Implementing the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Strategic Vision in the Division of Cardiovascular Sciences-2022 Update.

Spurred by the 2016 release of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Strategic Vision, the Division of Cardiovascular Sciences developed its Strategic Vision Implementation Plan-a blueprint for reigniting the decline in cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality rates, improving health equity, and accelerating translation of scientific discoveries into better cardiovascular health (CVH). The 6 scientific focus areas of the Strategic Vision Implementation Plan reflect the multifactorial nature of CVD and include (1) addressing social determinants of CVH and health inequities, (2) enhancing resilience, (3) promoting CVH and preventing CVD across the lifespan, (4) eliminating hypertension-related CVD, (5) reducing the burden of heart failure, and (6) preventing vascular dementia. This article presents an update of strategic vision implementation activities within Division of Cardiovascular Sciences. Overarching and cross-cutting themes include training the scientific workforce and engaging the extramural scientific community to stimulate transformative research in cardiovascular sciences. In partnership with other NIH Institutes, Federal agencies, industry, and the extramural research community, Division of Cardiovascular Sciences strategic vision implementation has stimulated development of numerous workshops and research funding opportunities. Strategic Vision Implementation Plan activities highlight innovative intervention modalities, interdisciplinary systems approaches to CVD reduction, a life course framework for CVH promotion and CVD prevention, and multi-pronged research strategies for combatting COVID-19. As new knowledge, technologies, and areas of scientific research emerge, Division of Cardiovascular Sciences will continue its thoughtful approach to strategic vision implementation, remaining poised to seize emerging opportunities and catalyze breakthroughs in cardiovascular sciences.

Endoscopy and central reading in inflammatory bowel disease clinical trials: achievements, challenges and future developments.

Central reading, that is, independent, off-site, blinded review or reading of imaging endpoints, has been identified as a crucial component in the conduct and analysis of inflammatory bowel disease clinical trials. Central reading is the final step in a workflow that has many parts, all of which can be improved. Furthermore, the best reading algorithm and the most intensive central reader training cannot make up for deficiencies in the acquisition stage (clinical trial endoscopy) or improve on the limitations of the underlying score (outcome instrument). In this review, academic and industry experts review scoring systems, and propose a theoretical framework for central reading that predicts when improvements in statistical power, affecting trial size and chances of success, can be expected: Multireader models can be conceptualised as statistical or non-statistical (social). Important organisational and operational factors, such as training and retraining of readers, optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy, video quality, optimal or at least acceptable read duration times and other quality control matters, are addressed as well. The theory and practice of central reading and the conduct of endoscopy in clinical trials are interdisciplinary topics that should be of interest to many, regulators, clinical trial experts, gastroenterology societies and those in the academic community who endeavour to develop new scoring systems using traditional and machine learning approaches.

Impact of various central endoscopy reading models on treatment outcome in Crohn's disease using data from the randomized, controlled, exploratory cohort arm of the BERGAMOT trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic assessment of mucosal appearance by independent central reading has become the standard method to assess Crohn's disease activity in clinical trials. The performance characteristics of various endoscopy reading models have yet to be systematically evaluated. METHODS: This substudy included patients with Crohn's disease in the exploratory induction cohort of the BERGAMOT trial (NCT02394028) randomly assigned to etrolizumab or placebo. Endoscopies conducted at baseline and week 14 were independently scored using the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD) by a local reader (LR) and 2 central readers (CRs). Five endoscopy reading models were compared: single LR, single CR, average of 2 CRs, and 2 models incorporating the LR and 1 or 2 CRs depending on alignment between the LR and the CR, defined according to a sliding scale applied to a range of scores. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-five videos were scored. Models involving 2 readers demonstrated lower placebo rates (3.4%) than the single LR (11.9%) and the single CR (6.8%) models. Treatment effect size based on endoscopic improvement (≥50% reduction in SES-CD from baseline) was highest with the 2 models incorporating the LR and 1 or 2 CRs (Δ = 16.2%). Further, in the etrolizumab arm, models with 2 readers demonstrated the lowest variability for the SES-CD. CONCLUSIONS: Central endoscopy reading models in Crohn's disease have an impact on placebo response rates and effect size. Incorporating the LR appears to be important because models using both CRs and LRs resulted in the greatest treatment effect size for endoscopic improvement with etrolizumab, lower placebo rates, and reduced variability.

