Cohen, B

Abstract Background Global data demonstrate an inverse relationship between hospital ileoanal pouch volume and adverse outcomes, highlighting the need for quality metrics for this technically demanding procedure.1-4 Currently, there are no standardised quality indicators to define high-quality pouch surgery. This study aimed to establish international consensus on key performance indicators (KPIs) in pouch surgery. Methods A modified Delphi process was conducted among an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts. Participants were identified through professional networks, literature review, and direct email invitation; additional participants recruited via a snowball sampling approach over one month. Candidate KPIs were generated from literature review and expert input across 5 domains. Each item was rated on a 9-point Likert scale (1 = not important, 9 = critically important); consensus was predefined as ≥ 80% of respondents rating an item 7–9. Items not reaching consensus were re-rated in a second round following anonymized group feedback. Results Round 1 included 312 participants from 37 countries. Demographics (Table 1): 53% were age 45 years, 35.2% were female, and included surgeons (68.6%) and gastroenterologists (31.1%). Most (76.6%) practice at academic or university hospitals, with a median of 11 (5–17) years in practise; 78.9% perform >1 pouchoscopy per month, and 39.5% of surgeons perform 5 pouches/year. Respondents’ regions included North America (51%), Europe (26%), Oceania (9%), Asia (6%), Latin America (4%), and the Middle East/Africa (4%). Seven (18%) countries (Denmark, Lithuania, Malaysia, Norway, United Arab Emirates, Sweden, and Switzerland) reported pouch surgery is already centralised, while 70.6% agreed pouch centralisation should be implemented. Cost/logistics and professional autonomy were the most important barriers to centralisation, whereas capacity and training exposure were least important. Overall, 37/59 (62.7%) candidate KPIs reached consensus after Round 1. The Round 2 response rate was 61%, and 2 additional KPIs reached consensus (preop ileitis and long-term risk of pouchitis). Additionally, 14 of 25 (56%) informed consent items reached consensus, and 64% of respondents felt informed consent for pouch surgery requires 2 or more office visits. Consensus items were used to populate a KPIPS Checklist (Figure 1). Conclusion Through an international Delphi process, the KPIPS study identified a consensus-derived set of key performance indicators to measure quality in pouch surgery. These quality metrics provide a foundation for benchmarking outcomes and represent a critical step towards centralization and the development of designated pouch centres of excellence to improve global standards of care for pouch patients. References: 1. Worley GHT, Fearnhead NS, Brown SR, et al. Review of current practice and outcomes following ileoanal pouch surgery: Lessons learned from the ileoanal pouch registry and the 2017 ileoanal pouch report. Colorectal Dis 2018;20:913–22. 2. Giddings HL, Yang PF, Steffens D, Solomon MJ, Ng KS. Influence of hospital-level and surgeon factors on the outcomes after ileo-anal pouch surgery for inflammatory bowel disease: Systematic review. Br J Surg 2024;111. 3. Hoang CM, Maykel JA, Davids JS, et al. Distribution of elective ileal pouch-anal anastomosis cases for ulcerative colitis: A study utilizing the university health system consortium database. J Gastrointest Surg 2020;24:2613–9. 4. Moojen TB, Visser E, Reijntjes MA, et al. One-year stoma-free survival of ileoanal pouches for uc in european centers: The miracle project. Ann Surg Open 2025;6:e596. Conflict of interest: Prof. Holubar, Stefan: No conflict of interest Soop, Mattias: No conflict of interest Poskus, Tomas: No conflict of interest Neary, Peter: No conflict of interest Uchino, Tairin: No conflict of interest Yang, Song-soo: No conflict of interest Adamina, Michel: No conflict of interest Avellaneda, Nicolas Luis: No conflict of interest Barnes, Edward: No conflict of interest Brouquet, Antoine: No conflict of interest Brown, Steven Ross: No conflict of interest De Buck Van Overstraeten, Anthony: No conflict of interest Buskens, Christianne J.: No conflict of interest Chiorean, Michael: No conflict of interest Clark, David: No conflict of interest Cohen, Benjamin: No conflict of interest El Ouali, Sara: No conflict of interest Faiz, Omar Darius: No conflict of interest Fichera, Alessandro: No conflict of interest Hahnloser, Dieter: No conflict of interest Hancock, Laura: No conflict of interest Herfarth, Hans: No conflict of interest Johnston, Michael: No conflict of interest Kayal, Maia: No conflict of interest Laharie, David: No conflict of interest Liberman, Sender: No conflict of interest Loftus, Jr, Edward: No conflict of interest Moeslein, Gabriela: No conflict of interest Myrelid, Pär: No conflict of interest Poylin, Vitaliy: No conflict of interest Qazi, Taha: No conflict of interest Raffals, Laura: No conflict of interest Rubin, David T.: No conflict of interest Spinelli, Antonino: No conflict of interest Steinhagen, Emily: No conflict of interest Tozer, Philip: No conflict of interest Verstockt, Bram: No conflict of interest Warusavitarne, Janindra: No conflict of interest Wexner, Steven: No conflict of interest Winter, Desmond: No conflict of interest

