Search

Abstract Objectives Bowel urgency is an impactful core symptom of ulcerative colitis (UC). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires have been developed and used to assess the patient experience of this important symptom. The objective of this paper is to present evidence from qualitative research conducted to support the use and interpretation of select PRO questionnaires to assess bowel urgency related to the UC patient experience. Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted with ten adults with a clinician-confirmed diagnosis of moderately to severely active UC. Interviews aimed to document patient interpretation of modified recall periods for the Urgency Numeric Rating Scale (Urgency NRS), two global assessments (i.e., the Patient Global Impression of Severity [PGIS] and Patient Global Impression of Change [PGIC]), and four items (Items 11, 16, 23, and 26) of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ), and explore the patient perspective of meaningful change on these questionnaires. Results Both modified Urgency NRS versions (with 7-day or 3-day recall period) were interpreted as intended by most patients (≥ 88.9%), and slightly more than half of patients (60.0%) reported that the 7-day recall period was more relevant to their bowel urgency experience. Patients reported thinking of bowel urgency (≥ 80.0%) or bowel urgency-related accidents (70.0% of patients) when interpreting the global assessments and IBDQ items. Most patients reported a 1- to 3-point change as the smallest meaningful improvement that would be meaningful on the Urgency NRS (similar to findings on other questionnaires). Conclusion Adults with UC can understand and respond to the Urgency NRS with modified recall periods (i.e., 7-day or 3-day), interpret the conceptual content of the PGIS, PGIC, and select IBDQ items to be inclusive of bowel urgency and bowel urgency-related accidents, and select answers representing meaningful improvements on the Urgency NRS, PGIS, PGIC, and IBDQ item response scales. These results further contribute patient-centered data to existing UC and bowel urgency research.

Introduction Symptoms, endoscopy and histology have been proposed as therapeutic targets in ulcerative colitis (UC). Observational studies suggest that the achievement of histologic remission may be associated with a lower risk of complications, compared with the achievement of endoscopic remission alone. The actiVE ulcerative colitis, a RanDomIsed Controlled Trial (VERDICT) aims to determine the optimal treatment target in patients with UC.Methods and analysis In this multicentre, prospective randomised study, 660 patients with moderate to severe UC (Mayo rectal bleeding subscore [RBS] ≥1; Mayo endoscopic score [MES] ≥2) are randomly assigned to three treatment targets: corticosteroid-free symptomatic remission (Mayo RBS=0) (group 1); corticosteroid-free endoscopic remission (MES ≤1) and symptomatic remission (group 2); or corticosteroid-free histologic remission (Geboes score

Background Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a progressive immune-mediated liver disease, for which no medical therapy has been shown to slow disease progression. However, the horizon for new therapies is encouraging, with several innovative clinical trials in progress. Despite these advancements, there is considerable heterogeneity in the outcomes studied, with lack of consensus as to what outcomes to measure, when to measure and how to measure. Furthermore, there has been a paradigm shift in PSC treatment targets over recent years, moving from biochemistry-based endpoints to histological assessment of liver fibrosis, imaging-based biomarkers and patient-reported outcome measures. The abundance of new interventional trials and evolving endpoints pose opportunities for all stakeholders involved in evaluating novel therapies. To this effect, there is a need to harmonise measures used in clinical trials through the development of a core outcome set (COS).Methods and analysis Synthesis of a PSC-specific COS will be conducted in four stages. Initially, a systematic literature review will be performed to identify outcomes previously used in PSC trials, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews conducted with key stakeholders. The latter may include patients, clinicians, researchers, pharmaceutical industry representatives and healthcare payers and regulatory agencies, to identify additional outcomes of importance. Using the outcomes generated from the literature review and stakeholder interviews, an international two-round Delphi survey will be conducted to prioritise outcomes for inclusion in the COS. Finally, a consensus meeting will be convened to ratify the COS and disseminate findings for application in future PSC trials.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted by the East Midlands—Leicester Central Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 24/EM/0126) for this study. The COS from this study will be widely disseminated including publication in peer-reviewed journals, international conferences, promotion through patient-support groups and made available on the Core Outcomes Measurement in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database.Trial registration number 1239.

Abstract Background Persons with inflammatory bowel diseases are at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer and require frequent colonoscopy surveillance. Guidelines recommend taking 30 to 40 non-targeted biopsies throughout the colorectum to detect “invisible” neoplasia in this setting, despite a lack of evidence supporting this practice. We sought to assess the utility of this practice through a randomized controlled trial. We first propose an internal pilot study to assess recruitment potential, protocol adherence and data capture to guide the full trial. Methods We have designed a multi-centre, parallel-group, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial to test the utility of non-targeted biopsies as an adjunct to colonoscopy surveillance for neoplasia detection in persons with inflammatory bowel disease involving the colorectum in routine clinical practice. Participants are randomized 1:1, stratified by study site, to either standard of care high-definition white-light colonoscopy with 32 to 40 non-targeted biopsies of non-neoplastic-appearing mucosa along with a sampling of abnormal-appearing mucosa (control group) or modified colonoscopy with targeted sampling alone (intervention group). The primary outcome for the full trial will be the proportion of persons with ≥ 1 neoplastic focus detected during colonoscopy. For the pilot phase, we will assess the feasibility of recruiting a minimum of 15% of the estimated sample size within 1 year, under identical conditions as the full trial, while maintaining ≥ 90–95% rate of protocol adherence and data capture. These participants will contribute data to the full trial. The trial is being conducted at 12 centres across Canada, with a total sample size of 1952 persons. Discussions The trial protocol has been approved by the ethics committees of all participating sites, and the pilot study has received funding through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (PJT 159607). If feasibility metrics are met during the pilot phase, we will complete the full trial. The trial outcomes will contribute to update the practice guidelines in this area. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04067778.

