Rubin, David T

Abstract Background & Aims Central reading of endoscopy and histopathology is the current standard for disease activity assessment in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) clinical trials but is limited by interreader and intrareader variability, operational delays, and cost. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) offer the potential to improve accuracy, efficiency, and reproducibility. The International Organization for the Study of IBD (IOIBD) developed consensus statements on AI/ML use for endoscopic and histologic endpoint assessment in IBD trials. Methods As part of the IOIBD endpoints cluster initiative, a narrative, evidence-informed review with literature searches of Medline and Embase (January 2018-February 2025) identified studies applying AI/ML to endoscopy or histology in IBD. Relevant evidence informed 36 survey statements formulated by a steering committee. Seventy-two IOIBD members were invited to vote online; consensus required ≥80% agreement (score: 7-10 on a 10-point scale). Results Forty-five members completed the survey. Consensus was reached for 28 statements related to endoscopy, pathology, and trial design. Experts agreed that AI-based central reading could improve diagnostic accuracy, expedite processes, reduce costs, and enhance reproducibility. Combining human and AI assessments was favored over AI replacement. The key limitations identified included insufficient validation, generalizability concerns, and dependence on human-annotated training datasets. Conclusions This IOIBD consensus supports the integration of AI/ML into central reading for IBD clinical trials to improve objectivity, efficiency, and consistency, while maintaining human oversight. Further research should address validation, regulatory frameworks, and multimodal integration to enable broader adoption in both trials and clinical practice.

Abstract Background and aims This post hoc analysis evaluated the corticosteroid-sparing effects of risankizumab (RZB) therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis in the phase 3 induction and maintenance studies, INSPIRE and COMMAND. Methods Patients were randomized (2:1) to 12 weeks of intravenous RZB or placebo (PBO) induction therapy; responders to intravenous RZB were randomized (1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous RZB 180 mg, 360 mg, or PBO (RZB withdrawal) maintenance therapy. Baseline corticosteroid doses were maintained during induction, with a mandatory taper beginning at maintenance week 0. Efficacy outcomes were evaluated by baseline corticosteroid use at induction week 12, while corticosteroid-free clinical and endoscopic outcomes were assessed at maintenance week 52 among the overall population and among patients on corticosteroids at baseline. Safety was also assessed. Results At baseline, 35.7% (348/975) of patients were taking corticosteroids. At induction week 12, greater rates were observed for clinical, endoscopic, and patient-reported outcomes in RZB 1200 mg-treated patients compared with PBO, regardless of baseline corticosteroid use. RZB 180 mg and 360 mg treatment resulted in higher corticosteroid discontinuation rates (RZB 180 mg 64.9% [48/74]; RZB 360 mg 54.2% [32/59]; PBO [withdrawal] 36.8% [25/68], P ≤ .01) and corticosteroid-free clinical, endoscopic, and patient-reported outcomes at week 52, compared with PBO (withdrawal). The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar regardless of baseline corticosteroid use during induction and maintenance. Conclusions The efficacy of RZB induction therapy was independent of corticosteroid use, with high rates of corticosteroid-free outcomes observed in the overall population and among patients with baseline corticosteroid use, reaffirming the potential of RZB to serve as a corticosteroid-sparing therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis. Clinicaltrial.gov numbers NCT03398148 and NCT03398135

INTRODUCTION: Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and prior biologic failure may have reduced or delayed efficacy with subsequent advanced therapies. This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of ozanimod during the True North (TN) study and its open-label extension (OLE) in biologic-exposed patients with UC. METHODS: TN was a randomized, placebo-controlled 52-week trial (10-week induction, 42-week maintenance period). Eligible patients could enter the OLE. Clinical outcomes were assessed at TN week (W) 10 and W52 and OLE W46 and W94. Symptomatic efficacy was evaluated through induction and in the OLE until W94. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: This analysis included 376 biologic-exposed patients. In the placebo-controlled cohort, more ozanimod-treated patients achieved clinical response than placebo at W10 regardless of the number or type of prior biologics; patients who used 1 vs ≥2 prior biologics achieved higher efficacy rates. Efficacy rates were higher at W52 than W10 and were similar across subgroups regardless of the number or type of prior biologics. Significantly greater proportions of ozanimod vs placebo patients achieved symptomatic response by W5 ( P = 0.0173) and symptomatic remission by W10 ( P = 0.0207). Among biologic-exposed TN W10 ozanimod nonresponders who entered the OLE, 61% achieved symptomatic response with an extra 10 weeks of ozanimod treatment. Ozanimod efficacy was durable for ∼3 years of continuous treatment in biologic-exposed W52 clinical responders who entered the OLE. No new safety signals were observed. DISCUSSION: Ozanimod was effective and safe in biologic-exposed patients with UC, but these patients may require more time to respond to treatment. Clinical trial registry website and trial numbers: ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02435992 and NCT02531126.

INTRODUCTION: Spondyloarthritis (SpA), the most common extraintestinal manifestation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), is reported in up to 39% of patients with IBD. Despite this high prevalence, risk factors of developing SpA in patients with IBD are not well described. In this study, we aimed to determine the factors associated with SpA symptoms and their prevalence in an IBD cohort. METHODS: Two validated screening questionnaires for the detection of SpA in IBD (DETAIL = DETection of Arthritis in Inflammatory boweL diseases, IBIS-Q = IBD Identification of Spondyloarthritis Questionnaire) were administered to patients with IBD without a prior diagnosis of SpA in 6 US academic medical centers. Demographic data, IBD characteristics, and medication history were recorded. RESULTS: Screening questionnaires were completed by 588 patients (220 ulcerative colitis, 349 Crohn's disease, and 19 IBD-unclassified), with a median age of 40 years (interquartile range 30–53) and median disease duration of 12 years (interquartile range 6–22). The number of positive screens was 130 (22%) for DETAIL, 196 (33%) for IBIS-Q, and 204 (35%) for either DETAIL or IBIS-Q. Age, female sex, history of smoking, prior bowel surgery, and history of any biologic or targeted small molecule exposure were associated with a positive screen on univariate analysis. After multivariate analysis, female sex (odds ratio [OR] 2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41–2.93), older age (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.04), history of smoking (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.04–2.69), and history of any biologic or targeted small molecule exposure (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.34–3.84) were independently associated with positive screens. Higher number of biologic exposures was associated with higher risk of positive screens, with the highest risk seen with 3 or more exposures (OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.75–6.03). DISCUSSION: A substantial number of patients with IBD screen positive for SpA symptoms, indicating a potentially high burden of undiagnosed illness. Factors associated with SpA symptoms include older age, female sex, and more severe disease (based on increased number of advanced therapies or prior surgery), whereas IBD phenotype does not independently increase the risk of a positive SpA screen. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and better characterize SpA in IBD.

Abstract Background and Aims This post hoc analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis stratified by corticosteroid use from the ulcerative colitis Phase 3 clinical trial programme. Methods Patients were randomised [1:2] to 8 weeks’ placebo or upadacitinib 45 mg once daily; Week 8 responders were re-randomised [1:1:1] to 52 weeks’ placebo or upadacitinib 15 or 30 mg daily. Corticosteroid dose was kept stable during induction but tapered according to a protocol-defined schedule [or investigator discretion] during maintenance Weeks 0–8. Efficacy outcomes and exposure-adjusted, treatment-emergent adverse event [TEAE] rates were assessed for induction and maintenance stratified by corticosteroid use at induction baseline. Results Overall, 377/988 [38%] patients were receiving corticosteroids at induction baseline [placebo, n = 133; upadacitinib 45 mg, n = 244] and 252 [37%] of the 681 clinical responders who entered maintenance were on corticosteroids at induction baseline [n = 84 for each treatment]. Similar proportions of patients receiving upadacitinib achieved clinical remission per Adapted Mayo Score with and without baseline corticosteroids at Weeks 8 and 52. The total proportion of patients re-initiating corticosteroids was higher with placebo [24/84;29%] vs upadacitinib 15 mg [16/81; 20%)] and 30 mg [11/81; 14%]. During induction, patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline had higher rates of TEAEs, serious TEAEs, and serious infections vs those not receiving corticosteroids; however, TEAE rates were similar during maintenance after corticosteroid withdrawal. Conclusions Upadacitinib is an effective steroid-sparing treatment in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT02819635; NCT03653026

Abstract Background Recommendations regarding signs and symptoms that should prompt referral of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to an IBD specialist for a consultation could serve to improve the quality of care for these patients. Our aim was to develop a consult care pathway consisting of clinical features related to IBD that should prompt appropriate consultation. Methods A scoping literature review was performed to identify clinical features that should prompt consultation with an IBD specialist. A panel of 11 experts was convened over 4 meetings to develop a consult care pathway using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Items identified via scoping review were ranked and were divided into major and minor criteria. Additionally, a literature and panel review was conducted assessing potential barriers and facilitators to implementing the consult care pathway. Results Of 43 features assessed, 13 were included in the care pathway as major criteria and 15 were included as minor criteria. Experts agreed that stratification into major criteria and minor criteria was appropriate and that 1 major or 2 or more minor criteria should be required to consider consultation. The greatest barrier to implementation was considered to be organizational resource allocation, while endorsements by national gastroenterology and general medicine societies were considered to be the strongest facilitator. Conclusions This novel referral care pathway identifies key criteria that could be used to triage patients with IBD who would benefit from IBD specialist consultation. Future research will be required to validate these findings and assess the impact of implementing this pathway in routine IBD-related care.