Feagan, B G

Abstract Background Colonic strictures in Crohn’s disease (CD) are an important, but understudied clinical problem. Cross-sectional imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and intestinal ultrasound (IUS) effectively assess the small bowel in CD allowing for the diagnosis of strictures. However, radiologic definitions of colonic strictures and their diagnostic accuracy have not been developed. Endoscopic definitions of colonic strictures are the most well-described. Aims We aimed to systematically review available data to summarize definitions, diagnosis and differentiation between inflammation and fibrosis of colonic strictures on endoscopy, CT, MR, and IUS Methods We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines using MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases from inception to Oct 6, 2024 to identify literature with diagnostic imaging that included patients with colonic CD strictures. To distinguish fibrosis from inflammation, only studies comparing endoscopy or imaging to a full thickness histologic gold standard were included. Two stage screening was completed in duplicate, and risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 Results 46 studies were eligible for inclusion. Definitions for colonic strictures on CT, MR, and IUS are heterogeneous with combinations of bowel wall thickness, luminal narrowing, and pre-stenotic dilation with no clear cut offs. Endoscopic definitions commonly included lack of colonoscope passage through a narrowed lumen. The diagnostic accuracy of colonic strictures on imaging to detect inflammation and fibrosis against a gold standard of endoscopy or surgical resection is unclear as direct comparisons are few. Meta-analyses were not conducted due to methodological heterogeneity of grading fibrosis and statistical heterogeneity of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of colonic stricture diagnoses limited by pooling with small bowel strictures in the studies Conclusions This systematic review describes a lack of definitions for the diagnosis of CD colonic strictures particularly on diagnostic imaging, and the limitations with the current available data to differentiate inflammation from fibrosis. Although bowel wall thickening, luminal narrowing, and pre-stenotic dilation are recognized as hallmark features of small bowel strictures, their adaptation to the colon requires further assessment. Definitions for colonic strictures should likely include imaging combined with endoscopy. Future endeavors are required to develop a consensus to define and diagnose colonic strictures on these modalities Funding Agencies None