Summary: Background: The Bowel Ultrasound Score (BUSS) accurately detects therapy-related changes by using the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's disease (SES-CD) as the reference standard. We aimed to evaluate ultrasound remission as a treatment target and its prediction for long-term endoscopic remission. Methods: This single-centre prospective observational study, based at a tertiary referral centre in Milan, Italy, enrolled, between March 1, 2018, and January 31, 2021, adult patients with active CD (SES-CD >2) who were starting biologics. Colonoscopy and IUS was performed at baseline and at 12 months (mean 12.8 ± 4.2). The primary outcome was the predictive value of ultrasound remission at week 12 (BUSS ≤3.52) for long-term endoscopic remission at 12 months. The International Bowel Ultrasound Segmental Activity Score (IBUS-SAS) was also calculated and optimal cut-point to detect endoscopic remission was identified through ROC analysis. Findings: 93 patients with CD were included. Of these, 22 patients (24%) achieved endoscopic remission. Week 12 ultrasound remission predicted endoscopic remission (59% compared with 41% of the patients who were not in ultrasound remission; OR 9.93, 95% CI 3.10–31.80; p

Summary: Background: Propofol is often used for sedation during colonoscopy. We assessed the impact of propofol sedation on colonoscopy related quality metrics and cost in a population-based cohort study. Methods: All colonoscopies performed at 21 hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada, during an 18-month period, from April 1, 2017 to October 31, 2018, using either propofol or conscious sedation were evaluated. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) and secondary outcomes were sessile serrated polyp detection rate (ssPDR), polyp detection rate (PDR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and perforation rate. Binary outcomes were assessed using a modified Poisson regression model adjusted for clustering and potential confounders based on patient, procedure, and physician characteristics. Findings: A total of 46,634 colonoscopies were performed, of which 16,408 (35.2%) received propofol and 30,226 (64.8%) received conscious sedation. Compared to conscious sedation, the use of propofol was associated with a lower ADR (24.6% vs. 27.0%, p

Objectives External control arms (ECAs) provide useful comparisons in clinical trials when randomised control arms are limited or not feasible. We conducted a systematic review to summarise applications of ECAs in trials of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).Design Systematic review with an appraisal of ECA source quality rated across five domains (data collection, study populations, outcome definitions, reliability and comprehensiveness of the dataset, and other potential limitations) as high, low or unclear quality.Data sources Embase, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial were searched through to 12 September 2023.Eligibility criteria Eligible studies were single-arm or randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of inflammatory bowel disease, pouchitis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis and atopic dermatitis in which an ECA was used as the comparator.Data extraction and synthesis Two authors independently screened the search results in duplicate. The characteristics of included studies, external data source(s), outcomes and statistical methods were recorded, and the quality of the ECA data source was assessed by two independent authors.Results Forty-three studies met the inclusion criteria (inflammatory bowel disease: 16, pouchitis: 1, rheumatoid arthritis: 12, juvenile idiopathic arthritis: 1, ankylosing spondylitis: 5, psoriasis: 3, multiple indications: 4). The majority of these trials were single-arm (33/43) and enrolled adult patients (34/43). All included studies used a historical control rather than a contemporaneous ECA. In RCTs, ECAs were most often derived from the placebo arm of another RCT (6/10). In single-arm trials, historical case series were the most common ECA source (19/33). Most studies (31/43) did not employ a statistical approach to generate the ECA from historical data.Conclusions Standardised ECA methodology and reporting conventions are lacking for IMIDs trials. The establishment of ECA reporting guidelines may enhance the rigour and transparency of future research.

Objective Mirikizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-23 p19 subunit, was effective in a Phase 2 study (NCT02589665) of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). We studied mirikizumab’s impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL).Design HRQoL was evaluated using the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS). Mixed effects models for repeated measures compared score changes between mirikizumab and placebo groups. Additional analyses evaluated associations between HRQoL score changes and achievement of efficacy endpoints at weeks 12 and 52.Results At week 12, IBDQ improved compared with placebo for all mirikizumab groups except mirikizumab 50 mg (50 mg, p=0.073; 200 mg, p

Abstract Background Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated rare disease, characterized by esophageal dysfunctions. It is likely to be primarily activated by food antigens and is classified as a chronic disease for most patients. Therefore, a deeper understanding of the pathogenetic mechanisms underlying EoE is needed to implement and improve therapeutic lines of intervention and ameliorate overall patient wellness. Methods RNA-seq data of 18 different studies on EoE, downloaded from NCBI GEO with faster-qdump ( https://github.com/ncbi/sra-tools ), were batch-corrected and analyzed for transcriptomics and metatranscriptomics profiling as well as biological process functional enrichment. The EoE TaMMA web app was designed with plotly and dash. Tabula Sapiens raw data were downloaded from the UCSC Cell Browser. Esophageal single-cell raw data analysis was performed within the Automated Single-cell Analysis Pipeline. Single-cell data-driven bulk RNA-seq data deconvolution was performed with MuSiC and CIBERSORTx. Multi-omics integration was performed with MOFA. Results The EoE TaMMA framework pointed out disease-specific molecular signatures, confirming its reliability in reanalyzing transcriptomic data, and providing new EoE-specific molecular markers including CXCL14, distinguishing EoE from gastroesophageal reflux disorder. EoE TaMMA also revealed microbiota dysbiosis as a predominant characteristic of EoE pathogenesis. Finally, the multi-omics analysis highlighted the presence of defined classes of microbial entities in subsets of patients that may participate in inducing the antigen-mediated response typical of EoE pathogenesis. Conclusions Our study showed that the complex EoE molecular network may be unraveled through advanced bioinformatics, integrating different components of the disease process into an omics-based network approach. This may implement EoE management and treatment in the coming years.

