Efficacy of rectal tacrolimus for induction therapy in patients with resistant ulcerative proctitis

Ian C. Lawrance, Angela Baird, Daniel Lightowler, Graham Radford-Smith, Jane M. Andrews, Susan Connor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background & Aims Resistant ulcerative proctitis can be extremely difficult to manage. Topically administered tacrolimus, however, may be effective in difficult-to-treat proctitis. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled induction trial of rectal tacrolimus in patients with active ulcerative colitis. Methods Eleven patients received rectal tacrolimus (0.5 mg/mL), and 10 placebo, for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical response by using the Mayo Clinic score. Results A planned interim analysis after 20 patients had completed the study demonstrated highly significant differences between the groups and the study was closed because of ethical considerations with patients already recruited allowed to complete the study. The primary endpoint was met in 8 of 11 patients receiving rectal tacrolimus and 1 of 10 patients receiving placebo (73% vs 10%; P = .004). Of the secondary endpoints, 5 patients with rectal tacrolimus achieved clinical remission compared with none receiving placebo (45% vs 0%; P = .015). Mucosal healing at Week 8 was achieved in 8 patients receiving rectal tacrolimus compared with 1 (73% vs 10%) receiving placebo (P = .004). The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire increased ≥16 points over baseline in 5 of the tacrolimus and 2 (45% vs 20%) of the placebo patients (P = .36). Finally, the average partial Mayo score was numerically lower in the tacrolimus-treated group compared with placebo at Week 2 (4.3 ± 0.74 vs 5.8 ± 0.64; P = .15) and Week 4 (3.7 ± 0.96 vs 5.8 ± 0.6; P = .08) but was significantly lower at Week 8 (3.3 ± 1.2 vs 6.7 ± 0.62; P = .01). There were no safety issues identified with rectal tacrolimus use. Conclusions Rectal tacrolimus was more effective than placebo for induction of a clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing in resistant ulcerative proctitis (Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT01418131).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1248-1255
Number of pages8
JournalClinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Volume15
Issue number8
Early online date7 Mar 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2017

Fingerprint

Proctitis
Tacrolimus
Placebos
Therapeutics
Ulcerative Colitis
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Cite this

Lawrance, Ian C. ; Baird, Angela ; Lightowler, Daniel ; Radford-Smith, Graham ; Andrews, Jane M. ; Connor, Susan. / Efficacy of rectal tacrolimus for induction therapy in patients with resistant ulcerative proctitis. In: Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2017 ; Vol. 15, No. 8. pp. 1248-1255.
@article{c1d02043fefb4827aeb0de95929a2ac4,
title = "Efficacy of rectal tacrolimus for induction therapy in patients with resistant ulcerative proctitis",
abstract = "Background & Aims Resistant ulcerative proctitis can be extremely difficult to manage. Topically administered tacrolimus, however, may be effective in difficult-to-treat proctitis. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled induction trial of rectal tacrolimus in patients with active ulcerative colitis. Methods Eleven patients received rectal tacrolimus (0.5 mg/mL), and 10 placebo, for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical response by using the Mayo Clinic score. Results A planned interim analysis after 20 patients had completed the study demonstrated highly significant differences between the groups and the study was closed because of ethical considerations with patients already recruited allowed to complete the study. The primary endpoint was met in 8 of 11 patients receiving rectal tacrolimus and 1 of 10 patients receiving placebo (73{\%} vs 10{\%}; P = .004). Of the secondary endpoints, 5 patients with rectal tacrolimus achieved clinical remission compared with none receiving placebo (45{\%} vs 0{\%}; P = .015). Mucosal healing at Week 8 was achieved in 8 patients receiving rectal tacrolimus compared with 1 (73{\%} vs 10{\%}) receiving placebo (P = .004). The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire increased ≥16 points over baseline in 5 of the tacrolimus and 2 (45{\%} vs 20{\%}) of the placebo patients (P = .36). Finally, the average partial Mayo score was numerically lower in the tacrolimus-treated group compared with placebo at Week 2 (4.3 ± 0.74 vs 5.8 ± 0.64; P = .15) and Week 4 (3.7 ± 0.96 vs 5.8 ± 0.6; P = .08) but was significantly lower at Week 8 (3.3 ± 1.2 vs 6.7 ± 0.62; P = .01). There were no safety issues identified with rectal tacrolimus use. Conclusions Rectal tacrolimus was more effective than placebo for induction of a clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing in resistant ulcerative proctitis (Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT01418131).",
keywords = "Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial, Proctitis, Tacrolimus, Ulcerative Colitis",
author = "Lawrance, {Ian C.} and Angela Baird and Daniel Lightowler and Graham Radford-Smith and Andrews, {Jane M.} and Susan Connor",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cgh.2017.02.027",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "1248--1255",
journal = "Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology",
issn = "1542-3565",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "8",

}

Efficacy of rectal tacrolimus for induction therapy in patients with resistant ulcerative proctitis. / Lawrance, Ian C.; Baird, Angela; Lightowler, Daniel; Radford-Smith, Graham; Andrews, Jane M.; Connor, Susan.

