Sandborn, William J.

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.

SummaryBackgroundThere are limited data to inform positioning of agents for treating moderate‐severe Crohn's disease (CD).AimWe assessed comparative efficacy and safety of first‐line (biologic‐naïve) and second‐line (prior exposure to anti‐tumour necrosis factor [TNF]‐α) agents) biologic therapy for moderate‐severe CD, through a systematic review and network meta‐analysis, and appraised quality of evidence (QoE) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.MethodsWe identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with moderate‐severe CD treated with approved anti‐TNF agents, anti‐integrin agents and anti‐IL12/23 agents, first‐line or second‐line, and compared with placebo or another active agent. Efficacy outcomes were induction and maintenance of clinical remission; safety outcomes were serious adverse events and infections. Network meta‐analyses were performed, and ranking was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities.ResultsNo head‐to‐head trials were identified. In biologic‐naïve patients, infliximab (SUCRA,0.93) and adalimumab (SUCRA,0.75) were ranked highest for induction of clinical remission (moderate QoE). In patients with prior anti‐TNF exposure, adalimumab (SUCRA, 0.91; low QoE, in patients with prior response or intolerance to anti‐TNF agents) and ustekinumab (SUCRA, 0.71) were ranked highest for induction of clinical remission. In patients with response to induction therapy, adalimumab (SUCRA, 0.97) and infliximab (SUCRA, 0.68) were ranked highest for maintenance of remission. Ustekinumab had lowest risk of serious adverse events (SUCRA, 0.72) and infection (SUCRA, 0.71; along with infliximab, SUCRA, 0.83) in maintenance trials.ConclusionIndirect comparisons suggest that infliximab or adalimumab may be preferred first‐line agents, and ustekinumab a preferred second‐line agent, for induction of remission in patients with moderate‐severe CD. Head‐to‐head trials are warranted.

Abstract Background We quantified loss of response (LOR) to vedolizumab (VDZ) in clinical practice and assessed the effectiveness of VDZ dose intensification for managing LOR. Methods Retrospective review (May 2014–December 2016) of a prospectively maintained inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) registry. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine rates of LOR to VDZ . Independent predictors of LOR were identified using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression. Success of recapturing response (>50% reduction in symptoms from baseline) and remission (complete resolution of symptoms) after dose intensification was quantified. Results Cumulative rates for VDZ LOR were 20% at 6 months and 35% at 12 months, with slightly lower rates in Crohn’s disease than in ulcerative colitis (6 months 15% vs 18% and 12 months 30% vs 39%, P = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, LOR to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist before VDZ use was associated with an increased risk for LOR to VDZ [hazard ratio (HR) 1.93; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25–2.97] in all patients. For Crohn’s disease patients specifically, higher baseline C-reactive protein concentration was associated with increased risk for LOR to VDZ (HR 1.01 per mg/dL increase, 95% CI 1.01–1.02). Shortening of VDZ infusion interval from 8 to every 4 or 6 weeks recaptured response in 49% and remission in 18% of patients. Conclusions LOR to a TNF antagonist before VDZ use and higher baseline C-reactive protein are important predictors of VDZ LOR. Treatment response can be recaptured in almost half of these patients with VDZ infusion interval shortening.

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.