Abstract Background Determining the relative cost-effectiveness between advanced therapeutic options for ulcerative colitis (UC) may optimize resource utilization. We evaluated total cost per response, cost per remission, and cost of safety events for patients with moderately-to-severely active UC after 52 weeks of treatment with advanced therapies at standard dosing. Methods An analytic model was developed to estimate costs from the US healthcare system perspective associated with achieving efficacy outcomes and managing safety outcomes for advanced therapies approved for the treatment of UC. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) for response and remission, and numbers needed to harm (NNH) for serious adverse events (SAEs) and serious infections (SIs) were derived from a network meta-analysis of pivotal trials. NNT for induction and maintenance were combined with drug regimen costs to calculate cost per clinical remission. Cost of managing AEs was calculated using NNH for safety outcomes and published costs of treating respective AEs. Results Costs per remission were $205,240, $249,417, $267,463, $365,050, $579,622, $750,200, and $787,998 for tofacitinib 10 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, infliximab, vedolizumab, golimumab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab, respectively. Incremental costs of SAEs and SIs collectively were $136,390, $90,333, $31,888, $31,061, $20,049, $12,059, and $0 for tofacitinib 5 mg, golimumab, adalimumab, tofacitinib 10 mg, infliximab, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab (reference), respectively. Conclusions Tofacitinib was associated with the lowest cost per response and cost per remission, while vedolizumab had the lowest costs related to SAEs and SIs. Balancing efficacy versus safety is important when evaluating the costs associated with treatment of moderate-to-severe UC.

Abstract Background Access to protocols and statistical analysis plans (SAPs) increases the transparency of randomised trial by allowing readers to identify and interpret unplanned changes to study methods, however they are often not made publicly available. We sought to determine how often study investigators would share unavailable documents upon request. Methods We used trials from two previously identified cohorts (cohort 1: 101 trials published in high impact factor journals between January and April of 2018; cohort 2: 100 trials published in June 2018 in journals indexed in PubMed) to determine whether study investigators would share unavailable protocols/SAPs upon request. We emailed corresponding authors of trials with no publicly available protocol or SAP up to four times. Results Overall, 96 of 201 trials (48%) across the two cohorts had no publicly available protocol or SAP (11/101 high-impact cohort, 85/100 PubMed cohort). In total, 8/96 authors (8%) shared some trial documentation (protocol only [n = 5]; protocol and SAP [n = 1]; excerpt from protocol [n = 1]; research ethics application form [n = 1]). We received protocols for 6/96 trials (6%), and a SAP for 1/96 trial (1%). Seventy-three authors (76%) did not respond, 7 authors responded (7%) but declined to share a protocol or SAP, and eight email addresses were invalid (8%). A total of 329 emails were sent (an average of 41 emails for every trial which sent documentation). After emailing authors, the total number of trials with an available protocol increased by only 3%, from 52% in to 55%. Conclusions Most study investigators did not share their unpublished protocols or SAPs upon direct request. Alternative strategies are needed to increase transparency of randomised trials and ensure access to protocols and SAPs.

Background/Aims Few studies have measured the accuracy of prognostic scores for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) among cancer patients. Thereby, we compared the prognostic scores for predicting major outcomes in cancer patients with UGIB. Secondarily, we developed a new model to detect patients who might require hemostatic care. Methods A prospective research was performed in a tertiary hospital by enrolling cancer patients admitted with UGIB. Clinical and endoscopic findings were obtained through a prospective database. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to gauge the power of each score. Results From April 2015 to May 2016, 243 patients met the inclusion criteria. The AIMS65 (area under the curve [AUC] 0.85) best predicted intensive care unit admission, while the Glasgow-Blatchford score best predicted blood transfusion (AUC 0.82) and the low-risk group (AUC 0.92). All scores failed to predict hemostatic therapy and rebleeding. The new score was superior (AUC 0.74) in predicting hemostatic therapy. The AIMS65 (AUC 0.84) best predicted in-hospital mortality. Conclusions The scoring systems for prognostication were validated in the group of cancer patients with UGIB. A new score was developed to predict hemostatic therapy. Following this result, future prospective research should be performed to validate the new score.

Abstract Publicly available ulcerative colitis (UC) gene expression datasets from observational studies and clinical trials include inherently heterogeneous disease characteristics and methodology. We used meta-analysis to identify a robust UC gene signature from inflamed biopsies. Eight gene expression datasets derived from biopsy tissue samples from noninflammatory bowel disease (IBD) controls and areas of active inflammation from patients with UC were publicly available. Expression- and meta-data were downloaded with GEOquery. Differentially expressed genes (DEG) in individual datasets were defined as those with fold change > 1.5 and a Benjamini–Hochberg adjusted P value

Objective To perform an economic evaluation of tranexamic acid (TXA) versus no-TXA, in addition to current clinical practice, for acute gastrointestinal bleeding, using the results of the HALT-IT trial (NCT01658124), a large randomised controlled trial which included 11 937 patients.Design A cost-effectiveness modelling analysis, performed over a lifetime time horizon.Setting The analysis was performed from a UK health service perspective.Participants The model includes adults with acute gastrointestinal bleeding.Outcomes measures The model reports costs in Great British pounds in 2021 and outcomes as life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), reported as the cost per QALY gained.Methods A Markov model was developed to calculate the overall costs and health outcomes of TXA administration versus no-TXA. The model used data of the treatment effectiveness from the HALT-IT trial, which showed that TXA administration for acute gastrointestinal bleeding did not reduce all-cause mortality (risk ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16) compared with no-TXA. Data on health-related quality of life, costs and long-term mortality risks were derived from the literature. Costs and effects are discounted at 3.5% per annum.Results TXA was associated with marginally fewer LYs and QALYs, and lower costs, than treatment without TXA. The ICER associated with no-TXA was £1576 per LY gained and £2209 per QALY gained. No-TXA was 64% likely to be cost-effective at a £20 000 willingness-to-pay threshold, while TXA was 36% likely to be cost-effective.Conclusion Though inexpensive, TXA administration for patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding is unlikely to be cost-effective.

Introduction Preliminary data indicates that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is associated with better outcomes compared with empiric dose escalation and/or reactive TDM, and that pharmacokinetic (PK) modelling can improve the precision of individual dosing schedules in Crohn’s disease (CD). However, there are no data regarding the utility of a proactive TDM combined PK-dashboard starting early during the induction phase, when disease activity and drug clearance are greatest. The aim of this randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label trial is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a proactive TDM combined PK dashboard-driven infliximab dosing compared with standard of care (SOC) dosing in patients with moderately to severely active CD.Methods and analysis Eligible adolescent and adult (aged ≥16–80 years) patients with moderately to severely active CD will be randomised 1:1 to receive either infliximab monotherapy with proactive TDM using a PK dashboard (iDose, Projections Research) or SOC infliximab therapy, with or without a concomitant immunomodulator (IMM) (thiopurine or methotrexate) at the discretion of the investigator. The primary outcome of the study is the proportion of subjects with sustained corticosteroid-free clinical remission and no need for rescue therapy from week 14 throughout week 52. Rescue therapy is defined as any IFX dose escalation other than what is forecasted by iDose either done empirically or based on reactive TDM; addition of an IMM after week 2; reintroduction of corticosteroids after initial tapering; switch to another biologic or need for CD-related surgery. The secondary outcomes will include both efficacy and safety end points, such as endoscopic and biological remission, durability of response and CD-related surgery and hospitalisation.Ethics and dissemination The protocol has been approved by the Institutional Review Board Committee of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (IRB#:2021P000391). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings.Trial registration number NCT04835506.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated colitis (ICIC) affects approximately 15% of cancer patients treated with immunotherapy. Although histological evaluation is potentially valuable for both the diagnosis of ICIC and evaluation of disease activity, use in clinical practice is heterogeneous. We aimed to develop expert recommendations to standardize histological assessment of disease activity in patients with ICIC. Using the modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) appropriateness methodology, an international panel of 11 pathologists rated the appropriateness of 99 statements on a 9-point Likert scale during two rounds of anonymous voting. Results were discussed between rounds using moderated videoconferences. There are currently no disease-specific instruments for assessing histological features of ICIC. The panel considered that colonoscopy with at least three biopsies per segment from a total of at least five segments, including both endoscopically normal and inflamed areas, was appropriate for tissue acquisition. They agreed that biopsies should be oriented such that the long axis of the colonic crypts is visualized and should be stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Histological items that the panel voted were appropriate to evaluate in ICIC included the degree of structural/architectural change, chronic inflammatory infiltrate, lamina propria and intraepithelial neutrophils, crypt abscesses and destruction, erosions/ulcerations, apoptosis, surface intraepithelial lymphocytosis, and subepithelial collagen thickness. The appropriateness of routine immunohistochemistry was uncertain. These expert recommendations will help standardize assessment of histological activity in patients with ICIC. The panel also identified the development and validation of an ICIC-specific histological index as a research priority.

Abstract The act of nonmedical switching, defined as switching stable patients who are generally doing well with their current therapy from an originator biologic to its biosimilar, has been endorsed as a reasonable treatment strategy. The safety and efficacy of nonmedical switching have been evaluated in randomized controlled and real-world evidence studies, which have demonstrated that although many patients maintain treatment response after the switch, some patients experience therapy failure, resulting in therapy discontinuation. It has been postulated that the vast majority, if not all, of these treatment failures result from a “nocebo effect”, defined as patients’ negative expectations toward the therapy change. Reports suggest that the risk of a nocebo effect is higher following a mandated nonmedical switch. Although the nocebo effect is a well-recognized phenomenon in pain studies, evidence is limited in immune-mediated diseases primarily because it is difficult to quantify, especially retrospectively. In spite of this, numerous biosimilar studies in patients with immune-mediated diseases have concluded that nonmedical switching failures are due to a nocebo effect. The objective of this narrative review was to explore the reasons for nonmedical switch failure or discontinuation and the role of the nocebo effect among patients with inflammatory rheumatic and gastrointestinal diseases who switched from an originator biologic to its biosimilar.

Background and Objectives: At present, there is no consensus definition of mild-to-moderate disease activity in patients with ulcerative colitis. The objective of the present study was to establish a reliable definition of mild-to-moderate disease activity in adult patients with ulcerative colitis. Materials and Methods: Twelve physicians from around the world participated in a virtual consensus meeting on 26 September 2022. All the physicians had expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. After a systematic review of the literature and expert opinion, a modified version of the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness method was applied. A total of 49 statements were identified and then anonymously rated (on a 9-point scale) as being appropriate (scores of 7 to 9), uncertain (4 to 6) or inappropriate (1 to 3). The survey results were reviewed and amended before a second round of voting. Results: Symptom and endoscopic-based measurements are of prime importance for assessing mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis activity in clinical trials. The experts considered that clinical activity should be assessed in terms of stool frequency, rectal bleeding and fecal urgency, whereas endoscopic activity should be evaluated with regard to the vascular pattern, bleeding, erosions and ulcers. Fecal calprotectin was considered to be a suitable disease activity marker in mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. Lastly, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis should not have more than a small impact on the patient’s daily activities. Conclusions: The present recommendations constitute a standardized framework for defining mild-to-moderate disease activity in clinical trials in the field of ulcerative colitis.

Background: Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss in surgery and the risk of death in trauma patients. Meta-analyses of small trials suggest that tranexamic acid decreases the number of deaths from gastrointestinal bleeding, but these meta-analyses are prone to selection bias. Objective: The trial provides reliable evidence of the effect of tranexamic acid on mortality, rebleeding and complications in significant acute gastrointestinal bleeding. Design: A multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial and economic analysis. Patients were assigned by selecting one treatment pack from a box of eight, which were identical apart from the pack number. Patients, caregivers and outcome assessors were masked to allocation. The main analyses were by intention to treat. Setting: The setting was 164 hospitals in 15 countries, co-ordinated from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Participants: Adults with significant upper or lower gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 12,009) were eligible if the responsible clinician was substantially uncertain about whether or not to use tranexamic acid. The clinical diagnosis of significant bleeding implied a risk of bleeding to death, including hypotension, tachycardia or signs of shock, or urgent transfusion, endoscopy or surgery. Intervention: Tranexamic acid (a 1-g loading dose over 10 minutes, then a 3-g maintenance dose over 24 hours) or matching placebo. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific mortality; rebleeding; need for endoscopy, surgery or radiological intervention; blood product transfusion; complications; disability; and days spent in intensive care or a high-dependency unit. Results: A total of 12,009 patients were allocated to receive tranexamic acid (n = 5994, 49.9%) or the matching placebo (n = 6015, 50.1%), of whom 11,952 (99.5%) received the first dose. Death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation occurred in 222 (3.7%) patients in the tranexamic acid group and in 226 (3.8%) patients in the placebo group (risk ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.18). Thromboembolic events occurred in 86 (1.4%) patients in the tranexamic acid group and 72 (1.2%) patients in the placebo group (risk ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.64). The risk of arterial thromboembolic events (myocardial infarction or stroke) was similar in both groups (0.7% in the tranexamic acid group vs. 0.8% in the placebo group; risk ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.39), but the risk of venous thromboembolic events (deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) was higher in tranexamic acid-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients (0.8% vs. 0.4%; risk ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.98). Seizures occurred in 38 patients who received tranexamic acid and in 22 patients who received placebo (0.6% vs. 0.4%, respectively; risk ratio 1.73, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.93). In the base-case economic analysis, tranexamic acid was not cost-effective and resulted in slightly poorer health outcomes than no tranexamic acid. Conclusions: Tranexamic acid did not reduce death from gastrointestinal bleeding and, although inexpensive, it is not cost-effective in adults with acute gastrointestinal bleeding. Future work: These results caution against a uniform approach to the management of patients with major haemorrhage and highlight the need for randomised trials targeted at specific pathophysiological processes. Limitations: Although this is one of the largest randomised trials in gastrointestinal bleeding, we cannot rule out a modest increase or decrease in death due to bleeding with tranexamic acid. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11225767, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01658124 and EudraCT 2012-003192-19. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) may be a useful modality for disease assessment and risk stratification in ulcerative colitis. We assessed the reliability of a newly developed EUS index of inflammation called the EUS-Ulcerative Colitis (EUS-UC) score. Patients and methods The EUS-UC score components include total wall thickness, hyperemia, and depth of inflammation (DOI). Three blinded expert endosonographers assessed EUS videos of 58 patients with UC in triplicate. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of the hyperemia and DOI component scores were estimated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). Total wall thickness reliability estimates could not be assessed in this study. The ICCs were compared to the original indices from which they were derived. Results For hyperemia, the inter-class ICC was “moderate” at 0.556 (95 % CI = 0.434–0.651) and the intra class ICC was “almost perfect” at 0.884 (95 % CI = 0.835–0.920). The newly defined hyperemia score performed better than the original index from which is was derived. The DOI inter-class ICC was “fair” at 0.335 (95 % CI = 0.201–0.464), and the intra-class ICC was “substantial” at 0.732 (95 % CI = 0.642–0.802). The DOI reliability estimates were similar to the original index from which it was derived. Conclusions The hyperemia component of the EUS-UC score performed significantly better than the original index from which it was derived, but the reliability of the DOI component was suboptimal. Intra-class correlation was excellent for both components. The EUS-UC score is a promising instrument for assessment of UC and further validation is required.

Vedolizumab is a monoclonal antibody to the α4β7 integrin that selectively reduces intestinal lymphocyte trafficking, thereby providing a safe and effective treatment option for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This product review outlines the unique mechanism of vedolizumab in addition to efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data from clinical trials, observational studies and meta-analyses. Vedolizumab has been shown to be effective as a first- or second-line induction and maintenance therapy in both ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD). Prolonged induction therapy may increase efficacy, particularly in tumor necrosis factor-alpha-exposed CD patients. To date, no drug-specific safety signals have been identified. In addition to the presence of an apparent exposure-response relationship, vedolizumab has demonstrated consistent pharmacodynamic effects on α4β7, mucosal vascular addressin cell adhesion molecule 1 and other cell adhesion molecules. Future efforts should focus on identifying predictive biomarkers capable of guiding personalized IBD treatment with vedolizumab.

Abstract Background Acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is an important cause of mortality worldwide. Bleeding can occur from the upper or lower GI tract, with upper GI bleeding accounting for most cases. The main causes include peptic ulcer/erosive mucosal disease, oesophageal varices and malignancy. The case fatality rate is around 10% for upper GI bleeding and 3% for lower GI bleeding. Rebleeding affects 5–40% of patients and is associated with a four-fold increased risk of death. Tranexamic acid (TXA) decreases bleeding and the need for blood transfusion in surgery and reduces death due to bleeding in patients with trauma and postpartum haemorrhage. It reduces bleeding by inhibiting the breakdown of fibrin clots by plasmin. Due to the methodological weaknesses and small size of the existing trials, the effectiveness and safety of TXA in GI bleeding is uncertain. The Haemorrhage ALleviation with Tranexamic acid – Intestinal system (HALT-IT) trial aims to provide reliable evidence about the effects of TXA in acute upper and lower GI bleeding. Methods The HALT-IT trial is an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of tranexamic acid in 12,000 adults (increased from 8000) with acute upper or lower GI bleeding. Eligible patients are randomly allocated to receive TXA (1-g loading dose followed by 3-g maintenance dose over 24 h) or matching placebo. The main analysis will compare those randomised to TXA with those randomised to placebo on an intention-to-treat basis, presenting the results as effect estimates (relative risks) and confidence intervals. The primary outcome is death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation and secondary outcomes are: rebleeding; all-cause and cause-specific mortality; thromboembolic events; complications; endoscopic, radiological and surgical interventions; blood transfusion requirements; disability (defined by a measure of patient’s self-care capacity); and number of days spent in intensive care or high-dependency units. Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome will consider time to treatment, location of bleeding, cause of bleed and clinical Rockall score. Discussion We present the statistical analysis of the HALT-IT trial. This plan was published before the treatment allocation was unblinded. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN11225767. Registered on 3 July 2012; Clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT01658124. Registered on 26 July 2012.

BackgroundThe optimal dose of simethicone before capsule endoscopy is unknown. Prior studies have reported inconsistent cleansing, with some showing improved visualization only in the proximal small intestine. We hypothesized a higher volume of simethicone may improve cleansing and diagnostic yield, especially in the distal small bowel.MethodsA phase III randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing high volume (1125 mg simethicone in 750 ml water) versus standard volume (300 mg simethicone in 200 ml water) solutions, both at 1.5 mg/ml. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, defined as a KOrea-CanaDA (KODA) score >2.25, overall and stratified by the proximal and distal half of the small bowel. Secondary outcomes included mean KODA score, diagnostic yield, completion rate, and adverse events. All analyses were intention-to-treat.ResultsA total of 167 patients were randomized (mean (SD) age 58.7 (15.7), 54% female) and the most common indication was obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (71.7%). Adequate cleansing was achieved in 39 (50%) patients in the high volume group and in 39 (48%) patients in the standard volume group (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76-1.43, p = 0.82), with no differences observed in the proximal half (71% vs 64%, p = 0.40) or the distal half -of the small bowel (36% vs. 37%, p = 0.88). There was no differences in the mean (SD) KODA score (2.20 (0.41) vs. 2.18 (0.44), p = 0.73), diagnostic yields (53% vs. 56%, p = 0.71), or completion rates (both 95%). One adverse event, nausea, occurred in the control group.ConclusionHigh volume simethicone does not improve visualization during capsule endoscopy.Clinical trial registrationClinical trial: NCT02334631.

Background and study aims A reliable outcome measure is needed for bowel preparation quality during capsule endoscopy. Currently, no scales are adequately validated. Our objective was to update an existing small bowel preparation score, create a standardized training module, then determine its inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. Patients and methods Modification to produce standardized scoring of an existing small bowel preparation score was performed followed by development of a training module and validation to create the new Korea-Canada (KODA) score. Twenty readers from a range of backgrounds, including capsule endoscopists, gastroenterology fellows, residents, medical students, and nurses rated bowel cleanliness in 25 capsule videos consisting of 1,233 images, in duplicate 4 weeks apart, after completing the training module. Sequential images selected in 5-minute intervals during small bowel transit were rated on a scale between 0–3 based on the amount of visualized mucosa and the degree of obstruction. Reliability was assessed using estimates of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results Intraclass correlation coefficients for inter-rater (ICC 0.81, 95 % CI 0.70–0.87) and intra-rater (ICC 0.92, 95 % CI 0.87–0.94) reliability were almost perfect among the 20 readers. Inter-rater reliability ranged between 0.72 (95 % CI 0.57–0.81) and 0.89 (95 % CI 0.79–0.93) for nurses and residents, respectively. Intra-rater reliability was greater than 0.90 for all groups except for nurses, which was still almost perfect (ICC 0.86, 95 % CI 0.79–0.90). Conclusions Almost perfect inter-rater and intra-rater reliability was observed for the KODA score. This simple score could be used for future clinical trials after completion of the training module.