Abstract Background We aimed to describe the real-world durability of clinical and endoscopic outcomes of upadacitinib (UPA) in ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods We retrospectively analyzed an ongoing multi-center cohort of UC patients(pts) in the United States who were started on UPA for active disease. Primary outcome was clinical remission at 1yr assessed by partial Mayo score(pMS)(resolution of all UC related symptoms and physician global assessment). Secondary outcomes assessed at various timepoints, including after re-escalation, included clinical response(>50%reduction in symptoms utilizing the pMS), endoscopic response (Mayo endoscopic score≤1or absence of erosions/ulcerations) and histological remission(defined as normal or chronic inactive). Durable secondary outcomes achieved at both 6months and at 1yr and beyond were also assessed. Descriptive statistics were performed. Adverse events(AEs) investigated included cardiovascular events and herpes zoster (HZ). Results 416pts were included(Table 1) with median values for age at initiation of36.00yrs(range27-48), disease duration7.00yrs(range3-14)and follow-up 993days(IQR,672-1103), with206(49.52%)with follow-up at 1yr or beyond. Of these, 66.1%had extensive colitis. Induction duration was8wks in 86.5%and16wks in 4.8 %(20/416). Most received an induction dose of45mg(97.1%)and maintenance dose of30mg(85.8%). Among the evaluable population at1yr and beyond, 62.5%(45/80)were in clinical remission, 75.9%(22/29)in endoscopic response with58.6%(17/29) in remission and66.6%(20/30)in histological remission. At 6months, clinical remission was51.6%(42/93), endoscopic response was 75%(24/32) of which43.75%(14/32)were in remission and histologic remission was seen in 40.8%(20/49).Durable secondary outcomes of clinical remission were seen in 71.4%(30/42), endoscopic improvement in 45.8%(11/24), and histologic remission in35%(7/20). Re-escalation to 45mg occurred in 35pts, of which48.6%(17/35)were re-escalated due to incomplete induction clinical response with all achieving response(11 in remission). The rest(18/35)were re-escalated for clinical relapse after initial remission where72.2%(13/18)were able to recapture remission. After re-escalation,54.3%(19/35)continued on 45mg daily. AEs were reported in12.7%with HZ in 7pts(2.1%). One pt aged53yrs had an episode of TIA after 1yr on UPA at 15mg, without pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors and UPA use is ongoing at the same dose. There were no reported episodes of worsening of pre-existing cardiovascular disease or DVT/PE. Conclusion UPA is durably effective and safe in a real-world clinical setting with re-escalation to 45mg capturing response in a majority of the pts. Ongoing recruitment will provide further evidence on long term effectiveness and safety. Conflict of interest: Ms. Huang, Katherine: No conflict of interest Chandnani, Arun: No conflict of interest Samaan, Sami: None Tan, Tingyi: I have no conflict of interests to declare. Ramesh, Prajith Raj: None Conlon, Caroline: No conflict of interest Klein, Jeremy: None Reddy, Nikhil: No conflict of interest Ayoub, Malek: None Cervantes Limon, Gabriela: none Myers, Melissa: None Bucaram, Martha: No conflict of interest Lieto, Stephen: No conflict of interest Scalzo, Nicholas: No conflict of interest Cohen, Benjamin: Abbvie - consulting and speaking ALPCO - consulting J & J Innovative Medicine - consulting Takeda - consulting and speaking Emmes Biopharma Services LLC - DSMB Pfizer - consulting Mohamed, Islam: nothing to declare Ciorba, Matthew: Advisory Board: Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Geneoscopy Consulting: Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Geneoscopy Grant contracts: Janssen, Pfizer, Incyte Shukla, Richa: Speakers bureau - Abbvie and Lilly Wright, Michael: None Xu, An Tao: No conflict of interest Chowla, Navreet: No conflict of interest Ogholikhan, Sina: Abbvie Medical Director Kujawski, Michelle: Abbvie Scientific Director Dulaney, David: Speaker bureau - Regeneron Speaker bureau - Sanofi Speaker bureau - Takeda Speaker bureau - Eli Lilly Fenster, Marc: none Benson, Caroline: No conflict of interest Alhobayb, Tamara: No conflict of interest Berinstein, Jeffrey: No conflict of interest Shivashankar, Raina: Abbvie and BMS - speaker bureau Janssen and Celltrion - grant for IBD fellowship funding Pfizer - consultant Bishu, Shrinivas: None Patel, Anish: speaker: abbvie, J & J, Lilly, BMS, Pfizer, Phathom, Takeda consultant: abbvie Ungaro, Ryan: Personal Fees: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen, Takeda Johnson, Amanda: Research grant: Abbvie, Spyre Therapeutics Pekow, Joel R.: CVS Health - Consulting Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson - Stocks Yarur, Andres: Personal Fees: Consultant for Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, Abbvie, Eli Lilly. Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Johnson and Johnson. Deepak, Parakkal: Parakkal Deepak has received research support under a sponsored research agreement unrelated to the data in the abstract from AbbVie, Johnson and Johnson, Sanofi, Merck, Teva, Direct Biologics, Tr1x, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Roche Genentech, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Spyre and Agomab, has received consulting fees from Johnson and Johnson, Abbvie, Merck, Sobi, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Sandoz and CorEvitas, LLC and has served on the board of the Srategic Alliance for Intercultural Advocacy in GI.