Oral immunoglobulin (Ig) preparations are prime examples of medicinal nutrition from natural sources. Plasma products containing Ig have been used for decades in animal feed for intestinal disorders to mitigate the damaging effects of early weaning. These preparations reduce overall mortality and increase feed utilization in various animal species leading to improved growth. Oral administration of Ig preparations from human serum as well as bovine colostrum and serum have been tested and proven to be safe as well as effective in human clinical trials for a variety of enteric microbial infections and other conditions which cause diarrhea. In infants, children, and adults, the amount of intact IgG recovered in stool ranges from trace amounts up to 25% of the original amount ingested. It is generally understood that IgG can only bind to antigens within the GI tract if the Fab structure is intact and has not been completely denatured through acidic pH or digestive proteolytic enzymes. This is a comprehensive review of human studies regarding the survivability of orally-administered Ig preparations, with a focus on IgG. This review also highlights various biochemical studies on IgG which potentially explain which structural elements are responsible for increased stability against digestion.

Background: A small double-blind study showed benefits of serum-derived bovine immunoglobulin/protein isolate (SBI), for diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) [1]. The purpose of this chart review was to assess safety and clinical outcomes of SBI in refractory irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients. Methods: A retrospective review of 35 IBS patients with diarrhea or mixed diarrhea/constipation pattern (IBS-M) who were administered SBI 5 grams twice daily was performed. Clinical response ("good response" or "no response") and adverse events were determined by follow-up after four weeks of therapy. Patients were included for evaluation if a lactulose breath test (LBT) had been performed prior to SBI. All patients were refractory to common IBS therapies. The response rate to the inclusion of SBI was calculated in three separate groups: dividing patients based on their LBT results (positive or negative), dividing patients by their IBS diagnosis (IBS-D or IBS-M) and grouping all patients together. Results: Analysis was carried out on 26 IBS-D/-M patients with LBT results. Two patients were lost to follow-up and were excluded from data analysis. The positive LBT group (N = 11) had a 73% (p = 0.117) positive response rate to SBI. The negative LBT group (N = 13) had a significant response rate of 77% (p = 0.040). If patients were divided by IBS diagnosis or grouped together, the response rate to SBI was similarly ranging from 69% -88%. Adverse events leading to cessation of SBI occurred in 3 of 24 patients. Conclusion: SBI appeared to be a safe and effective nutritional moiety in refractory IBS-D and IBS-M patients. Larger, double-blind studies are needed.

BackgroundPain is a debilitating symptom of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) that negatively affects patients’ lives. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of AS and other inflammatory diseases, showed significant efficacy vs placebo (PBO) in the phase 2/3 SELECT-AXIS 1 study in patients with AS who were biologic-naive and in the phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 study in patients with active AS who had an inadequate response (IR) to biological therapy[1,2]. Improvement in pain outcomes with UPA was also previously demonstrated in the SELECT-AXIS 1 study[3].ObjectivesThe objective of this post-hoc analysis of SELECT-AXIS 2 was to evaluate the efficacy of UPA vs PBO on multiple pain assessments through 14 weeks in patients with IR to a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD-IR).MethodsSELECT-AXIS 2 (NCT04169373) enrolled adults with active AS with IR to biological therapy, including patients who discontinued biologics due to lack of efficacy or intolerance[1]. Patients were randomized 1:1 to UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) or PBO for 14 weeks. Pain endpoints evaluated here included the proportion of patients achieving ≥30%, ≥50%, and ≥70% reduction from baseline, minimal clinically important difference (MCID, defined as ≥1 point reduction or ≥15% reduction from baseline), and much better improvement (MBI, defined as ≥2 point reduction and ≥33% reduction from baseline) in Patient’s Global Assessment (PGA) of pain, total back pain, and nocturnal back pain on a 0–10 numeric rating scale[3,4]. Non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 was used.ResultsA total of 211 patients received UPA 15 mg QD and 209 patients received PBO. Higher proportions of patients receiving UPA vs PBO achieved ≥30% and ≥50% reductions in PGA of pain, total back pain, and nocturnal back pain as early as week 2 that were sustained at all time points through 14 weeks (nominalP<0.05;Figure 1a-c). Achievement of ≥70% reductions in PGA of pain and nocturnal back pain were higher at week 4 and sustained thereafter (Figures 1aand1c), and achievement of ≥70% reduction in total back pain was higher at week 2 and week 8, but not week 4, and sustained thereafter (Figure 1b). Results were similar for the proportion of patients achieving MCID and MBI, with improvements in PGA of pain, total back pain, and nocturnal back pain for UPA vs PBO as early as week 1 (MCID) or week 2 (MBI) that were sustained through week 14 (all nominalP<0.001;Table 1).Table 1.Achievement of MCID and MBI in Pain Outcomes at Week 14 (NRI-MI)Responder Rate (95% CI), %Pain OutcomesUPA 15 mgPBONominalPValuePGA of painMCID81.0(75.8–86.3)62.7(56.1–69.2)<0.0001MBI60.7(54.1–67.3)24.9(19.0–30.7)<0.0001Total back painMCID80.1(74.7–85.5)65.1(58.6–71.5)0.0005MBI58.3(51.6–64.9)25.4(19.5–31.3)<0.0001Nocturnal back painMCID82.9(77.9–88.0)61.3(54.7–67.9)<0.0001MBI61.6(55.0–68.2)32.1(25.7–38.4)<0.0001MBI, much better improvement; MCID, minimal clinically important difference; NRI-MI, non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19; PBO, placebo; PGA, Patient’s Global Assessment; UPA, upadacitinib.ConclusionIn patients with active AS who were bDMARD-IR, greater proportions of patients treated with UPA achieved rapid and clinically meaningful reductions in pain vs PBO as early as week 2 that were sustained through 14 weeks across multiple pain assessments.References[1]van der Heijde D, et al.Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81(11):1515-1523.[2]van der Heijde D, et al.Lancet. 2019;394(10214):2108-2117.[3]McInnes IB, et al.RMD Open. 2022;8(1):doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2021-002049.[4]Salaffi F, et al.Eur J Pain. 2004;8(4):283-291.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by M. Hovenden and J. Matsuura of ICON plc (Blue Bell, PA, USA) and was funded by AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsXenofon Baraliakos Consultant of: Novartis, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, UCB Pharma, Galapagos, Janssen, Celgene, and Amgen, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, UCB Pharma, Galapagos, Janssen, Celgene, and Amgen, Marina Magrey Consultant of: UCB, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen, Grant/research support from: Amgen, AbbVie, BMS, and UCB Pharma, Louis Bessette Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Organon, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Gilead, Kurt de Vlam Speakers bureau: Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, and UCB, Consultant of: Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, UCB, and MSD, Tianming Gao Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Anna Shmagel Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ralph Lippe Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ana Biljan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Victoria Jasion Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Peter C. Taylor Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: Lilly, AbbVie, Pfizer, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Fresenius, Nordic Pharma, UCB, and Biogen, Grant/research support from: Galapagos.