Abstract Background Randomized controlled trial (RCT) trial designs exist on an explanatory-pragmatic spectrum, depending on the degree to which a study aims to address a question of efficacy or effectiveness. As conceptualized by Schwartz and Lellouch in 1967, an explanatory approach to trial design emphasizes hypothesis testing about the mechanisms of action of treatments under ideal conditions (efficacy), whereas a pragmatic approach emphasizes testing effectiveness of two or more available treatments in real-world conditions. Interest in, and the number of, pragmatic trials has grown substantially in recent years, with increased recognition by funders and stakeholders worldwide of the need for credible evidence to inform clinical decision-making. This increase has been accompanied by the onset of learning healthcare systems, as well as an increasing focus on patient-oriented research. However, pragmatic trials have ethical challenges that have not yet been identified or adequately characterized. The present study aims to explore the views of key stakeholders with respect to ethical issues raised by the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. It is embedded within a large, four-year project that seeks to develop guidance for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials. As a first step, this study will address important gaps in the current empirical literature with respect to identifying a comprehensive range of ethical issues arising from the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. By opening up a broad range of topics for consideration within our parallel ethical analysis, we will extend the current debate, which has largely emphasized issues of consent, to the range of ethical considerations that may flow from specific design choices. Methods Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (e.g. trialists, methodologists, lay members of study teams, bioethicists, and research ethics committee members), across multiple jurisdictions, identified based on their known experience and/or expertise with pragmatic trials. Discussion We expect that the study outputs will be of interest to a wide range of knowledge users including trialists, ethicists, research ethics committees, journal editors, regulators, healthcare policymakers, research funders and patient groups. All publications will adhere to the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications.

Abstract Background Acute severe haemorrhage is a common complication of injury, childbirth, surgery, gastrointestinal pathologies and other medical conditions. Bleeding is a major cause of death, but patients also die from non-bleeding causes, the frequency of which varies by the site of haemorrhage and between populations. Because patients can bleed to death within hours, established interventions inevitably take priority over randomisation into a trial. These circumstances raise challenges in selecting appropriate outcome measures for clinical trials of haemostatic interventions. Main body We use data from three large randomised controlled trials in acute severe haemorrhage (CRASH-2, WOMAN and HALT-IT) to explore the strengths and limitations of outcome measures commonly used in trials of haemostatic treatments, including all-cause and cause-specific mortality, blood transfusion and surgical interventions. Many deaths following acute severe haemorrhage are due to patient comorbidities or complications rather than bleeding. If non-bleeding deaths are unaffected by a haemostatic intervention, even large trials will have low power to detect an effect on all-cause mortality. Due to the dilution from deaths unaffected or reduced by the trial treatment, all-cause mortality can also obscure important harmful effects. Additionally, because the relative contributions of different causes of death vary within and between patient populations, all-cause mortality is not generalisable. Different causes of death occur at different time intervals from bleeding onset, with bleeding deaths generally occurring early. Time-specific mortality can therefore be used as a proxy for cause in un-blinded trials where bias is a concern or in situations where cause of death cannot be assessed. Urgent treatment is critical, and so post-randomisation blood transfusion and surgery are often planned before or at the time of randomisation and therefore cannot be influenced by the trial treatment. Conclusions All-cause mortality has low power, lacks generalisability and can obscure harmful effects. Cause-specific mortality, such as death due to bleeding or thrombosis, avoids these drawbacks. In certain scenarios, time-specific mortality can be used as a proxy for cause-specific mortality. Blood transfusion and surgical procedures have limited utility as outcome measures in trials of haemostatic treatments.

Abstract Background There is a widely recognized need for more pragmatic trials that evaluate interventions in real-world settings to inform decision-making by patients, providers, and health system leaders. Increasing availability of electronic health records, centralized research ethics review, and novel trial designs, combined with support and resources from governments worldwide for patient-centered research, have created an unprecedented opportunity to advance the conduct of pragmatic trials, which can ultimately improve patient health and health system outcomes. Such trials raise ethical issues that have not yet been fully addressed, with existing literature concentrating on regulations in specific jurisdictions rather than arguments grounded in ethical principles. Proposed solutions (e.g. using different regulations in “learning healthcare systems”) are speculative with no guarantee of improvement over existing oversight procedures. Most importantly, the literature does not reflect a broad vision of protecting the core liberty and welfare interests of research participants. Novel ethical guidance is required. We have assembled a team of ethicists, trialists, methodologists, social scientists, knowledge users, and community members with the goal of developing guidance for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials. Methods Our project will combine empirical and conceptual work and a consensus development process. Empirical work will: (1) identify a comprehensive list of ethical issues through interviews with a small group of key informants (e.g. trialists, ethicists, chairs of research ethics committees); (2) document current practices by reviewing a random sample of pragmatic trials and surveying authors; (3) elicit views of chairs of research ethics committees through surveys in Canada, UK, USA, France, and Australia; and (4) elicit views and experiences of community members and health system leaders through focus groups and surveys. Conceptual work will consist of an ethical analysis of identified issues and the development of new ethical solutions, outlining principles, policy options, and rationales. The consensus development process will involve an independent expert panel to develop a final guidance document. Discussion Planned output includes manuscripts, educational materials, and tailored guidance documents to inform and support researchers, research ethics committees, journal editors, regulators, and funders in the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials.

