Gaidos, Jill K J

Introduction Targeted immunomodulators (eg, advanced therapies) effectively achieve symptomatic remission in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, ~25%–50% of patients with IBD achieving symptomatic remission with an advanced therapy may have continued endoscopically/radiologically active bowel inflammation, and it is uncertain whether changing alternative advanced therapies in asymptomatic patients with IBD will reduce bowel inflammation and achieve durable deep remission. Methods and analysis The QUality Outcomes Treating IBD to Target (QUOTIENT) study is an open-label, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial that aims to compare the efficacy and safety of switching to an alternative advanced therapy targeting endoscopic/radiological remission (treat-to-target) versus continuing the initial, or index, advanced therapy, in asymptomatic patients with IBD with moderate-to-severe endoscopic/radiological bowel inflammation. Enrolment is planned for ~250 participants in Canada/USA, randomised 1:1 to switching to alternative advanced therapy or continuing index advanced therapy, and then followed 104 weeks within routine clinical practice. Patient-reported outcomes measure efficacy and quality of life/treatment burden/safety. Primary endpoint is the time from randomisation to treatment failure. Ethics and dissemination The study is conducted in compliance with the protocol, ICH Good Clinical Practice, applicable regulatory requirements and appropriate review boards/independent ethics committees (approval numbers: Pro00077486; Pro00061437; STUDY00002062; 22-004171; i22-01269; IRB22-0890; IRB_00154397; 2000032384; SHIRB#2022.095-2; STUDY00007146; MMC#2024-18; REB#125290; 17784; Pro00142214; 20240660-01H), with documented written informed consent. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, scientific presentations, and publicly available Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) websites, including lay summaries. The Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation Education, Support, and Advocacy Department, and our patient advocacy stakeholder, will develop educational and marketing resources to communicate findings to a broad audience (>250 000 patients/caregivers/healthcare professionals). Trial registration number NCT05230173 .

Abstract Background Since 2009, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) specialists have utilized “IBD LIVE,” a weekly live video conference with a global audience, to discuss the multidisciplinary management of their most challenging cases. While most cases presented were confirmed IBD, a substantial number were diseases that mimic IBD. We have categorized all IBD LIVE cases and identified “IBD-mimics” with consequent clinical management implications. Methods Cases have been recorded/archived since May 2018; we reviewed all 371 cases from May 2018–February 2023. IBD-mimics were analyzed/categorized according to their diagnostic and therapeutic workup. Results Confirmed IBD cases made up 82.5% (306/371; 193 Crohn’s disease, 107 ulcerative colitis, and 6 IBD-unclassified). Sixty-five (17.5%) cases were found to be mimics, most commonly medication-induced (n = 8) or vasculitis (n = 7). The evaluations that ultimately resulted in correct diagnosis included additional endoscopic biopsies (n = 13, 21%), surgical exploration/pathology (n = 10, 16.5%), biopsies from outside the GI tract (n = 10, 16.5%), genetic/laboratory testing (n = 8, 13%), extensive review of patient history (n = 8, 13%), imaging (n = 5, 8%), balloon enteroscopy (n = 5, 8%), and capsule endoscopy (n = 2, 3%). Twenty-five patients (25/65, 38%) were treated with biologics for presumed IBD, 5 of whom subsequently experienced adverse events requiring discontinuation of the biologic. Many patients were prescribed steroids, azathioprine, mercaptopurine, or methotrexate, and 3 were trialed on tofacitinib. Conclusions The diverse presentation of IBD and IBD-mimics necessitates periodic consideration of the differential diagnosis, and reassessment of treatment in presumed IBD patients without appropriate clinical response. The substantial differences and often conflicting treatment approaches to IBD versus IBD-mimics directly impact the quality and cost of patient care.

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment targets include mucosal healing based on standardized endoscopic scoring systems. The rates and ease of use of these scoring systems in practice have not been well described. We aimed to assess the rates and factors associated with the use of IBD endoscopic scoring systems in practice from IBD LIVE attendees. Methods IBD Live is an international case-based conference focusing on the management of patients with IBD. We created a web-based survey consisting of 38 questions on the frequency and ease of use of various IBD endoscopic scores. This survey was emailed to the IBD Live listserv in March 2022 with a second email sent 14 days later. We included only respondents who are currently performing endoscopy. Continuous variables were analyzed using an unpaired student’s t-test. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test. Results There were 65 responses out of 170 (38.2% response rate) regular attendees. Eleven responses were excluded (4 with no response on the use of endoscopy scores, and 7 were not performing endoscopy). Of the respondents, 72.2% are from the United States, 70.4% are adult gastroenterologists, 53.9% in academic practice, and 40.7% in practice for ≥15 years. Of the endoscopy scores used ≥50% of the time, 74.1% were using the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore (MES), 72.3% using the Rutgeerts Score, 61.2% using the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease, and 28.6% using the Pouchitis Disease Activity Index. Attending IBD LIVE ≥ monthly (P = .028), attending an IBD conference at least every 2 years (P = .020), and having the scoring system incorporated into the endoscopy documentation software (P = .002) were associated with more consistent use of the MES. Attending IBD Live at least monthly (P = .026), having an IBD volume of ≥50% (P = .011), and attending an IBD conference at least every 2 years (P = .004) was associated with more frequent use of the Rutgeerts score. There were no factors that increased the use of other endoscopic scores. Conclusions The MES and the Rutgeerts score are more commonly used with much lower rates of use of endoscopic scores for Crohn’s disease and pouchitis. The use of these endoscopy scores is more common among those who regularly attend IBD conferences, have higher volume IBD practices, and have these scoring systems incorporated into endoscopy software. Further evaluation of barriers to use and ways to improve utilization of endoscopic scoring for Crohn’s disease and pouchitis is needed.