Khanna, Reena

Abstract Background Regulatory guidance for Crohn’s disease trials recommends coprimary efficacy end points that evaluate both symptoms and mucosal inflammation. We aimed to characterize the operating properties of commonly used disease activity assessments alone and in combination. Methods Endoscopic and clinical data were available for 129 participants from the Study of Biologic and Immunomodulator Naïve Patients in Crohn’s Disease trial. Readers scored the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease and the Crohn’s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity using standardized conventions. Index reliability was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients. Index responsiveness was assessed using standardized effect sizes based upon treatment assignment. Outcomes were evaluated for optimal sensitivity to treatment effect. Results Substantial inter-rater reliability was observed when the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease and Crohn’s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity were used as continuous measures (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.73; and 0.62 95% CI, 0.36-0.77) compared with moderate reliability when dichotomized (0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.65; and 0.51; 95% CI, 0.00-0.78). The Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease, Crohn’s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity, patient-reported outcome-2, and Crohn’s Disease Activity Index were similarly responsive (standardized effect size, 0.43, 95% CI, 0.05-0.81; 0.38, 95% CI, 0.0-0.76; 0.53, 95% CI, 0.15-0.91). A composite outcome of Crohn’s Disease Activity Index score <150 and Crohn’s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity score <6 was most sensitive to treatment effect (28.9%; 95% CI, 11.0%-46.8%; P = .003). Conclusion Endoscopic indices were more reliable as continuous measures. Composite outcomes including endoscopy improved sensitivity to treatment effect.

Abstract Background & Aims Crohn’s disease (CD) is a lifelong illness with substantial morbidity, although new therapies and treatment paradigms have been developed. We provide guidance for treatment of ambulatory patients with mild to severe active luminal CD. Methods We performed a systematic review to identify published studies of the management of CD. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Statements were developed through an iterative online platform and then finalized and voted on by a group of specialists. Results The consensus includes 41 statements focused on 6 main drug classes: antibiotics, 5-aminosalicylate, corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, biologic therapies, and other therapies. The group suggested against the use of antibiotics or 5-aminosalicylate as induction or maintenance therapies. Corticosteroid therapies (including budesonide) can be used as induction, but not maintenance therapies. Among immunosuppressants, thiopurines should not be used for induction, but can be used for maintenance therapy for selected low-risk patients. Parenteral methotrexate was proposed for induction and maintenance therapy in patients with corticosteroid-dependent CD. Biologic agents, including tumor necrosis factor antagonists, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab, were recommended for patients failed by conventional induction therapies and as maintenance therapy. The consensus group was unable to clearly define the role of concomitant immunosuppressant therapies in initiation of treatment with a biologic agent. Conclusions Optimal management of CD requires careful patient assessment, acknowledgement of patient preferences, evidence-based use of existing therapies, and thorough assessment to define treatment success.

OBJECTIVES: Prokinetics are recommended for the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD) but systematic reviews give conflicting results on the efficacy of these agents. We have therefore conducted an updated systematic review to support the 2017 joint ACG/CAG dyspepsia guidelines. METHODS: Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL, were searched until September 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing either prokinetics and placebo or two types of prokinetics to improve FD symptoms. The primary outcome was absence or improvement of dyspeptic symptoms at the end of treatment. Double-blind eligibility assessment and data extraction was performed. Pooled risk ratios of symptoms persisting or adverse events occurring, and standardized mean difference of quality-of-life (QoL) scores with 95% CI, using a random effects model, were calculated. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: The search identified 1388 citations; 38 studies in 35 papers were included. Of these, 29 trials comparing prokinetics with placebo were found. There was a statistically significant effect of prokinetic treatment in reducing global symptoms of FD (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89; I 2 91%; NNT 7), regardless of FD subtype or ethnicity. When comparing two types of prokinetic, the most commonly used comparator was domperidone. There was no difference in reducing global symptoms (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07). QoL was not improved with prokinetic treatment. The adverse events with individual prokinetics were not different from placebo, except for cisapride. The GRADE assessment rated the quality of the evidence in each outcome as very low. CONCLUSIONS: From the current evidence, prokinetics may be effective for the treatment in all subtypes of FD, with very low quality of evidence. There was no difference between prokinetics for dyspeptic symptom improvement. High-quality RCTs with large sample sizes of FD patients are needed to verify the efficacy of prokinetics.