Marlou P M Adriaanse, Mark Löwenberg, Geert R A M D'Haens
{"title":"Endoscopic endpoints in biologic clinical trials and beyond: the case for Crohn's Disease.","authors":"Marlou P M Adriaanse, Mark Löwenberg, Geert R A M D'Haens","doi":"10.1080/14712598.2024.2430614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Standardized evaluation of endoscopic disease activity using valid, responsive and reliable instruments is crucial for optimizing the efficiency of clinical trials with therapeutic agents for Crohn's disease (CD). Achieving endoscopic remission and/or mucosal healing is associated with improved long-term outcomes, making it an important treatment goal.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>Several endoscopic indices have been used over the past two decades, though they lack complete validation. The Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS) and Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD) demonstrate fair reliability and responsiveness to treatment. The CDEIS is rather complex and time-consuming, and both endoscopic indices are prone to variability. The Lewis Score and Capsule Endoscopy CD Activity Index (CECDAI) provide useful alternative instruments using video capsule endoscopy, but they need further validation. The Rutgeerts score predicts post-surgical recurrence but lacks evaluation for follow-up.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>While recent guidelines emphasize co-primary clinical and endoscopic endpoints to improve trial effectiveness, these are typically based on expert consensus rather than empirical data. We advocate to use SES-CD as the preferred endoscopic index given its simplicity, strong correlation with CDEIS, and treatment responsiveness. Future research should focus on establishing clinically relevant cutoff values for endoscopic response and endoscopic remission in CD trials, including post-operative settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":12084,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2024.2430614","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Standardized evaluation of endoscopic disease activity using valid, responsive and reliable instruments is crucial for optimizing the efficiency of clinical trials with therapeutic agents for Crohn's disease (CD). Achieving endoscopic remission and/or mucosal healing is associated with improved long-term outcomes, making it an important treatment goal.
Areas covered: Several endoscopic indices have been used over the past two decades, though they lack complete validation. The Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS) and Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD) demonstrate fair reliability and responsiveness to treatment. The CDEIS is rather complex and time-consuming, and both endoscopic indices are prone to variability. The Lewis Score and Capsule Endoscopy CD Activity Index (CECDAI) provide useful alternative instruments using video capsule endoscopy, but they need further validation. The Rutgeerts score predicts post-surgical recurrence but lacks evaluation for follow-up.
Expert opinion: While recent guidelines emphasize co-primary clinical and endoscopic endpoints to improve trial effectiveness, these are typically based on expert consensus rather than empirical data. We advocate to use SES-CD as the preferred endoscopic index given its simplicity, strong correlation with CDEIS, and treatment responsiveness. Future research should focus on establishing clinically relevant cutoff values for endoscopic response and endoscopic remission in CD trials, including post-operative settings.
期刊介绍:
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy (1471-2598; 1744-7682) is a MEDLINE-indexed, international journal publishing peer-reviewed research across all aspects of biological therapy.
Each article is structured to incorporate the author’s own expert opinion on the impact of the topic on research and clinical practice and the scope for future development.
The audience consists of scientists and managers in the healthcare and biopharmaceutical industries and others closely involved in the development and application of biological therapies for the treatment of human disease.
The journal welcomes:
Reviews covering therapeutic antibodies and vaccines, peptides and proteins, gene therapies and gene transfer technologies, cell-based therapies and regenerative medicine
Drug evaluations reviewing the clinical data on a particular biological agent
Original research papers reporting the results of clinical investigations on biological agents and biotherapeutic-based studies with a strong link to clinical practice
Comprehensive coverage in each review is complemented by the unique Expert Collection format and includes the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results;
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.