Jean-Frédéric Colombel1, Ingrid Ordás2, Thomas Ullman3, Paul Rutgeerts4, Akiko Chai5, Sharon O'Byrne5, Timothy T Lu5, Julián Panés2. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. Electronic address: jean-frederic.colombel@mssm.edu. 2. Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Institut D'Investigacions Biomédiques August Pi i Sunyer, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 4. Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Genentech Research and Early Development, South San Francisco, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopy limited to the rectosigmoid colon is the standard technique used to measure endoscopic healing in ulcerative colitis (UC) clinical trials. We evaluated whether rectosigmoidoscopy adequately measures UC activity in the more proximal colon. METHODS: We analyzed data from a phase 2, placebo-controlled study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab in patients with moderate to severely active UC who had not responded to standard therapy. Central readers determined Mayo Clinic endoscopic subscores (MCSe) and ulcerative colitis endoscopic index ofseverity (UCEIS) scores from the rectosigmoid and proximal colon in videos of 331 examinations performed at baseline, week 6, and week 10. Rates of endoscopic healing (MCSe ≤ 1, MCSe = 0) and scores from rectosigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy analyses were compared among 239 examinations with endoscopic assessment proximal to the rectosigmoid colon. RESULTS: There was a high degree of correlation between findings from rectosigmoidoscopy vs colonoscopy in assessment of disease activity based on MCSe of 2 or higher (r = 0.84) or MCSe of 1 or higher (r = 0.96), or the UCEIS score (r = 0.92). In 230 of 239 videos, findings from rectosigmoidoscopy agreed with those from colonoscopy in the detection of active disease (MCSe ≥ 2; n = 205) or healing (MCSe ≤ 1; n = 25). In 9 videos (2 taken at baseline, 7 taken after treatment), colonoscopy found proximal disease activity not detected by rectosigmoidoscopy. Post-treatment discordance was more frequent in the placebo group, affecting assessment of efficacy at week 10. When endoscopic healing was defined as MCSe of 0, there were discordant findings from only 1 video. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high degree of correlation in assessments of UC activity made by rectosigmoidoscopy vs colonoscopy. For detection of endoscopic healing (MCSe ≤ 1), colonoscopy found persistent proximal lesions in the placebo group, which affected efficacy analyses. When endoscopic healing was defined as MCSe of 0, the concordance between rectosigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy was nearly perfect.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopy limited to the rectosigmoid colon is the standard technique used to measure endoscopic healing in ulcerative colitis (UC) clinical trials. We evaluated whether rectosigmoidoscopy adequately measures UC activity in the more proximal colon. METHODS: We analyzed data from a phase 2, placebo-controlled study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab in patients with moderate to severely active UC who had not responded to standard therapy. Central readers determined Mayo Clinic endoscopic subscores (MCSe) and ulcerative colitis endoscopic index of severity (UCEIS) scores from the rectosigmoid and proximal colon in videos of 331 examinations performed at baseline, week 6, and week 10. Rates of endoscopic healing (MCSe ≤ 1, MCSe = 0) and scores from rectosigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy analyses were compared among 239 examinations with endoscopic assessment proximal to the rectosigmoid colon. RESULTS: There was a high degree of correlation between findings from rectosigmoidoscopy vs colonoscopy in assessment of disease activity based on MCSe of 2 or higher (r = 0.84) or MCSe of 1 or higher (r = 0.96), or the UCEIS score (r = 0.92). In 230 of 239 videos, findings from rectosigmoidoscopy agreed with those from colonoscopy in the detection of active disease (MCSe ≥ 2; n = 205) or healing (MCSe ≤ 1; n = 25). In 9 videos (2 taken at baseline, 7 taken after treatment), colonoscopy found proximal disease activity not detected by rectosigmoidoscopy. Post-treatment discordance was more frequent in the placebo group, affecting assessment of efficacy at week 10. When endoscopic healing was defined as MCSe of 0, there were discordant findings from only 1 video. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high degree of correlation in assessments of UC activity made by rectosigmoidoscopy vs colonoscopy. For detection of endoscopic healing (MCSe ≤ 1), colonoscopy found persistent proximal lesions in the placebo group, which affected efficacy analyses. When endoscopic healing was defined as MCSe of 0, the concordance between rectosigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy was nearly perfect.
Authors: Maryam Alkhatry; Ahmad Al-Rifai; Vito Annese; Filippos Georgopoulos; Ahmad N Jazzar; Ahmed M Khassouan; Zaher Koutoubi; Rahul Nathwani; Mazen S Taha; Jimmy K Limdi Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Jung Min Moon; Hyuk Yoon; Jihye Park; Cheol Min Shin; Young Soo Park; Nayoung Kim; Dong Ho Lee; Joo Sung Kim Journal: Turk J Gastroenterol Date: 2022-08 Impact factor: 1.555
Authors: Klaus Gottlieb; Marco Daperno; Keith Usiskin; Bruce E Sands; Harris Ahmad; Colin W Howden; William Karnes; Young S Oh; Irene Modesto; Colleen Marano; Ryan William Stidham; Walter Reinisch Journal: Gut Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 23.059