJ, Danese S, et al. Vedolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Eng J Med. 2013;369(8):699–710. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1215734. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Feagan BG, Greenberg GR, Wild G, Fedorak RN, Pare P, McDonald JW, Cohen A, Bitton A, Baker J, Dube R, et al. Treatment of active Crohn’s disease with MLN0002, a humanized antibody to the alpha4beta7 integrin. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6(12):1370–77. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.06.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, Hanauer S, Colombel JF, Sands BE, Lukas M, Fedorak RN, Lee S, Bressler B, et al. Vedolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for Crohn’s disease. N Eng J Med. 2013;369(8):711–21. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1215739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sands BE, Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Sy R, D’Haens G, Ben-Horin S, Xu J, Rosario M, et al. Effects of vedolizumab induction therapy for patients with Crohn’s disease in whom tumor necrosis factor antagonist treatment had failed. Gastroenterology. 2014;147(3):618–27. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.05.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lalonde M-E, Durocher Y. Therapeutic glycoprotein production in mammalian cells1. J Biotechnol. 2017;251: 128–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Parikh A, Fox I, Leach T, Xu J, Scholz C, Patella M, Feagan BG. Long-term clinical experience with vedolizumab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013;19(8):1691–99. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0b013e318281f538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Loftus EV, Colombel JF, Feagan BG, Vermeire S, Sandborn WJ, Sands BE, Danese S, D’Haens GR, Kaser A, Panaccione R. Long-term effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab in patients with ulcerative colitis: 5-year cumulative exposure of GEMINI 1 completers rolling into the GEMINI open-label extension study. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(5):S602. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(17)32150-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Vermeire S, Loftus EV, Colombel JF, Feagan BG, Sandborn WJ, Sands BE, Danese S, D’Haens GR, Kaser A, Panaccione R, et al. Long-term effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab in patients with Crohn’s disease: 5-year cumulative exposure of GEMINI 2 completers rolling into the GEMINI open-label extension study. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(5):S601. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Vivio EE, Kanuri N, Gilbertsen JJ, Monroe K, Dey N, Chen CH, Gutierrez AM, Ciorba MA. Vedolizumab effectiveness and safety over the first year of use in an IBD clinical practice. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(4):402–09. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjv226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Engel T, Ungar B, Yung DE, Ben-Horin S, Eliakim R, Kopylov U. Vedolizumab in IBD-lessons from real-world experience; a systematic review and pooled analysis. J Crohns Colitis. 2018;12(2):245–57. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Allegretti JR, Barnes EL, Stevens B, Storm M, Ananthakrishnan A, Yajnik V, Korzenik J. Predictors of clinical response and remission at 1 year among a multicenter cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with vedolizumab. Dig Dis Sci. 2017;62(6):1590–96. doi: 10.1007/s10620-017-4549-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Eriksson C, Marsal J, Bergemalm D, Vigren L, Bjork J, Eberhardson M, Karling P, Soderman C, Group SVS, Myrelid P, et al. Long-term effectiveness of vedolizumab in inflammatory bowel disease: A national study based on the Swedish national quality registry for inflammatory bowel disease (swibreg). Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017;52(6–7):722–29. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2017.1304987. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Amiot A, Grimaud JC, Peyrin-Biroulet L, Filippi J, Pariente B, Roblin X, Buisson A, Stefanescu C, Trang-Poisson C, Altwegg R, et al. Effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab induction therapy for patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(11):1593–1601 e1592. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.02.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Baumgart DC, Bokemeyer B, Drabik A, Stallmach A, Schreiber S, Vedolizumab Germany C. Vedolizumab induction therapy for inflammatory bowel disease in clinical practice–a nationwide consecutive german cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016;43(10):1090–102. doi: 10.1111/apt.13594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Narula N, Peerani F, Meserve J, Kochhar G, Chaudrey K, Hartke J, Chilukuri P, Koliani-Pace J, Winters A, Katta L, et al. Vedolizumab for ulcerative colitis: treatment outcomes from the VICTORY consortium. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(9):1345. doi: 10.1038/s41395-018-0120-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Dulai PS, Singh S, Jiang X, Peerani F, Narula N, Chaudrey K, Whitehead D, Hudesman D, Lukin D, Swaminath A, et al. The real-world effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab for moderate-severe Crohn’s disease: results from the US VICTORY consortium. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(8):1147–55. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2016.236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kopylov U, Ron Y, Avni-Biron I, Koslowsky B, Waterman M, Daher S, Ungar B, Yanai H, Maharshak N, Ben-Bassat O, et al. Efficacy and safety of vedolizumab for induction of remission in inflammatory bowel disease-the Israeli real-world experience. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017;23(3):404–08. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000001039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Stallmach A, Langbein C, Atreya R, Bruns T, Dignass A, Ende K, Hampe J, Hartmann F, Neurath MF, Maul J, et al. Vedolizumab provides clinical benefit over 1 year in patients with active inflammatory bowel disease - a prospective multicenter observational study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016;44(11–12):1199–212. doi: 10.1111/apt.13813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Shelton E, Allegretti JR, Stevens B, Lucci M, Khalili H, Nguyen DD, Sauk J, Giallourakis C, Garber J, Hamilton MJ, et al. Efficacy of vedolizumab as induction therapy in refractory IBD patients: A multicenter cohort. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015;21(12):2879–85. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000561. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Barre A, Colombel JF, Ungaro R. Review article: predictors of response to vedolizumab and ustekinumab in inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47(7):896–905. doi: 10.1111/apt.14550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Mosli MH, MacDonald JK, Bickston SJ, Behm BW, Tsoulis DJ, Cheng J, Khanna R, Feagan BG. Vedolizumab for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis: A cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015;21(5):1151–59. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Colombel JF, Sands BE, Rutgeerts P, Sandborn W, Danese S, D’Haens G, Panaccione R, Loftus EV Jr., Sankoh S, Fox I, et al. The safety of vedolizumab for ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Gut. 2017;66(5):839–51. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-311079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Meserve J, Aniwan S, Koliani-Pace JL, Shashi P, Weiss A, Faleck D, Winters A, Chablaney S, Kochhar G, Boland BS, et al. Retrospective analysis of safety of vedolizumab in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018; e-pub ahead of print. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.09.035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Bye WA, Jairath V, Travis SPL. Systematic review: the safety of vedolizumab for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2017;46(1):3–15. doi: 10.1111/apt.14075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Kotze P, Mckenna N, Ma C, Almutairdi A, Raffals L, Loftus E Jr, Panaccione R, Lightner A. P367 vedolizumab and early postoperative complications in non-intestinal surgery: A case-matched analysis. J Crohns Colitis. 2018;12(1):S290–S290. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lightner AL, McKenna NP, Moncrief S, Pemberton JH, Raffals LE, Mathis KL. Surgical outcomes in vedolizumab-treated patients with ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017;23(12):2197–201. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000001248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Lightner A, McKenna N, Tse C, Raffals L, Loftus E Jr, Mathis K. Postoperative outcomes in vedolizumab-treated Crohn’s disease patients undergoing major abdominal operations. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47(5):573–80. doi: 10.1111/apt.14459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Lightner AL, Mathis KL, Tse CS, Pemberton JH, Shen B, Kochlar G, Singh A, Dulai PS, Eisenstein S, Sandborn WJ, et al. Postoperative outcomes in vedolizumab-treated patients undergoing major abdominal operations for inflammatory bowel disease: retrospective multicenter cohort study. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2018;24(4):871–76. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izx076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Law CCY, Narula A, Lightner AL, McKenna NP, Colombel J-F, Narula N. Systematic review and meta-analysis: preoperative vedolizumab treatment and postoperative complications in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2018;12(5):538–45. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjy022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Shen B, Blake A, Lasch K, Palo W, Smyth M, Bhayat F. P-134 vedolizumab use in patients with IBD undergoing surgery: A summary from clinical trials and post-marketing experience. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017;23:S47–S47. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Sandborn W, Baert F, Danese S, Krznaric Z, D’Haens G, Kobatashi T, Yao X, Chen J, Kisfalvi K, Vermeire S. Efficacy and safety of a new vedolizumab subcutaneous formulation for ulcerative colitis: results of the VISIBLE 1 phase 3 trial. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2018;10:1587. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Van den Berghe N, Verstockt B, Tops S, Ferrante M, Vermeire S, Gils A. Immunogenicity is not the driving force of treatment failure in vedolizumab-treated inflammatory bowel disease patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018; e-pub ahead of print. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Rosario M, French JL, Dirks NL, Sankoh S, Parikh A, Yang H, Danese S, Colombel JF, Smyth M, Sandborn WJ, et al. Exposure-efficacy relationships for vedolizumab induction therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11(8):921–29. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Maria R, Brihad A, Serap S, Nathanael D, Karen L, William S. O-003 relationship between vedolizumab pharmacokinetics and endoscopic outcomes of patients with ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014;20(1):S1–S3. doi: 10.1097/01.MIB.0000456699.04243.9e.25834857 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Williet N, Boschetti G, Fovet M, Di Bernado T, Claudez P, Del Tedesco E, Jarlot C, Rinaldi L, Berger A, Phelip JM, et al. Association between low trough levels of vedolizumab during induction therapy for inflammatory bowel diseases and need for additional doses within 6 months. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15(11):1750–57. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.11.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Ungar B, Kopylov U, Yavzori M, Fudim E, Picard O, Lahat A, Coscas D, Waterman M, Haj-Natour O, Orbach-Zingboim N, et al. Association of vedolizumab level, anti-drug antibodies, and alpha4beta7 occupancy with response in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16(5):697–705. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Yarur A, Bruss A, Jain A, Kondragunta V, Hester K, Luna T, Agrawal D, Patel A, Fox C, Werner S, et al. Higher vedolizumab levels are associated with deep remission in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis on maintenance therapy with vedolizumab. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11(1):S38–S38. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx002.057. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Yacoub W, Williet N, Pouillon L, Di-Bernado T, De Carvalho Bittencourt M, Nancey S, Lopez A, Paul S, Zallot C, Roblin X, et al. Early vedolizumab trough levels predict mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease: A multicentre prospective observational study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47(7):906–12. doi: 10.1111/apt.14548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Al-Bawardy B, Ramos GP, Willrich MAV, Jenkins SM, Park SH, Aniwan S, Schoenoff SA, Bruining DH, Papadakis KA, Raffals L, et al. Vedolizumab drug level correlation with clinical remission, biomarker normalization, and mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2019;25:580–586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Dreesen E, Verstockt B, Bian S, de Bruyn M, Compernolle G, Tops S, Noman M, Van Assche G, Ferrante M, Gils A, et al. Evidence to support monitoring of vedolizumab trough concentrations in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16(12):1937–46. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.04.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Schulze H, Esters P, Hartmann F, Stein J, Christ C, Zorn M, Dignass A. A prospective cohort study to assess the relevance of vedolizumab drug level monitoring in IBD patients. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018;53(6):670–76. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2018.1452974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Rosario M, Dirks NL, Gastonguay MR, Fasanmade AA, Wyant T, Parikh A, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Reinisch W, Fox I. Population pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of vedolizumab in patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015;42(2):188–202. doi: 10.1111/apt.13243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Fasanmade AA, Adedokun OJ, Blank M, Zhou H, Davis HM. Pharmacokinetic properties of infliximab in children and adults with Crohn’s disease: A retrospective analysis of data from 2 phase III clinical trials. Clin Ther. 2011;33(7):946–64. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Sands BE, Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Sy R, D’Haens G, Ben-Horin S, Xu J, Rosario M, et al. Effects of vedolizumab induction therapy for patients with Crohn’s disease in whom tumor necrosis factor antagonist treatment failed. Gastroenterology. 2014;147(3):618–627 e613. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.05.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Wyant T, Leach T, Sankoh S, Wang Y, Paolino J, Pasetti MF, Feagan BG, Parikh A. Vedolizumab affects antibody responses to immunisation selectively in the gastrointestinal tract: randomised controlled trial results. Gut. 2015;64(1):77–83. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Wyant T, Yang L, Fedyk E. In vitro assessment of the effects of vedolizumab binding on peripheral blood lymphocytes. MAbs. 2013;5(6):842–50. doi: 10.4161/mabs.26392. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Milch C, Wyant T, Xu J, Parikh A, Kent W, Fox I, Berger J. Vedolizumab, a monoclonal antibody to the gut homing alpha4beta7 integrin, does not affect cerebrospinal fluid T-lymphocyte immunophenotype. J Neuroimmunol. 2013;264(1–2):123–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2013.08.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Boden EK, Shows DM, Chiorean MV, Lord JD. Identification of candidate biomarkers associated with response to vedolizumab in inflammatory bowel disease. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63(9):2419–29. doi: 10.1007/s10620-018-4924-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Fuchs F, Schillinger D, Atreya R, Hirschmann S, Fischer S, Neufert C, Atreya I, Neurath MF, Zundler S. Clinical response to vedolizumab in ulcerative colitis patients is associated with changes in integrin expression profiles. Front Immunol. 2017;8:8764. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Battat R, Dulai PS, Vande Casteele N, Evans E, Hester KD, Webster E, Jain A, Proudfoot JA, Mairalles A, Neill J, et al. Biomarkers are associated with clinical and endoscopic outcomes with vedolizumab treatment in ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2019; e-pub ahead of print. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izy307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Connor EM, Eppihimer MJ, Morise Z, Granger DN, Grisham MB. Expression of mucosal addressin cell adhesion molecule-1 (MAdCAM-1) in acute and chronic inflammation. J Leukoc Biol. 1999;65:349–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Sikorski EE, Hallmann R, Berg EL, Butcher EC. The Peyer’s patch high endothelial receptor for lymphocytes, the mucosal vascular addressin, is induced on a murine endothelial cell line by tumor necrosis factor-alpha and IL-1. J Immunol. 1993;151:5239–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Rosario M, Wyant T, Leach T, Sankoh S, Scholz C, Parikh A, Fox I, Feagan BG. Vedolizumab pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability following administration of a single, ascending, intravenous dose to healthy volunteers. Clin Drug Investig. 2016;36(11):913–23. doi: 10.1007/s40261-016-0437-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Leung E, Lehnert KB, Kanwar JR, Yang Y, Mon Y, McNeil HP, Krissansen GW. Bioassay detects soluble madcam-1 in body fluids. Immunol Cell Biol. 2004;82(4):400–09. doi: 10.1111/j.0818-9641.2004.01247.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Vermeire S, Sandborn WJ, Danese S, Hebuterne X, Salzberg BA, Klopocka M, Tarabar D, Vanasek T, Gregus M, Hellstern PA, et al. Anti-MAdCAM antibody (PF-00547659) for ulcerative colitis (TURANDOT): A phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;390(10090):135–44. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30930-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Paul S, Williet N, Di Bernado T, Berger A-E, Boschetti G, Filippi J, Del Tedesco E, Nancey S, Flourie B, Roblin X. Soluble mucosal addressin cell adhesion molecule 1 and retinoic acid are potential tools for therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with vedolizumab: A proof of concept study. J Crohns Colitis. 2018; e-pub ahead of print. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjy077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Zundler S, Fischer A, Schillinger D, Binder M-T, Atreya R, Rath T, Lopez-Pósadas R, Voskens CJ, Watson A, Atreya I. The α4β1 homing pathway is essential for ileal homing of Crohn’s disease effector t cells in vivo. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017;23(3):379–91. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000001029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Harris MS, Hartman D, Lemos BR, Erlich EC, Spence S, Kennedy S, Ptak T, Pruitt R, Vermeire S, Fox BS. Avx-470, an orally delivered anti-tumour necrosis factor antibody for treatment of active ulcerative colitis: results of a first-in-human trial. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(6):631–40. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES