P637 Ozanimod efficacy with or without concomitant corticosteroids in 5-ASA–exposed, advanced therapy–naive, immunomodulator-naive patients with ulcerative colitis: a post hoc analysis of True North

Abstract

Abstract Background Long-term corticosteroid (CS) use is not recommended for patients (pts) with ulcerative colitis (UC). Receiving early advanced therapy (AT) may help limit CS overuse, but there is a need to identify pt populations who may benefit most from receiving early AT as monotherapy. Previous post hoc analyses of the phase 3 True North (TN) study (NCT02435992) demonstrated ozanimod (OZA) efficacy in 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA)–exposed, AT-naive, immunomodulator (IMM)–naive pts. This analysis further assessed the efficacy of OZA induction therapy with and without concomitant CS in this pt population by baseline (BL) endoscopic disease severity. Methods In TN, pts in Cohort 1 (C1) were randomised to OZA or placebo (PBO); pts in Cohort 2 (C2) received open-label OZA through Week (W) 10. Pts were on stable doses of oral 5-ASA and/or CS for ≥2 wk before screening and continuing through W10. 5-ASA–exposed, AT-naive, IMM-naive pts were grouped as moderate (Mayo endoscopy subscore [MES]=2 at BL) or severe (MES=3 at BL). Data were analysed in all moderate and severe pts and by concomitant CS use. Clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic improvement, mucosal healing, and histologic remission were assessed at W10. Results Of the 464 5-ASA–exposed, AT-naive, IMM-naive pts, 237 had moderate (PBO, n=47; OZA C1, n=108; OZA C2], n=82) and 227 had severe (PBO, n=54; OZA C1, n=97; OZA C2, n=76) BL endoscopic disease. BL pt characteristics were generally similar between moderate and severe pts with or without concomitant CS use. Overall, OZA was significantly more effective in moderate pts and numerically more effective in severe pts vs PBO in C1, with numerically greater treatment differences in moderate vs severe pts (Figure 1A). The moderate and severe groups each had 51 pts (~22%) on concomitant CS. In moderate pts, numerically greater OZA vs PBO C1 treatment differences were observed in those without concomitant CS use vs those with concomitant CS use for clinical remission and clinical response; treatment differences were significant for all endpoints in pts without concomitant CS use (Figure 1B). In contrast, severe pts with concomitant CS use demonstrated greater OZA vs PBO C1 treatment differences vs those without concomitant CS use for all endpoints (Figure 1C). Results in OZA C2 were generally similar to OZA C1. Conclusion OZA treatment was efficacious in 5-ASA–exposed, AT-naive, IMM-naive pts with UC, with numerically greater efficacy in moderate pts than severe pts. Additionally, the results suggest that concomitant CS may not provide additional benefit over OZA monotherapy in moderate pts. These findings support OZA positioning after 5-ASA, but before CS, in pts with moderate UC.