Abstract Background Colonic strictures in Crohn’s disease (CD) present a complex and relatively underexplored clinical issue. Imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and intestinal ultrasound (IUS), have established criteria for evaluating small bowel CD strictures. However, radiologic definitions of benign colonic strictures and their diagnostic accuracy are not well-developed. Endoscopic definitions of colonic strictures are the most well-described. We conducted a systematic review to summarize definitions, diagnosis, and identification of inflammation and fibrosis of colonic strictures on endoscopy, CT, MR, and IUS. Methods A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines, from inception to October 6, 2024, was conducted using MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases to identify literature on diagnostic imaging of patients with colonic CD strictures. Only studies with comparison to endoscopy or imaging to a full-thickness histologic gold standard to differentiate fibrosis from inflammation were included. Two stage screening was completed in duplicate, and risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Results 46 studies were eligible for inclusion of 4623 abstracts screened. Definitions of colonic strictures on CT, MR, and IUS were highly variable with combinations of bowel wall thickness, luminal narrowing, and pre-stenotic dilation. Endoscopic definitions of colonic strictures were the most consistently reported as lack of passage of a colonoscope through a narrowed lumen. Diagnostic imaging definitions used various combinations of increased bowel wall thickness, luminal narrowing, and pre-stenotic dilation with no clear cutoffs. Few studies directly compared imaging features with histologic or endoscopic gold standards, limiting evaluation of diagnostic accuracy. Meta-analyses were not conducted due to methodological heterogeneity of grading fibrosis across studies. In addition, statistical heterogeneity of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of colonic stricture diagnoses was limited by pooling with small bowel strictures in the studies. Conclusion This systematic review highlighted the absence of standardized definitions for diagnosing colonic Crohn’s disease strictures, particularly on diagnostic imaging, and the limited data distinguishing inflammatory from fibrotic components. Bowel wall thickening, luminal narrowing, and pre-stenotic dilation are key features of small bowel strictures, but their relevance to the colon requires further assessment. Establishing standardized definitions for colonic strictures that incorporate both endoscopic and imaging modalities is essential to advancing the field. Conflict of interest: Dr. Lu, Cathy: Advisory board - Abbvie, Johnson and Johnson, Takeda, Ferring, Merck, Celltrion, Lilly, Pfizer, Pendopharm, Agomab. Research Funding - Abbvie, Helmsley Charitable Trust, Alberta Innovates Dhaliwal, Ravdip: No conflict of interest Kellar, Amelia: No conflict of interest Rowan, Catherine: No conflict of interest St-Pierre, Joelle: Consultant for Pfizer, Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Pendopharm, and speaker for Takeda. Ernest-Suárez, Kenneth: Consulting/Advisory Board fees: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Ferring, Sandoz, SatisfAI, Takeda O’Brien, Maureen: No conflict of interest Rosentreter, Ryan: No conflict of interest Gulhati, Vishrut: No conflict of interest Baker, Mark: No conflict of interest Bettenworth, Dominik: DB is on the advisory board or consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Atheneum, BNG Service GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb, CED-Service GmbH, Celltrion, Doctorflix, DGVS, Diaplan, Else Kröner-Fresenius Foundation, Falk Foundation, Galapagos, Guidepoint, Impulze, Ferring, Janssen Cilag, Lilly, Medical Tribune, MedTriX, MSD, Mylan, Onkowissen, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, Tetrameros, Thieme, Tillotts Pharma, UCB Biopiharma, Viatris and Vifor Pharma. Bruining, David: Advisory board fees from Janssen Bari, Dane: Grant from Helmsley Charitable Trust speaker honorarium from Siemens Healthineers support for attending meetings or travel from Siemens Healthineers member of the Olympus advisory board co-chair Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) Inflammatory Bowel Disease Disease Focused Panel (IBD DFP) and SAR Photon-Counting Detector CT Emerging Technology Commission and chair of the Society for Advanced Body Imaging Scientific Committee. Dillman, Jonathan: Grants from Philips Healthcare, GE HealthCare, Motilent, Perspectum, Guerbet, and Bracco. El Ouali, Sara: Speaker and/or consulting fees from Takeda, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Abbvie. Fletcher, John: Grant supports from Siemens Healthineers Gordon, Ilyssa: Grants to institution from Morphic Therapeutics, Alimentiv, Pliant Therapeutics, and UCB patent pending with Case Western Reserve University on radiomics signatures Jairath, Vipul: Consulting Fees: Abbvie, Alimentiv, Amgen, Anaptys Bio, Asahi Kasei, Asieris, Astra Zeneca, Attovia, Blackbird Labs, BMS, Boehringer Ingleheim, Biomebank, Caldera, Calluna, Catalytic Health, Celltrion, Ensho, Enthera, Exeliome Biosciences, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Granite Bio, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mountainfield, MRM Health, Nxera, Organon, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pendopharm, Pioneering Medicine, Pfizer, Prometheus, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, SCOPE, Shattuck Labs, Sorriso, Spyre, Synedgen, Takeda, Teva, Tillotts, Union Therapeutics, Ventus, Ventyx, Vividion, Xencor, Zealand Pharma. Feagan, Brian Gordon: Consulting Fees: AbbVie, Abivax, Adaxion, Adiso, AgomAB Therapeutics, Akros, Alira Health, Ally Bridge Group, Apini Therapeutics, Argenx, Attovia Tx, Avoro Capital Advisors, Belmore Law, Biora Therapeutics, Blackbird Laboratories, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Boxer Capital, Celgene/BMS, Clarivate, Connect Biopharm, EcoR1, Eli Lilly, Ensho Therapeutics, Equillium, Evida, Enveda, Evommune Inc. Faes Farma, First Wave, Forbion, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, General Atlantic, Genesis Therapeutics, Gerson Lehrman Group, Gilead, Guidepoint, Imhotex, ImiDomics, Immunic Therapeutics, Janssen, Japan Tobacco Inc., LifeMine Therapeutics, Mage Biologics, Merck, Mirador Therapeutics, Mobius Care, Monte Rosa Tx, Morphic Therapeutics, Nimbus Therapeutics, Novartis, Nxera, OncoC3, Palisade Bio, Pendopharm, Pfizer,Q32 Bio, REDX, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, Sorriso, Spyre Therapeutics, Sun Pharma, Surrozen Inc., Synedgen, Takeda, Tegus Inc., Teva, Tillotts, Trex Bio, TR1X Inc. TVM Lifesciences, Ventyx Biosciences, Versant Ventures, Vida Ventures, Ysios Capital, Zagbio Stock Shareholder: Connect Biopharm, EnGene, Evida, SRT, Imidomics, Enveda Rieder, Florian: Personal Fees: Adiso, Adnovate, Agomab, Allergan, AbbVie, Arena, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene/BMS, Celltrion, CDISC, Celsius, Cowen, Ferring, Galapagos, Galmed, Genentech, Gilead, Gossamer, Granite, Guidepoint, Helmsley, Horizon Therapeutics, Image Analysis Limited, Index Pharma, Landos, Jannsen, Koutif, Mestag, Metacrine, Mopac, Morphic, Organovo, Origo, Palisade, Pfizer, Pliant, Prometheus Biosciences, Receptos, RedX, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, Surmodics, Surrozen, Takeda, Techlab, Teva, Theravance, Thetis, UCB, Ysios, 89Bio

