A randomized, double‐blind phase 1b study evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the NLRP3 inhibitor selnoflast in patients with moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe NLRP3 inflammasome drives release of pro‐inflammatory cytokines including interleukin (IL)‐1β and IL‐18 and is a potential target for ulcerative colitis (UC). Selnoflast (RO7486967) is an orally active, potent, selective and reversible small molecule NLRP3 inhibitor. We conducted a randomized, placebo‐controlled Phase 1b study to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of selnoflast.MethodsNineteen adults with previous diagnosis of UC and current active moderate to severe disease were randomized 2:1 to selnoflast or placebo for 7 days. A dose of 450 mg QD (once daily) was selected to achieve 90% IL‐1β inhibition in plasma and colon tissue. Consecutive blood, sigmoid colon biopsies and stool samples were analyzed for a variety of PD markers. Safety and PK were also evaluated.ResultsSelnoflast was well‐tolerated. Plasma concentrations increased rapidly after oral administration, reaching Tmax 1 h post‐dose. Mean plasma concentrations stayed above the IL‐1β IC90 level throughout the dosing interval (mean Ctrough on Day 1 and Day 5: 2.55 μg/mL and 2.66 μg/mL, respectively). At steady state, post‐dose selnoflast concentrations in sigmoid colon (5‐20 μg/g) were above the IC90. Production of IL‐1β was reduced in whole blood following ex vivo stimulation with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) (in the selnoflast arm). No changes were observed in plasma IL‐18 levels. There were no meaningful differences in the expression of an IL‐1‐related gene signature in sigmoid colon tissue, and no differences in the expression of stool biomarkers.ConclusionsSelnoflast was safe and well‐tolerated. Selnoflast 450 mg QD achieved plasma and tissue exposure predicted to maintain IL‐1β IC90 over the dosing interval. However, PD biomarker results showed no robust differences between treatment arms, suggesting no major therapeutic effects are to be expected in UC. The limitations of this study are its small sample size and indirect assessment of the effect on IL‐1β in tissue.Trial registrationISRCTN16847938