Title
OBS in Adolescent and Adults With EOE: A Phase II, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo Controlled, Study With an Open Label Extension
Oral Budesonide Suspension (OBS) in Adolescent and Adult Subjects (11-40 Years of Age)With Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Phase II, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study With an Open Label Extension
Phase
Phase 2Lead Sponsor
ShireStudy Type
InterventionalStatus
Completed Results PostedIndication/Condition
Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE)Intervention/Treatment
budesonide ...Study Participants
93This is a clinical trial to test an experimental drug for the treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE)
Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE) is an inflammatory disorder of the esophagus and is a recognized clinical entity. Symptoms include feeding problems, heartburn, regurgitation, vomiting, abdominal pain and food impaction. The symptoms of EoE may be similar to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) but do not resolve with gastric acid suppression. EoE is defined histologically as the presence of > 15 intraepithelial eosinophils per high power fields on one or more esophageal biopsy specimens.
This Phase II study is comparing oral budesonide (OBS) to placebo to demonstrate that OBS induces a histologic response and a symptom response using a Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire over a 16 week course of therapy.
OBS suspension to be taken bid over a 16 week course of double blind therapy and OBS suspension to be taken qd to bid during a 24 week optional open label extension period
Taken once or twice daily for up to 40 weeks
Inclusion Criteria: Males and Females, age 11-40 Histologic evidence of EoE History of clinical symptoms of EoE including dysphagia Willing to continue with dietary, environmental or medical therapy Ability to read and understand english Written Consent Exclusion Criteria: Any Medical condition that may compromise the safety of the subjects or interfere with the signs and symptoms of EoE Use of immunomodulatory therapy Current use of swallowed corticosteroids Esophageal strictures,varices or upper GI bleed Other current diseases of the GI tract Current viral infection or immunodeficiency condition Pregnancy Hypersensitivity to budesonide History of non compliance
| Event Type | Organ System | Event Term | Double-blind Placebo | Double-blind Oral Budesonide Suspension (OBS) 2 mg | Placebo to Open-label Oral Budesonide Suspension (OBS) 2 mg | Oral Budesonide Suspension (OBS) 2 mg to Open-label OBS 2 mg |
|---|
Histologic response was defined as a peak eosinophil count </= 6/high power field (light microscopy) (HPF) across all esophageal levels at the final treatment evaluation (Week 16). An independent, central pathologist determined the peak eosinophil count from the proximal, mid-, and distal levels and selected the maximum peak value. Histopathology data were collected in a blinded fashion.
Participants' dysphagia symptoms were evaluated using the 4-item DSQ. The questionnaire was developed by the Sponsor, as an ePRO measure, according to the principles of the Final Guidance for Industry for Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PRO Guidance December 2009). All participants used a diary, and responded to Questions 1 (did you eat solid food) and 2 (did food pass slowly or get stuck). If the participant's answer to Question 2 was 'No', the diary ended for that day. If a participant answered 'Yes', he/she advanced to Questions 3 (did you have to do anything to make the food go down or get relief) and 4 (extent to which the participant experienced pain while swallowing).The DSQ score was calculated based on responses to Questions 2 and 3 [14 x (sum of points from Questions 2 and 3 in the daily DSQ)/number of diaries with non-missing data]. Baseline was the DSQ score of the 14-day period before randomization. A negative change from baseline indicates that symptoms decreased.
Participants' dysphagia symptoms were evaluated using the 4-item DSQ. The questionnaire was developed by the Sponsor, as an ePRO measure, according to the principles of the Final Guidance for Industry for Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PRO Guidance December 2009). All participants used a diary, and responded to Questions 1 (did you eat solid food) and 2 (did food pass slowly or get stuck). If the participant's answer to Question 2 was 'No', the diary ended for that day. If a participant answered 'Yes', he/she advanced to Questions 3 (did you have to do anything to make the food go down or get relief) and 4 (extent to which the participant experienced pain while swallowing).The DSQ score was calculated based on responses to Questions 2 and 3 [14 x (sum of points from Questions 2 and 3 in the daily DSQ)/number of diaries with non-missing data]. Baseline was the DSQ score of the 14-day period before randomization. A negative change from baseline indicates that symptoms decreased.
A cumulative distribution function curve was constructed to illustrate the cumulative proportion of participants (x-axis) vs. the change in the DSQ score from baseline to the final treatment evaluation (y-axis). The 50th percentile is participants with a DSQ score that is in the middle of the distribution of all scores. A negative change from baseline indicates that symptoms decreased.
An independent, central pathologist determined the peak eosinophil count from the proximal, mid-, and distal levels and selected the maximum peak value across all available esophagus levels. Histopathology data were collected in a blinded fashion. The values reported are for participants with histologic response.
Participants' dysphagia symptoms were evaluated using the 4-item DSQ. The questionnaire was developed by the Sponsor, as an ePRO measure, according to the principles of the Final Guidance for Industry for Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PRO Guidance December 2009). All participants used a diary, and responded to Questions 1 (did you eat solid food) and 2 (did food pass slowly or get stuck). If the participant's answer to Question 2 was 'No', the diary ended for that day. If a participant answered 'Yes', he/she advanced to Questions 3 (did you have to do anything to make the food go down or get relief) and 4 (extent to which the participant experienced pain while swallowing).The DSQ score was calculated based on responses to Questions 2 and 3 [14 x (sum of points from Questions 2 and 3 in the daily DSQ)/number of diaries with non-missing data]. Baseline was the DSQ score of the 14-day period before randomization.
Overall response was defined as a reduction in the 2-week DSQ score of >/= 30% and >/= 50% from baseline to the final treatment period evaluation and a peak eosinophil count of </= 6/high power field (light microscopy) (HPF) across all available esophageal levels at the final treatment period evaluation. An independent, central pathologist determined the peak eosinophil count from the proximal, mid-, and distal levels and selected the maximum peak value. Histopathology data were collected in a blinded fashion.
Each esophageal biopsy specimen was evaluated microscopically by an independent, central pathologist for signs of epithelial inflammation and lamina propria fibrosis. Histopathologic epithelial features of each available esophageal level biopsy consisting of basal layer hyperplasia, eosinophil peak, dilated intercellular spaces, eosinophil microabcesses, surface layering, surface alteration, and apoptotic epithelial cells were scored and summed. Histopathology data were collected in a blinded fashion. Histopathology epithelial features were scored for both grade and stage. Each feature had a possible score of 0-3 for grade as well as stage. Thus each of the 3 levels had a possible score of 21, and a possible total grade or stage score of 63 for a maximum combined score of 126. The grade and stage score of the lamina propria was not included because the biopsy material was not available. A negative change from baseline indicates that epithelial inflammation decreased.
The gross endoscopic appearance of the esophageal surface was evaluated by a blinded study center physician. Endoscopic findings with separate evaluations of the proximal and distal esophagus were recorded with respect to 5 major categories, including exudates or plaques, fixed esophageal rings, edema, furrows, and strictures. The endoscopy score was the sum of the scores for the 5 major categories - grade 0-1 for strictures; grade 0-2 for exudates or plaques, edema, and furrows; and grade 0-3 for fixed esophageal rings for the proximal and distal locations. The maximum endoscopy score was 10 points for each location (proximal and distal), and the total endoscopy score was the sum of the scores for the proximal and distal locations (maximum total score of 20 points). Baseline was defined as the endoscopy score at screening. A negative change from baseline indicates that appearance improved.
An independent, central pathologist determined the peak eosinophil count from the proximal, mid-, and distal levels and selected the maximum peak value across all available esophagus levels. Histopathology data were collected in a blinded fashion. Baseline was defined as the score at screening. A negative change from baseline indicates that eosinophil count decreased.
The physician Investigator (or qualified physician's assistant or nurse practitioner) completed the PGA to provide the global assessment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disease activity using a 0 to 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) scale. The VAS is a 100 mm horizontal line on which the right extreme (100) is labeled "worst possible disease activity" and the left extreme (0) is labeled "no disease activity". The PGA raters were instructed to consider the line for the VAS a continuum with their own medical opinion or judgment of extremes on either end and to draw a vertical line at a point that best approximates the participant's current level of EoE disease activity. A negative change from baseline indicates that disease activity decreased.
Participants evaluated the change in their dysphasia (food passing slowly/difficulty swallowing) since the start of the study (screening) by choosing 1 of 7 responses on the PGIC survey: much worse (-3), worse (-2), a little worse (-1), no change (0), a little better (1), better (2), or much better (3). The values reported are the percent of participants who chose that response.
The EoE survey assessed the following symptoms: heartburn, chest pain, regurgitation, abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. Participants indicated, by checking a box, if they had a change in symptoms (excluding dysphasia or food impaction) within the past 2 weeks. Baseline was defined as the assessment before randomization. Responses were as follows regarding symptoms at the final treatment evaluation: Improved - participant reported a specific symptom at baseline, but changed to no specific symptom ('Yes' to 'No'); No change - participant reported or did not report a specific symptom at both baseline and the final treatment evaluation; Worsened -participant did not report a specific symptom at baseline, but changed to report that specific symptom ('No' to 'Yes').
The EoE survey assessed the following symptoms: heartburn, chest pain, regurgitation, abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. Participants indicated, by checking a box, if they had a change in symptoms (excluding dysphasia or food impaction) within the past 2 weeks. Baseline was defined as the assessment before randomization. Responses were as follows regarding symptoms at the final treatment evaluation: Improved - participant reported a specific symptom at baseline, but changed to no specific symptom ('Yes' to 'No'); No change - participant reported or did not report a specific symptom at both baseline and the final treatment evaluation; Worsened -participant did not report a specific symptom at baseline, but changed to report that specific symptom ('No' to 'Yes').