Abstract Background Pre-specification of outcomes is an important tool to guard against outcome switching in clinical trials. However, if the outcome is not sufficiently clearly defined, then different definitions could be applied and analysed, with only the most favourable result reported. Methods In order to assess the impact that differing outcome definitions could have on treatment effect estimates, we re-analysed data from TRIGGER, a cluster randomised trial comparing two red blood cell transfusion strategies for patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We varied several aspects of the definition of further bleeding: (1) the criteria for what constitutes a further bleeding episode; (2) how further bleeding is assessed; and (3) the time-point at which further bleeding is measured. Results There were marked discrepancies in the estimated odds ratios (OR) (range 0.23–0.94) and corresponding P values (range

Endoscopy is the gold standard for objective assessment of colonic disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Non-invasive colonic imaging using bowel ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may have a role in quantifying colonic disease activity. We reviewed the diagnostic accuracy of these modalities for assessment of endoscopically or histopathologically defined colonic disease activity in IBD. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and the Web of Science from inception to 20 September 2021. QUADAS-2 was used to evaluate the studies’ quality. A meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate model approach separately for MRI and US studies only, and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were obtained. CT studies were excluded due to the absence of diagnostic test data. Thirty-seven studies were included. The mean sensitivity and specificity for MRI studies was 0.75 and 0.91, respectively, while for US studies it was 0.82 and 0.90, respectively. The area under the ROC curves (AUC) was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.93) for MRI, and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.00) for US. Both MRI and US show high diagnostic accuracy in the assessment of colonic disease activity in IBD patients.

Abstract Background Incorrect classification of outcomes in clinical trials can lead to biased estimates of treatment effect and reduced power. Ensuring appropriate adjudication methods to minimize outcome misclassification is therefore essential. While there are many reported adjudication approaches, there is little consensus over which approach is best. Methods Under the assumption of non-differential assessment (i.e. that misclassification rates are the same in each treatment arm, as would typically be the case when outcome assessors are blinded), we use simulation and theoretical results to address four different questions about outcome adjudication: (a) How many assessors should be used? (b) When is it better to use onsite or central assessment? (c) Should central assessors adjudicate all outcomes, or only suspected events? (d) Should central assessment with multiple assessors be done independently or through group consensus? Results No one adjudication approach performs optimally in all settings. The optimal approach depends on the misclassification rates of site and central assessors, and the correlation between assessors. We found: (a) there will generally be little incremental benefit to using more than three assessors and, for outcomes with very high correlation between assessors, using one assessor is sufficient; (b) when choosing between site and central assessors, the assessor with the smallest misclassification rate should be chosen; when these rates are unknown, a combination of one site assessor and two central assessors will provide good results across a range of scenarios; (c) having central assessors adjudicate only suspected events will typically increase bias, and should be avoided, unless the threshold for sending outcomes for central assessment is extremely low; (d) central assessors can adjudicate either independently or in a group, and the preferred option should be dictated by whichever is expected to have the lowest misclassification rate. Conclusions Outcome adjudication is of critical importance to ensure validity of trial results, although no one approach is optimal across all settings. Investigators should choose the best strategy based on the specific characteristics of their trial. Regardless of the adjudication strategy chosen, assessors should be qualified and receive appropriate training.

Background and study aims Investigations for lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) include flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, computed tomographic angiography (CTA), and angiography. All may be used to direct endoscopic, radiological or surgical treatment, although their optimal use is unknown. The aims of this study were to determine the diagnostic and therapeutic yields of endoscopy, CTA, and angiography for managing LGIB, and their influence on rebleeding, transfusion, and hospital stay. Patients and methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies of intervention (NRSIs) published between 2000 and 12 November 2015 in patients hospitalized with LGIB. Separate meta-analyses were conducted, presented as pooled odds (ORs) or risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Results Two RCTs and 13 NRSIs were included, none of which examined flexible sigmoidoscopy, or compared endotherapy with embolization, or investigated the timing of CTA or angiography. Two NRSIs (57 – 223 participants) comparing colonoscopy and CTA were of insufficient quality for synthesis but showed no difference in diagnostic yields between the two interventions. One RCT and 4 NRSIs (779 participants) compared early colonoscopy (

Background and study aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important measure of colonoscopy quality, as are polyp, advanced ADR, and adenocarcinoma detection rates. We investigated whether performance report cards improved these outcome measures. Patients and methods Endoscopists were given report cards comparing their detection rates to the institutional mean on an annual basis. Detection rates were evaluated at baseline, 1 year after report cards (Year 1), and 2 years after report cards (Year 2). Endoscopists were unaware of the study and received no other interventions. The primary outcome was ADR and secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced ADR, and adenocarcinoma detection rate. Multivariate regression was performed to adjust for temporal trends in patient, endoscopists, and procedural factors. Results Seventeen physicians performed 3,118 screening colonoscopies in patients with positive FOBT or family history of colon cancer. The ADR increased from 34.5 % (baseline) to 39.4 % (Year 1) and 41.2 % (Year 2) (P = 0.0037). The PDR increased from 45 % (baseline) to 48.8 % (Year 1) and 51.8 % (Year 2) (P = 0.011). There was no significant improvement in advanced ADR or adenocarcinoma detection rates. On multivariate analysis, the ADR increased by 22 % in Year 1 (P = 0.03) and 30 % in Year 2 (P = 0.008). Among physicians with a baseline ADR

BACKGROUND: Discrepancies exist in reported mortality rates of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB).