Mosli, Mahmoud Hisham

INTRODUCTION: We applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to evaluate the performance of fecal calprotectin (FC) as an alternative to endoscopy in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) treated with a biologic agent or tofacitinib. METHODS: Individual participant data from the trials of infliximab, golimumab, vedolizumab, and tofacitinib for UC were pooled to generate prevalence of endoscopic activity (Mayo endoscopy score) across different combinations of the rectal bleeding score (RBS) and stool frequency score (SFS). These estimates were then combined with the data from an updated systematic review of the operating properties of FC to generate clinical scenario–specific assessments of the performance of FC as a predictor of endoscopic disease activity. A prespecified threshold of acceptability for false-negative (FN) and false-positive (FP) test results was set at 5%. RESULTS: For patients with UC achieving RBS 0 + SFS 0/1, FC ≤ 50 μg/g may avoid endoscopy in 50% patients with a FN rate <5%. Similarly, for patients with RBS 2/3 + SFS 2/3, FC ≥ 250 μg/g potentially avoids endoscopy in approximately 50% patients with an FP rate <5%. The greatest uncertainty in the diagnostic performance for FC was observed in patients with UC achieving RBS 0 but having SFS 2/3, where FN and FP rates were consistently >10%, and endoscopic evaluation may be warranted. DISCUSSION: Two clinical scenarios were identified where FC can be used with confidence for monitoring treatment response to biologics or tofacitinib in patients with UC without the requirement for endoscopy.

Objective We evaluated the reliability and responsiveness of available but incompletely validated UC histological disease activity indices using standardised rules for centralised assessment. Design Disease activity was assessed in biopsies collected in a phase II placebo-controlled ozanimod trial by four blinded pathologists using the Geboes (GS) and modified Riley (MRS) scores, the Robarts Histopathology (RHI) and Nancy Histological (NHI) indices and a Visual Analogue Scale. Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Index responsiveness was evaluated by assessing longitudinal validity (Pearson correlations of changes in index scores and other disease measures), and effect size estimates (standardised effect size (SES)) using two criteria for change (treatment assignment and >2 point decrease in total Mayo Clinic score). Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve estimates evaluated the probability of the indices to discriminate between treatment and placebo. Results Inter-rater reliability of the histological indices was substantial to almost perfect (ICC>0.61), and responsiveness was moderate to large (SES estimates>0.5); 0.81 (0.52, 1.10), 0.87 (0.58, 1.17), 0.57 (0.30, 0.84) and 0.81 (0.52, 1.09) when treatment assignment was the criterion for change and 1.05 (0.80, 1.31), 1.13 (0.87, 1.39), 0.88 (0.64, 1.12) and 1.06 (0.80, 1.31) for the change in Mayo score criterion for the GS, MRS, RHI and NHI, respectively. The indices had similar drisciminative ability based on AUROC estimates (range 0.608–0.649). Conclusion All four existing histological indices were similarly reliable and responsive based on this dataset.