In: Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vol. 15, No. 8, 01.08.2017, p. 1248-1255.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Efficacy of rectal tacrolimus for induction therapy in patients with resistant ulcerative proctitis

AU - Lawrance, Ian C.

AU - Baird, Angela

AU - Lightowler, Daniel

AU - Radford-Smith, Graham

AU - Andrews, Jane M.

AU - Connor, Susan

PY - 2017/8/1

Y1 - 2017/8/1

N2 - Background & Aims Resistant ulcerative proctitis can be extremely difficult to manage. Topically administered tacrolimus, however, may be effective in difficult-to-treat proctitis. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled induction trial of rectal tacrolimus in patients with active ulcerative colitis. Methods Eleven patients received rectal tacrolimus (0.5 mg/mL), and 10 placebo, for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical response by using the Mayo Clinic score. Results A planned interim analysis after 20 patients had completed the study demonstrated highly significant differences between the groups and the study was closed because of ethical considerations with patients already recruited allowed to complete the study. The primary endpoint was met in 8 of 11 patients receiving rectal tacrolimus and 1 of 10 patients receiving placebo (73% vs 10%; P = .004). Of the secondary endpoints, 5 patients with rectal tacrolimus achieved clinical remission compared with none receiving placebo (45% vs 0%; P = .015). Mucosal healing at Week 8 was achieved in 8 patients receiving rectal tacrolimus compared with 1 (73% vs 10%) receiving placebo (P = .004). The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire increased ≥16 points over baseline in 5 of the tacrolimus and 2 (45% vs 20%) of the placebo patients (P = .36). Finally, the average partial Mayo score was numerically lower in the tacrolimus-treated group compared with placebo at Week 2 (4.3 ± 0.74 vs 5.8 ± 0.64; P = .15) and Week 4 (3.7 ± 0.96 vs 5.8 ± 0.6; P = .08) but was significantly lower at Week 8 (3.3 ± 1.2 vs 6.7 ± 0.62; P = .01). There were no safety issues identified with rectal tacrolimus use. Conclusions Rectal tacrolimus was more effective than placebo for induction of a clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing in resistant ulcerative proctitis (Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT01418131).

AB - Background & Aims Resistant ulcerative proctitis can be extremely difficult to manage. Topically administered tacrolimus, however, may be effective in difficult-to-treat proctitis. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled induction trial of rectal tacrolimus in patients with active ulcerative colitis. Methods Eleven patients received rectal tacrolimus (0.5 mg/mL), and 10 placebo, for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical response by using the Mayo Clinic score. Results A planned interim analysis after 20 patients had completed the study demonstrated highly significant differences between the groups and the study was closed because of ethical considerations with patients already recruited allowed to complete the study. The primary endpoint was met in 8 of 11 patients receiving rectal tacrolimus and 1 of 10 patients receiving placebo (73% vs 10%; P = .004). Of the secondary endpoints, 5 patients with rectal tacrolimus achieved clinical remission compared with none receiving placebo (45% vs 0%; P = .015). Mucosal healing at Week 8 was achieved in 8 patients receiving rectal tacrolimus compared with 1 (73% vs 10%) receiving placebo (P = .004). The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire increased ≥16 points over baseline in 5 of the tacrolimus and 2 (45% vs 20%) of the placebo patients (P = .36). Finally, the average partial Mayo score was numerically lower in the tacrolimus-treated group compared with placebo at Week 2 (4.3 ± 0.74 vs 5.8 ± 0.64; P = .15) and Week 4 (3.7 ± 0.96 vs 5.8 ± 0.6; P = .08) but was significantly lower at Week 8 (3.3 ± 1.2 vs 6.7 ± 0.62; P = .01). There were no safety issues identified with rectal tacrolimus use. Conclusions Rectal tacrolimus was more effective than placebo for induction of a clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing in resistant ulcerative proctitis (Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT01418131).

KW - Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial

KW - Proctitis

KW - Tacrolimus

KW - Ulcerative Colitis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019617063&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.02.027

DO - 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.02.027

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 1248

EP - 1255

JO - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

JF - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

SN - 1542-3565

IS - 8

ER -