Back to Authors

Ma, C

0000-0002-4698-9948

Mayo Clinic

University of Calgary

Citations 13

The Clinical Significance of Eosinophils in Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review
Mookhoek, Aart , Haasnoot, Maria L. , Ma, Christopher , Pai, Rish K. , Ma, C , Jairath, Vipul , Bredenoord, Albert J. , Jairath, Vipul

Journal of Crohn's and Colitis | February 5, 2022 | Volume: 16 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 1321-1334

10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac024 Get It

Abstract Background and Aims Ulcerative colitis [UC] is characterised by an unpredictable disease course and variable response to therapy. Recent studies suggest a role for eosinophils in both pathogenesis and predicting treatment response. The goal of this study was to determine the association between eosinophils and clinical outcomes in UC. Methods A systematic review of the literature from database inception to May 2021 was performed to identify all studies evaluating the relationship between eosinophils and/or eosinophil-derived proteins [EDPs] and clinical outcomes, such as disease activity, clinical relapse, severity of disease, and response to treatment. Results A total of 55 studies were identified. Of these, 34 studies evaluated the relationship between eosinophils in colonic tissue and outcomes and 15 in blood. Eighteen studies assessed the relationship between EDPs and outcomes. In 25 of 34 studies, a positive correlation between eosinophils and/or EDPs and disease activity was reported, three studies found a negative correlation, and nine studies found no correlation. Positive correlations between eosinophils and clinical relapse were shown in four of nine studies, and with disease outcome severity in five of seven studies. Four of 15 studies showed that subjects with higher eosinophil levels had a poor response to treatment. Conclusions These findings suggest that higher eosinophil levels may be associated with increased disease activity and poorer clinical outcomes and response to therapy. Future studies are needed to determine whether a distinct eosinophil-rich UC phenotype exists and whether eosinophil-targeted therapy can alter the disease course.
Responsiveness of a Histologic Scoring System Compared With Peak Eosinophil Count in Eosinophilic Esophagitis
Ma, Christopher , Feagan, Brian G. , Guizzetti, Leonardo , Zou, Guangyong , McFarlane, Stefanie C., Shackelton, Lisa M. , Hirano, Ikuo , Rooij, Willemijn E. de , Pai, Rish K. , Dellon, Evan S. , Ma, C , Guizzetti, L , Zou, Guangyong , Jairath, Vipul , Collins, Margaret H. , Schaeffer, David F. , Bredenoord, Albert J.

American Journal of Gastroenterology | November 19, 2021 | Volume: 117 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 264-271

10.14309/ajg.0000000000001571 Get It

INTRODUCTION: The optimal instrument for assessing histologic disease activity in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is unclear. We assessed the responsiveness of the EoE Histologic Scoring System (EoE-HSS) when compared with that of the peak eosinophil count (PEC). METHODS: Histopathology slides were obtained from patients with EoE at baseline and after 8 weeks of treatment with swallowed topical budesonide or elimination diet. Two blinded gastrointestinal pathologists scored biopsies on the EoE-HSS, PEC, and 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) of overall histologic severity. Change was defined as an improvement by ≥0.5 SD in baseline VAS. Responsiveness was quantified using the standardized effect size (SES) and the probability that the index distinguishes a patient with improvement from a patient without improvement, which is the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Longitudinal validity was assessed using Pearson correlations between changes in EoE-HSS and both PEC and VAS. RESULTS: The EoE-HSS grade (SES 2.18 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.46–2.88]; AUC 0.73 [95% CI: 0.57–0.84]) and stage (SES 2.07 [95% CI: 1.37–2.77]; AUC 0.73 [95% CI: 0.58–0.84]) were highly responsive, similar to PEC (SES 1.44 [95% CI: 0.80–2.07]; AUC 0.73 [95% CI: 0.58–0.84]). The EoE-HSS grade and stage were more highly correlated with changes in VAS (grade 0.92 [95% CI: 0.86–0.95]; stage 0.89 [95% CI: 0.81–0.94]) than with changes in PEC (grade 0.74 [95% CI: 0.58–0.85]; stage 0.66 [95% CI: 0.47–0.80]). DISCUSSION: The EoE-HSS is highly responsive, performs similarly to PEC, and is better correlated with changes in overall histologic activity in patients with EoE.
Systematic review with meta‐analysis: endoscopic and histologic placebo rates in induction and maintenance trials of ulcerative colitis
Ma, Christopher , Guizzetti, Leonardo , Pai, Rish K. , Parker, Claire E. , Nguyen, Tran M , Khanna, Reena , Casteele, Niels Vande , D’Haens, Geert , Sandborn, William J. , Feagan, Brian G. , Ma, C , Guizzetti, L , Fedorak, R N , Pai, R K , Vande Casteele, N , D'Haens, G , Sandborn, W J , Feagan, B G , Jairath, V , Panaccione, Remo , Fedorak, Richard N. , Jairath, Vipul

Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics | April 26, 2018 | Volume: 47 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1578-1596

10.1111/apt.14672 Get It

Summary Background Regulatory requirements for claims of mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis ( UC ) will require demonstration of both endoscopic and histologic healing. Quantifying these rates is essential for future drug development. Aims To meta‐analyse endoscopic and histologic placebo response and remission rates in UC randomised controlled trials ( RCT s) and identify factors influencing these rates. Methods MEDLINE , EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 2017 for placebo‐controlled trials of pharmacological interventions for UC . Endoscopic and histologic placebo rates were pooled by random effects. Mixed effects univariable and multivariable meta‐regression was used to evaluate the influence of patient, intervention and trial‐related study‐level covariates on these rates. Results Fifty‐six induction (placebo n = 4171) and 8 maintenance trials (placebo n = 1011) were included. Pooled placebo endoscopic remission and response rates for induction trials were 23% [95 confidence interval ( CI ) 19‐28%] and 35% [95% CI 27‐42%] respectively, and 20% [95% CI 16‐24%] for maintenance of remission. The pooled histologic placebo remission rate was 14% [95% CI 8‐22%] for induction trials. High heterogeneity was observed for all outcomes ( I 2 56.2%‐88.3%). On multivariable meta‐regression, central endoscopy reading was associated with significantly lower endoscopic placebo remission rates (16% vs 25%; OR = 0.52, [95% CI 0.29‐0.92], P = 0.03). On univariable meta‐regression, higher histologic placebo remission was associated with concomitant corticosteroids ( OR = 1.17 [95% CI 1.08‐1.26], P < 0.0001, per 10% increase in corticosteroid use). Conclusions Placebo endoscopic and histologic rates range from 14% to 35% in UC RCT s but are highly heterogeneous. Outcome standardisation may reduce heterogeneity and is needed in this field.