The EoE survey assessed the following symptoms: heartburn, chest pain, regurgitation, abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. Participants indicated, by checking a box, if they had a change in symptoms (excluding dysphasia or food impaction) within the past 2 weeks. Baseline was defined as the assessment before randomization. Responses were as follows regarding symptoms at the final treatment evaluation: Improved - participant reported a specific symptom at baseline, but changed to no specific symptom ('Yes' to 'No'); No change - participant reported or did not report a specific symptom at both baseline and the final treatment evaluation; Worsened -participant did not report a specific symptom at baseline, but changed to report that specific symptom ('No' to 'Yes').
This outcome assessed the symptoms of participants who were symptom-free at baseline. The EoE survey assessed the following symptoms: heartburn, chest pain, regurgitation, abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. Participants indicated, by checking a box, if they had a change in symptoms (excluding dysphasia or food impaction) within the past 2 weeks. Baseline was defined as the assessment before randomization. Responses were as follows regarding symptoms at the final treatment evaluation: No change - participant did not report a specific symptom at both baseline and the final treatment evaluation; Worsened -participant did not report any symptom at baseline, but changed to report at least 1 symptom at the final treatment evaluation.
This outcome assessed the symptoms of participants who were symptom-free at baseline. The EoE survey assessed the following symptoms: heartburn, chest pain, regurgitation, abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. Participants indicated, by checking a box, if they had a change in symptoms (excluding dysphasia or food impaction) within the past 2 weeks. Baseline was defined as the assessment before randomization. Responses were as follows regarding symptoms at the final treatment evaluation: No change - participant reported or did not report a specific symptom at both baseline and the final treatment evaluation; Worsened -participant did not report any symptom at baseline, but changed to report at least 1 symptom at the final treatment evaluation.
Participants' dysphagia symptoms were evaluated using the 4-item DSQ. The questionnaire was developed by the Sponsor, as an ePRO measure, according to the principles of the Final Guidance for Industry for Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PRO Guidance December 2009). All participants used a diary, and responded to Question 1 (did you eat solid food) and Question 2 (did food pass slowly or get stuck). If the answer to Question 2 was 'No', the diary ended for that day. If a participant answered 'Yes', he/she advanced to Question 3 (did you have to do anything to make the food go down or get relief) and Question 4 (extent to which the participant experienced pain while swallowing).The DSQ+pain response was defined as a >/= 30% and >/= 50% reduction from baseline in the combined score from Questions 2, 3, and 4. The 2-week DSQ+pain score was calculated by adding points from Questions 2, 3, and 4 and then taking the average of the available scores over each 2-week interval.
Participants' dysphagia symptoms were evaluated using the 4-item DSQ. The questionnaire was developed by the Sponsor, as an ePRO measure, according to the principles of the Final Guidance for Industry for Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PRO Guidance December 2009). All participants used a diary, and responded to Questions 1 (did you eat solid food) and 2 (did food pass slowly or get stuck). If the participant's answer to Question 2 was 'No', the diary ended for that day. If a participant answered 'Yes', he/she advanced to Questions 3 (did you have to do anything to make the food go down or get relief) and 4 (extent to which the participant experienced pain while swallowing). Values were calculated for all the days that Question 1 was answered from 14 days prior to baseline visit up to the final treatment period evaluation.
Participants' dysphagia symptoms were evaluated using the 4-item DSQ. The questionnaire was developed by the Sponsor, as an ePRO measure, according to the principles of the Final Guidance for Industry for Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PRO Guidance December 2009). All participants used a diary, and responded to Questions 1 (did you eat solid food) and 2 (did food pass slowly or get stuck). If the participant's answer to Question 2 was 'No', the diary ended for that day. If a participant answered 'Yes', he/she advanced to Questions 3 (did you have to do anything to make the food go down or get relief) and 4 (extent to which the participant experienced pain while swallowing). Question 1 is rated as Yes (score=0) or No (score=1); higher values indicate a worse outcome. Baseline was the DSQ score of the 14-day period before randomization. A negative change from baseline indicates that symptoms decreased.
Participants' dysphagia symptoms were evaluated using the 4-item DSQ. The questionnaire was developed by the Sponsor, as an ePRO measure, according to the principles of the Final Guidance for Industry for Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PRO Guidance December 2009). All participants used a diary, and responded to Questions 1 (did you eat solid food) and 2 (did food pass slowly or get stuck). If the participant's answer to Question 2 was 'No', the diary ended for that day. If a participant answered 'Yes', he/she advanced to Questions 3 (did you have to do anything to make the food go down or get relief) and 4 (extent to which the participant experienced pain while swallowing). Question 4 is rated as None, I had no pain (score=0), mild pain (score=1), moderate pain (score=2), severe pain (score=3), or very severe pain (score=4); 4 is the worst pain. Baseline was the DSQ score of the 14-day period before randomization. A negative change from baseline indicates that symptoms decreased.
