Vedolizumab for Treating Moderately to Severely Active Crohn’s Disease After Prior Therapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of vedolizumab (Takeda UK) to submit evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of vedolizumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe, active Crohn’s disease. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) and produced a critical review of the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company’s submission to NICE. The GEMINI II and III trials formed the main supporting evidence for the intervention. Both studies were phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trials designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab. They included patients who were naïve to tumour necrosis factor alpha antagonist (anti-TNF-α) therapy and patients who had an inadequate response to, loss of response to or intolerance of immunomodulators or anti-TNF-α agents. GEMINI II was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab as an induction treatment (dosing at weeks 0 and 2, with assessment at week 6) and maintenance treatment (during weeks 6–52). In contrast, GEMINI III was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab as an induction treatment only, with doses at weeks 0, 2 and 6, and assessment at weeks 6 and 10. In the absence of any direct head-to-head, randomised, controlled trials comparing vedolizumab with other relevant biologic therapies (adalimumab and infliximab) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, the company conducted a network meta-analysis, which compared vedolizumab, adalimumab, infliximab and placebo for the outcomes of clinical response, enhanced clinical response, clinical remission and discontinuation due to adverse events. The company model estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for vedolizumab compared with the standard of care (consisting of 5-aminosalicylic acids, corticosteroids and immunosuppressants) to be £21,620 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained within the anti-TNF-α-failure population (which included a confidential patient access scheme for vedolizumab). The ICERs were above £30,000 per QALY gained for the mixed intention-to-treat population (including both anti-TNF-α-naïve and anti-TNF-α-failure populations) and in patients who were anti-TNF-α naïve only. The ERG identified a number of limitations that were believed to limit the robustness of the results presented by the company. These limitations could not be addressed by the ERG without major restructuring of the economic model. Therefore, the ERG concluded that the results from the company’s model needed to be interpreted with caution and that it was unclear whether the ICERs would increase or decrease following amendment of the identified structural issues

Safety aspects of infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease patients - A retrospective cohort study in 100 patients of a German University Hospital

Background: Infliximab, a chimeric anti-tumour necrosis factor monoclonal antibody with potent anti-inflammatory effects, represents an effective treatment option in patients with severe inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Serious side-effects of such an immunomodulating therapy are speculated and therefore we reviewed our clinical experience in a retrospective safety study looking upon a single cohort of 100 IBD patients from a large German University Hospital. Methods: 100 patients with severe Crohn's disease (n = 92), ulcerative colitis (n = 7) or indeterminate colitis (n = 1) treated with infliximab (5 mg/kg) from January 2000 to December 2003 were retrospectively analysed for acute and subacute adverse events by chart review. Results: Overall, infliximab therapy was generally well tolerated. No fatal complications, malignancies, autoimmune diseases, neurologic or cardiovascular complications were observed in the cohort during the study period. Overall, adverse events were observed in 10 patients: 2 patients showed an acute infusion reaction, 1 patient a serum sickness-like reaction, in 4 patients a bacterial or viral infection occurred, in 1 patient pancytopenia and 2 patients developed surgical complications. Only 6 patients with adverse events required admission to hospital. A case of tuberculosis after infliximab was not found. The lack of adverse side-effects was associated with young median age and infrequent comorbidities of the cohort. Conclusion: Regarding its strong immunomodulating capacity, infliximab appears to be an efficient and relatively safe therapeutic option for patients with severe IBD. However, the use of infliximab requires careful screening and close patient monitoring to identify patients at risk and the infrequent, but sometimes serious complications of infliximab. Copyright (C) 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel

Vedolizumab for the Treatment of Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of vedolizumab (Takeda UK) to submit evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of vedolizumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis (UC). The Evidence Review Group (ERG) produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The evidence was derived mainly from GEMINI 1, a Phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of the induction and maintenance of clinical response and remission by vedolizumab (MLN0002) in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC with an inadequate response to, loss of response to or intolerance of conventional therapy or anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α. The clinical evidence showed that vedolizumab performed significantly better than placebo in both the induction and maintenance phases. In the post hoc subgroup analyses in patients with or without prior anti-TNF-α therapy, vedolizumab performed better then placebo (p value not reported). In addition, a greater improvement in health-related quality of life was observed in patients treated with vedolizumab, and the frequency and types of adverse events were similar in the vedolizumab and placebo groups, but the evidence was limited to short-term follow-up. There were a number of limitations and uncertainties in the clinical evidence base, which warrants caution in its interpretation-in particular, the post hoc subgroup analyses and high dropout rates in the maintenance phase of GEMINI 1. The company also presented a network meta-analysis of vedolizumab versus other biologic therapies indicated for moderate-to-severe UC. However, the ERG considered that the results presented may have underestimated the uncertainty in treatment effects, since fixed-effects models were used, despite clear evidence of heterogeneity among the trials included in the network. Results from the company's economic evaluation (which included price reductions to reflect the proposed patient access scheme for vedolizumab) suggested that vedolizumab is the most effective option compared with surgery and conventional therapy in the following three populations: (1) a mixed intention-to-treat population, including patients who have previously received anti-TNF-α therapy and those who are anti-TNF-α naïve; (2) patients who are anti-TNF-α naïve only; and (3) patients who have previously failed anti-TNF-α therapy only. The ERG concluded that the results of the company's economic evaluation could not be considered robust, because of errors in model implementation, omission of relevant comparators, deviations from the NICE reference case and questionable model assumptions. The ERG amended the company's model and demonstrated that vedolizumab is expected to be dominated by surgery in all three populations

Addiction to the nicotine gum in never smokers

Abstract Background Addiction to nicotine gum has never been described in never smokers or in never users of tobacco. Methods Internet questionnaire in 2004–2006 in a self-selected sample of 434 daily users of nicotine gum. To assess dependence on nicotine gum, we used modified versions of the Nicotine Dependence Syndrome Scale (NDSS), the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence and the Cigarette Dependence Scale. Results Five never smokers used the nicotine gum daily. They had been using the nicotine gum for longer than the 429 ever smokers (median = 6 years vs 0.8 years, p = 0.004), and they had higher NDSS-gum Tolerance scores (median = 0.73 vs = -1.0, p = 0.03), a difference of 1.5 standard deviation units. Two never smokers had never used smokeless tobacco, both answered "extremely true" to: "I use nicotine gums because I am addicted to them", both "fully agreed" with: "after a few hours without chewing a nicotine gum, I feel an irresistible urge to chew one" and: "I am a prisoner of nicotine gum". Conclusion This is to our knowledge the first report of addiction to nicotine gum in never users of tobacco. However, this phenomenon is rare, and although the long-term effect of nicotine gum is unknown, this product is significantly less harmful than tobacco.</p

The selective phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor roflumilast and phosphodiesterase 3/4 inhibitor pumafentrine reduce clinical score and TNF expression in experimental colitis in mice.

The specific inhibition of phosphodiesterase (PDE)4 and dual inhibition of PDE3 and PDE4 has been shown to decrease inflammation by suppression of pro-inflammatory cytokine synthesis. We examined the effect of roflumilast, a selective PDE4 inhibitor marketed for severe COPD, and the investigational compound pumafentrine, a dual PDE3/PDE4 inhibitor, in the preventive dextran sodium sulfate (DSS)-induced colitis model. The clinical score, colon length, histologic score and colon cytokine production from mice with DSS-induced colitis (3.5% DSS in drinking water for 11 days) receiving either roflumilast (1 or 5 mg/kg body weight/d p.o.) or pumafentrine (1.5 or 5 mg/kg/d p.o.) were determined and compared to vehicle treated control mice. In the pumafentrine-treated animals, splenocytes were analyzed for interferon-γ (IFNγ) production and CD69 expression. Roflumilast treatment resulted in dose-dependent improvements of clinical score (weight loss, stool consistency and bleeding), colon length, and local tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα) production in the colonic tissue. These findings, however, were not associated with an improvement of the histologic score. Administration of pumafentrine at 5 mg/kg/d alleviated the clinical score, the colon length shortening, and local TNFα production. In vitro stimulated splenocytes after in vivo treatment with pumafentrine showed a significantly lower state of activation and production of IFNγ compared to no treatment in vivo. These series of experiments document the ameliorating effect of roflumilast and pumafentrine on the clinical score and TNF expression of experimental colitis in mice

Human helminth therapy to treat inflammatory disorders - where do we stand?

Parasitic helminths have evolved together with the mammalian immune system over many millennia and as such they have become remarkably efficient modulators in order to promote their own survival. Their ability to alter and/or suppress immune responses could be beneficial to the host by helping control excessive inflammatory responses and animal models and pre-clinical trials have all suggested a beneficial effect of helminth infections on inflammatory bowel conditions, MS, asthma and atopy. Thus, helminth therapy has been suggested as a possible treatment method for autoimmune and other inflammatory disorders in humans