Abstract Background The operating properties of histologic indices are poorly characterized in Crohn’s disease (CD) and no validated index exists. We assessed the reliability and responsiveness of histologic indices/items, developed an exploratory index, and compared different methods of scoring. Methods Using baseline and week 12 histologic image sets from the EXTEND placebo-controlled trial, blinded central readers scored 4 histologic indices (the Global Histologic Activity Score [GHAS], Geboes Score [GS], Robarts Histopathology Index [RHI], and Nancy Index [NHI]) and 3 additional novel items identified by an expert panel (mucin depletion, basal plasmacytosis, and pyloric gland metaplasia in the ileum). Reliability and responsiveness were evaluated for a global score (4 colonic segments + ileum), colonic score (4 colonic segments) and ileal score (ileum only) using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), respectively. Change was defined using treatment assignment and improvement in histologic disease activity as measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) in responsiveness testing. Exploratory indices were developed using backward stepwise linear regression analysis. Candidate independent variables were items with an ICC ≥0.4 and AUC ≥0.56. The VAS served as the dependent variable. Results Paired histologic images were analysed from 55 subjects. Inter-rater reliability was substantial to almost perfect (ICC=0.73-0.85) and responsiveness was small to large (treatment assignment AUC=0.50-0.65; VAS AUC=0.71-0.94). The GHAS, GS, RHI, and NHI reached the minimum threshold for reliability (ICC ≥0.4) and responsiveness (AUC ≥0.56) regardless of whether the global and colonic scores were calculated using the worst affected segment, average of the included segments, or sum of the included segments (Table 1-3). Five items were tested as candidate predictors. Three exploratory indices were developed, each consisting of 3 items: a global index (neutrophils in the lamina propria, neutrophils in the epithelium, and erosion/ulceration), colonic index (chronic inflammatory infiltrate, neutrophils in the lamina propria, and erosion/ulceration) and ileal index (chronic inflammatory infiltrate, neutrophils in the epithelium, and erosion/ulceration). The novel indices highly correlated with the GHAS, GS, RHI, and NHI, with correlation coefficients ≥0.80 (Table 4). Conclusion The 4 existing indices were similarly reliable and responsive in measuring CD histologic activity, regardless of the method for calculating global and colonic scores and could be used in clinical trials. Attempts at novel index development did not offer benefit over current histologic indices.

Abstract Background Computed tomography enterography (CTE) is frequently used to assess stricturing Crohn’s disease (CD). However, the reliability of CTE items used for assessment has not been established and there is no validated radiologic stricture severity index. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of 43 patients with symptomatic, terminal ileal stricturing CD. Four radiologists assessed a comprehensive list of pre-defined radiologic items potentially associated with stricture severity in 48 CTE scans in two separate rounds in random order. Reliability was quantified using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Items with at least moderate (ICC≥0.41) inter-rater reliability that were correlated with a visual analogue scale of overall stricture severity were candidate items for the development of a CTE stricture index. Results Inter-rater reliability was almost perfect for assessment of luminal diameter of pre-stenotic dilation (ICC 0.817 [95% confidence interval 0.703, 0.878]), substantial for stricture length (ICC 0.628 [0.419, 0.797]), and moderate for stricture wall thickness (0.482 [0.330, 0.601]). Intra-rater reliability was almost perfect (ICC ≥ 0.850) for all three items. A stricture severity index was derived and was well calibrated (optimism-adjusted calibration slope = 1.009), with scores calculated as the sum of stricture length (cm) + luminal diameter of pre-stenotic dilation (mm) + 5 x stricture wall thickness (mm). Conclusion Stricture length, prestenotic dilation, and stricture wall thickness can be reliably assessed, and are component items for a novel CTE stricture index (CTE-SI) of stricture severity for CD-related terminal ileal strictures. Additional external index validation for clinical and research contexts is required.

Abstract Background Small bowel fibrostenotic strictures are common in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD). No global consensus recommendations on definitions, diagnosis and clinical management are available. Methods Several systematic reviews followed by a RAND/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness study on the definitions, diagnosis and clinical management of fibrostenosing CD in clinical practice were performed. A panel of 28 global experts and a patient representative were convened. They assessed a total of 152 candidate items. The items were subsequently evaluated for appropriateness. Results No accurate predictive biomarkers are available for naïve or anastomotic fibrostenosing strictures. Accurate diagnosis of fibrostenosing CD requires cross-sectional imaging which should evaluate bowel wall thickness, luminal narrowing and prestenotic dilatation. A potential inflammatory component should be assessed. Abdominal cross-sectional imaging was considered necessary prior to any treatment decision. The panel proposed an approach to medical, endoscopic, and surgical therapies (Figure 1 and Table 1). Technical characteristics for endoscopic balloon dilation and follow up strategies after successful dilation therapy were identified. Appropriateness, types and performance of different surgical approaches in various settings were evaluated. Conclusion This global consensus provides clinical guidance for the diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients with fibrostenotic CD.

Abstract Aims SELECTION (NCT02914522) Maintenance evaluated filgotinib (FIL), a preferential JAK1 inhibitor, as maintenance therapy for patients (pts) with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) who achieved clinical remission or Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) response after 10 weeks of FIL 200mg QD, FIL 100mg QD or placebo (PBO) induction. Methods Pts randomized to FIL induction were rerandomized 2:1 to their induction FIL dose or PBO; pts randomized to PBO induction continued PBO maintenance. Steroid tapering was mandatory. The primary endpoint was clinical remission at Week 58. Key secondary endpoints and exploratory endpoints were assessed at Week 58. Results 664 pts were treated in the Maintenance Study (n=93, 270, and 301 from induction with PBO, FIL 100mg and FIL 200mg); efficacy analyses included only FIL induction pts. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally balanced across treatment arms; 40% were biologic experienced. Significantly higher proportion of pts on FIL 200mg or FIL 100mg were in clinical remission vs PBO. Significantly higher proportions of pts achieved key secondary endpoints with FIL 200mg vs PBO. More pts on FIL 200 mg or FIL 100mg achieved an MCS response and endoscopic improvement vs PBO. Incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were similar across arms. Serious infection (<2%) and herpes zoster (<1%) were infrequent among FIL-treated patients. There were no venous thromboses, including pulmonary embolism, among FIL-treated pts. Two pts on FIL 200mg died, both AEs leading to death were considered unrelated to FIL. Conclusions FIL 200mg and FIL 100mg were effective as maintenance treatment for pts with moderately to severely active UC who had achieved clinical response to FIL induction treatment. FIL 200 mg met all key secondary endpoints including endoscopic, histologic and 6-month corticosteroid-free remission. FIL was well tolerated in pts with moderate to severely active UC. Funding Agencies None

Abstract Aims The SELECTION (NCT02914522) Induction Studies evaluated the efficacy/safety of filgotinib (FIL), a preferential JAK1 inhibitor, as induction therapy for patients (pts) with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) who were biologic-naïve but failed conventional therapy (Induction Study A) or failed prior biologics (Induction Study B). Methods Pts were randomized 2:2:1 to once–daily FIL 200mg, FIL 100mg or placebo (PBO). The primary (clinical remission), key secondary (Mayo Clinic Score [MCS] remission, endoscopic remission, and histologic remission), and exploratory endpoints (MCS response and endoscopic improvement) were assessed at Week 10. Results In both studies, baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar across treatment groups. In Study A, 659 pts were randomized and treated. Baseline mean MCS was 8.6 and 56% had a Mayo endoscopic subscore (ES)=3. A significantly higher proportion of biologic-naïve pts on FIL 200mg achieved clinical remission vs PBO and all key secondary endpoints (Table). In Study B, 689 pts were randomized and treated. Baseline mean MCS was 9.3 and 78% had ES=3. Prior treatment failures were: anti-TNF (86%), vedolizumab (52%) and both (dual-refractory; 43%). A significantly higher proportion of biologic-experienced pts on FIL 200mg achieved clinical remission vs PBO. In Studies A and B, a greater proportion of pts on FIL 200 mg achieved an MCS response and endoscopic improvement vs PBO. The rates of AEs, serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were similar across FIL and PBO groups during induction. In the PBO, FIL 100mg and FIL 200mg groups, serious infections occurred in 0.7%, 0.7% and 0.4% pts in Study A and 1.4%, 1.4% and 0.8% pts in Study B; H Zoster occurred in <1% in both groups for both cohorts. Conclusions SELECTION included a high proportion of dual-refractory pts, and pts with severe endoscopic disease. Both doses of FIL were well tolerated. Filgotinib 200mg was effective induction therapy for both biologic-naïve/-experienced pts with moderately to severely active UC. Funding Agencies None