Eliminating the Residual Negative Pressure in the Endoscopic Ultrasound Aspirating Needle Enhances Cytology Yield of Pancreas Masses.

BACKGROUND: Prior to withdrawing the EUS-FNA needle from the lesion, the stopcock of the suction syringe is closed to reduce contamination. Residual negative pressure (RNP) may persist in the needle despite closing the stopcock. AIMS: To determine whether neutralizing RNP before withdrawing the needle will improve the cytology yield. METHODS: Bench-top testing was done to confirm the presence of RNP followed by a prospective, randomized, cross-over study on patients with pancreas mass. Ten milliliters of suction was applied to the FNA needle. Before withdrawing the needle from the lesion, the stopcock was closed. Based on randomization, the first pass was done with the stopcock either attached to the needle (S+) or disconnected (S-) to allow air to enter and neutralize RNP and accordingly the second pass was crossed over to S+ or S-. On-site cytopathologist was blinded to S+/S-. RESULTS: Bench tests confirmed the presence of RNP which was successfully neutralized by disconnecting the syringe (S-) from the needle. Sixty patients were enrolled, 120 samples analyzed. S+ samples showed significantly greater GI tract contamination compared to S- samples (16.7 vs. 6.7%, p = 0.03). Of the 53 patients confirmed to have pancreas adenocarcinoma, FNA using S- approach was positive in 49 (93%) compared to 40 using the S+ approach (76%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite closing the stopcock of the suction syringe, RNP is present in the FNA needle. Neutralizing RNP prior to withdrawing the needle from the target lesion significantly decreased GI tract contamination of the sample thereby improving the FNA cytology yield. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01995474.

Impact of retroflexion vs. second forward view examination of the right colon on adenoma detection: a comparison study.

OBJECTIVES: Although screening colonoscopy is effective in preventing distal colon cancers, effectiveness in preventing right-sided colon cancers is less clear. Previous studies have reported that retroflexion in the right colon improves adenoma detection. We aimed to determine whether a second withdrawal from the right colon in retroflexion vs. forward view alone leads to the detection of additional adenomas. METHODS: Patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy were invited to participate in a parallel, randomized, controlled trial at two centers. After cecal intubation, the colonoscope was withdrawn to the hepatic flexure, all visualized polyps removed, and endoscopist confidence recorded on a 5-point Likert scale. Patients were randomized to a second exam of the proximal colon in forward (FV) or retroflexion view (RV), and adenoma detection rates (ADRs) compared. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate predictors of identifying adenomas on the second withdrawal from the proximal colon. RESULTS: A total of 850 patients (mean age 59.1±8.3 years, 59% female) were randomly assigned to FV (N=400) or RV (N=450). Retroflexion was successful in 93.5%. The ADR (46% FV and 47% RV) and numbers of adenomas per patient (0.9±1.4 FV and 1.1±2.1 RV) were similar (P=0.75 for both). At least one additional adenoma was detected on second withdrawal in similar proportions (10.5% FV and 7.5% RV, P=0.13). Predictors of identifying adenomas on the second withdrawal included older age (odds ratio (OR)=1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.08), adenomas seen on initial withdrawal (OR=2.8, 95% CI=1.7-4.7), and low endoscopist confidence in quality of first examination of the right colon (OR=4.8, 95% CI=1.9-12.1). There were no adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Retroflexion in the right colon can be safely achieved in the majority of patients undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Reexamination of the right colon in either retroflexed or forward view yielded similar, incremental ADRs. A second exam of the right colon should be strongly considered in patients who have adenomas discovered in the right colon, particularly when endoscopist confidence in the quality of initial examination is low.

Design of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 48-week study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cendakimab in adult and adolescent patients with eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, immune-mediated inflammatory condition that interferes with normal food ingestion, negatively impacting quality of life (QoL). Treatment options include proton pump inhibitors, corticosteroids, biologics, or dietary elimination; however, ∼1/3 of patients remain insufficiently controlled. The pathogenesis of EoE involves interleukin-13 (IL-13); therefore, targeted IL-13 inhibition may be beneficial. In a phase 2 study, cendakimab, a recombinant, humanized anti-IL-13 monoclonal antibody, significantly reduced mean esophageal eosinophil counts and improved other inflammatory parameters in patients with EoE. These findings prompted further investigation of the efficacy and safety of cendakimab in adults and adolescents with EoE in a phase 3 registrational study (NCT04753697), the design of which is presented here. METHODS: This multicenter, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 48-week, treat-through study plans to enroll 399 adults and adolescents. Randomized patients (1:1:1) will receive subcutaneous administration of 1) cendakimab 360 mg once weekly (QW) for 48 weeks, 2) cendakimab 360 mg QW for 24 weeks followed by cendakimab 360 mg every other week (with matching placebo on alternative weeks to maintain the blind) for 24 weeks, or 3) placebo QW for 48 weeks. Co-primary endpoints are mean change from baseline in dysphagia days and proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response, defined as peak esophageal eosinophil count ≤6 per high-power field, at 24 weeks. Secondary and exploratory endpoints will address endoscopic and histologic features, QoL, safety, and pharmacokinetic assessments. CONCLUSION: This phase 3 pivotal study will determine whether cendakimab provides an effective, safe, targeted treatment for patients with EoE.

Standardization and clinical applications of retinal imaging biomarkers for cardiovascular disease: a Roadmap from an NHLBI workshop.

The accessibility of the retina with the use of non-invasive and relatively low-cost ophthalmic imaging techniques and analytics provides a unique opportunity to improve the detection, diagnosis and monitoring of systemic diseases. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute conducted a workshop in October 2022 to examine this concept. On the basis of the discussions at that workshop, this Roadmap describes current knowledge gaps and new research opportunities to evaluate the relationships between the eye (in particular, retinal biomarkers) and the risk of cardiovascular diseases, including coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, hypertension and vascular dementia. Identified gaps include the need to simplify and standardize the capture of high-quality images of the eye by non-ophthalmic health workers and to conduct longitudinal studies using multidisciplinary networks of diverse at-risk populations with improved implementation and methods to protect participant and dataset privacy. Other gaps include improving the measurement of structural and functional retinal biomarkers, determining the relationship between microvascular and macrovascular risk factors, improving multimodal imaging 'pipelines', and integrating advanced imaging with 'omics', lifestyle factors, primary care data and radiological reports, by using artificial intelligence technology to improve the identification of individual-level risk. Future research on retinal microvascular disease and retinal biomarkers might additionally provide insights into the temporal development of microvascular disease across other systemic vascular beds.

Transforming Hypertension Diagnosis and Management in The Era of Artificial Intelligence: A 2023 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Workshop Report.

Hypertension is among the most important risk factors for cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and dementia. The artificial intelligence (AI) field is advancing quickly, and there has been little discussion on how AI could be leveraged for improving the diagnosis and management of hypertension. AI technologies, including machine learning tools, could alter the way we diagnose and manage hypertension, with potential impacts for improving individual and population health. The development of successful AI tools in public health and health care systems requires diverse types of expertise with collaborative relationships between clinicians, engineers, and data scientists. Unbiased data sources, management, and analyses remain a foundational challenge. From a diagnostic standpoint, machine learning tools may improve the measurement of blood pressure and be useful in the prediction of incident hypertension. To advance the management of hypertension, machine learning tools may be useful to find personalized treatments for patients using analytics to predict response to antihypertension medications and the risk for hypertension-related complications. However, there are real-world implementation challenges to using AI tools in hypertension. Herein, we summarize key findings from a diverse group of stakeholders who participated in a workshop held by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in March 2023. Workshop participants presented information on communication gaps between clinical medicine, data science, and engineering in health care; novel approaches to estimating BP, hypertension risk, and BP control; and real-world implementation challenges and issues.

Lack of impact on polyp detection by fellow involvement during colonoscopy: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting data regarding the impact of fellow involvement during colonoscopy on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR) have been reported in the literature. AIMS: Our aim was to perform a meta-analysis to determine the impact of fellow participation during colonoscopy on the ADR and PDR. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, pertinent articles that reported ADR and/or PDR between attending physicians alone compared to gastroenterology fellows with attending physicians were obtained through database searches. Data was abstracted and pooled using a random effects model. The quality of each included study was ascertained using a modified version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, and potential publication bias was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 14 articles that included 21,504 colonoscopies met the inclusion criteria. The overall PDR and ADR were 44.4 and 30.8%, respectively. No significant differences were found between participant characteristics and colonoscopies performed with or without fellow participation. No significant differences were found in the relative rate of ADR (1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.15) or PDR (1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.14) with or without a fellow. An important limitation is that none of the included studies randomized fellow involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Involvement of a fellow during colonoscopy did not affect adenoma and polyp detection rates.

Declining Enrolment and Other Challenges in IBD Clinical Trials: Causes and Potential Solutions.

BACKGROUND: Rates of enrolment in clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] have decreased dramatically in recent years. This has led to delays, increased costs and failures to develop novel treatments. AIMS: The aim of this work is to describe the current bottlenecks of IBD clinical trial enrolment and propose solutions. METHODS: A taskforce comprising experienced IBD clinical trialists from academic centres and pharmaceutical companies involved in IBD clinical research predefined the four following levels: [1] study design, [2] investigative centre, [3] physician and [4] patient. At each level, the taskforce collectively explored the reasons for declining enrolment rates and generated an inventory of potential solutions. RESULTS: The main reasons identified included the overall increased demands for trials, the high screen failure rates, particularly in Crohn's disease, partly due to the lack of correlation between clinical and endoscopic activity, and the use of complicated endoscopic scoring systems not reflective of the totality of inflammation. In addition, complex trial protocols with restrictive eligibility criteria, increasing burden of procedures and administrative tasks enhance the need for qualified resources in study coordination. At the physician level, lack of dedicated time and training is crucial. From the patients' perspective, long washout periods from previous medications and protocol requirements not reflecting clinical practice, such as prolonged steroid management and placebo exposures, limit their participation in clinical trials. CONCLUSION: This joint effort is proposed as the basis for profound clinical trial transformation triggered by investigative centres, contract research organizations, sponsors and regulatory agencies.

Toward Precision Medicine: Circadian Rhythm of Blood Pressure and Chronotherapy for Hypertension - 2021 NHLBI Workshop Report.

Healthy individuals exhibit blood pressure variation over a 24-hour period with higher blood pressure during wakefulness and lower blood pressure during sleep. Loss or disruption of the blood pressure circadian rhythm has been linked to adverse health outcomes, for example, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and chronic kidney disease. However, the current diagnostic and therapeutic approaches lack sufficient attention to the circadian rhythmicity of blood pressure. Sleep patterns, hormone release, eating habits, digestion, body temperature, renal and cardiovascular function, and other important host functions as well as gut microbiota exhibit circadian rhythms, and influence circadian rhythms of blood pressure. Potential benefits of nonpharmacologic interventions such as meal timing, and pharmacologic chronotherapeutic interventions, such as the bedtime administration of antihypertensive medications, have recently been suggested in some studies. However, the mechanisms underlying circadian rhythm-mediated blood pressure regulation and the efficacy of chronotherapy in hypertension remain unclear. This review summarizes the results of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop convened on October 27 to 29, 2021 to assess knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the study of circadian rhythm of blood pressure and chronotherapy for hypertension.

Exposure-response relationships of etrolizumab in patients with moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis.

Etrolizumab is an IgG1-humanized monoclonal anti-ß7 integrin antibody. Phase III trials with induction and/or maintenance phases were conducted in patients with moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) who were either previously treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (HICKORY) or were TNF inhibitor naïve (HIBISCUS I/II, LAUREL, and GARDENIA). A total of eight exposure-response analyses were conducted for two clinical outcomes (remission and endoscopic improvement) at the end of induction for studies HIBISCUS I/II (combined) and HICKORY and at the end of maintenance for studies HICKORY and LAUREL. Trough concentration at week 4 (Ctrough,wk4 ) of induction was selected as the exposure metric. Exposure-response (ER) modeling was conducted using logistic regression. A full covariate model was used to examine the impact of covariates on clinical outcomes. Linear models with a single intercept for placebo and active treatments adequately described the data for all eight analyses. The etrolizumab exposure-response slope was significant (p < 0.05) for seven of the eight analyses. Baseline Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) was the only statistically significant covariate that impacted induction remission and endoscopic improvement. No statistically significant covariate was identified to impact maintenance outcomes except for baseline fecal calprotectin on endoscopic improvement for LAUREL study. A statistically significant positive ER relationship was identified for most of the clinical outcomes tested, reflecting a better treatment effect in patients with UC with higher etrolizumab Ctrough,wk4 of induction. Baseline MCS was the only other significant covariate impacting induction efficacy. Besides Ctrough,wk4 of induction, no consistent covariate was identified to impact maintenance efficacy.

Population pharmacokinetic analysis of etrolizumab in patients with moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis.

Etrolizumab is an IgG1-humanized monoclonal antibody that specifically targets the ß7 subunit of α4ß7 and α4Eß7 integrins, and it has been evaluated for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). Population pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis was performed to characterize etrolizumab PK properties in patients with moderately-to-severely active UC and evaluate covariate impacts on exposure. The population PK model was developed based on etrolizumab serum concentrations from patients with moderately-to-severely active UC enrolled in six studies (one phase I, one phase II, and four phase III) and validated using another phase III clinical trial. Stepwise covariate modeling was used to evaluate the impact of 23 prespecified covariates. Etrolizumab PK was best described by a two-compartment model with first-order absorption, with clearance decreasing over time. Population typical values were 0.260 L/day for clearance (CL) during the first dosing internal, 2.61 L for central volume, 71.2% for bioavailability, and 0.193/day for absorption rate. CL reduced over the study duration, the typical maximum reduction was 26% with an onset half-life of 4.8 weeks. Consequently, the predicted mean terminal half-life was shorter after a single dose (13.0 days) compared to that at steady-state (17.1 days). Baseline body weight and albumin were the most impactful covariates for etrolizumab exposure. Final population PK model well characterized the PK properties of etrolizumab in patients with moderately-to-severely active UC and identified influential covariate effects.

Etrolizumab versus adalimumab or placebo as induction therapy for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (HIBISCUS): two phase 3 randomised, controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted anti-ß7 integrin monoclonal antibody. In an earlier phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission relative to placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. The HIBISCUS studies aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab to adalimumab and placebo for induction of remission in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: HIBISCUS I and HIBISCUS II were identically designed, multicentre, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled studies of etrolizumab, adalimumab, and placebo in adult (18-80 years) patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6-12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) who were naive to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. All patients had an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. In both studies, patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg once every 4 weeks; subcutaneous adalimumab 160 mg on day 1, 80 mg at week 2, and 40 mg at weeks 4, 6, and 8; or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants, and baseline disease activity. All patients and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was induction of remission at week 10 (defined as MCS of 2 or lower, with individual subscores of 1 or lower, and rectal bleeding subscore of 0) with etrolizumab compared with placebo. Pooled analyses of both studies comparing etrolizumab and adalimumab were examined for several clinical and endoscopic endpoints. Efficacy was analysed using a modified intent-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02163759 (HIBISCUS I), NCT02171429 (HIBISCUS II). FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2014, and May 25, 2020, each study screened 652 patients (HIBISCUS I) and 613 patients (HIBISCUS II). Each study enrolled and randomly assigned 358 patients (HIBISCUS I etrolizumab n=144, adalimumab n=142, placebo n=72; HIBISCUS II etrolizumab n=143; adalimumab n=143; placebo n=72). In HIBISCUS I, 28 (19·4%) of 144 patients in the etrolizumab group and five (6·9%) of 72 patients in the placebo group were in remission at week 10, with an adjusted treatment difference of 12·3% (95% CI 1·6 to 20·6; p=0·017) in favour of etrolizumab. In HIBISCUS II, 26 (18·2%) of 143 patients in the etrolizumab group and eight (11·1%) of 72 patients in the placebo group were in remission at week 10, with an adjusted treatment difference of 7·2% (95% CI -3·8 to 16·1; p=0·17). In the pooled analysis, etrolizumab was not superior to adalimumab for induction of remission, endoscopic improvement, clinical response, histological remission, or endoscopic remission; however, similar numerical results were observed in both groups. In HIBISCUS I, 50 (35%) of 144 patients in the etrolizumab group reported any adverse event, compared with 61 (43%) of 142 in the adalimumab group and 26 (36%) of 72 in the placebo group. In HIBISCUS II, 63 (44%) of 143 patients in the etrolizumab group reported any adverse event, as did 62 (43%) of 143 in the adalimumab group and 33 (46%) in the placebo group. The most common adverse event in all groups was ulcerative colitis flare. The incidence of serious adverse events in the pooled patient population was similar for etrolizumab (15 [5%] of 287) and placebo (seven [5%] of 144) and lower for adalimumab (six [2%] of 285). Two patients in the etrolizumab group died; neither death was deemed to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Etrolizumab was superior to placebo for induction of remission in HIBISCUS I, but not in HIBISCUS II. Etrolizumab was well tolerated in both studies. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Etrolizumab for maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (LAUREL): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted anti-ß7 integrin monoclonal antibody. In a previous phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission versus placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab for maintenance of remission in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study (LAUREL) across 111 treatment centres worldwide. We included adults (age 18-80 years) with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6-12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) who were naive to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. Patients were required to have had an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. During open-label induction, participants received subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg once every 4 weeks. Participants who had clinical response at week 10 (MCS with ≥3-point decrease and ≥30% reduction from baseline, plus ≥1-point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore or absolute rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1) proceeded into the double-blind maintenance phase and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg once every 4 weeks or matched placebo until week 62. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, treatment with immunosuppressants, baseline disease activity, and week 10 remission status. All participants and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was remission at week 62 (MCS ≤2, with individual subscores ≤1, and rectal bleeding subscore of 0) among patients with a clinical response at week 10, measured in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02165215, and is now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Aug 12, 2014, and June 4, 2020, 658 patients were screened for eligibility and 359 were enrolled into the induction phase. 214 (60%) patients had a clinical response at week 10 and were randomly assigned to receive etrolizumab (n=108) or placebo (n=106) in the maintenance phase. 80 (74%) patients in the etrolizumab group and 42 (40%) in the placebo group completed the study through week 62. Four patients in the placebo group did not receive study treatment and were excluded from the analyses. At week 62, 32 (29·6%) of 108 patients in the etrolizumab group and 21 (20·6%) of 102 in the placebo group were in remission (adjusted treatment difference 7·7% [95% CI -4·2 to 19·2]; p=0·19). A greater proportion of patients reported one or more adverse events in the placebo group (82 [80%] of 102) than in the etrolizumab group (70 [65%] of 108); the most common adverse event in both groups was ulcerative colitis (16 [15%] patients in the etrolizumab group and 37 [36%] in the placebo group). Ten (9%) patients in the etrolizumab group and eight (8%) in the placebo group reported one or more serious adverse events. No deaths were reported in either treatment group. INTERPRETATION: No significant differences were observed between maintenance etrolizumab and placebo in the primary endpoint of remission at week 62 among patients who had a clinical response at week 10. Etrolizumab was well tolerated in this population and no new safety signals were identified. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Etrolizumab versus infliximab for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (GARDENIA): a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted anti-ß7 integrin monoclonal antibody. In a previous phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission versus placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of etrolizumab with infliximab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, phase 3 study (GARDENIA) across 114 treatment centres worldwide. We included adults (age 18-80 years) with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6-12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) who were naive to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. Patients were required to have had an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg once every 4 weeks or intravenous infliximab 5 mg/kg at 0, 2, and 6 weeks and every 8 weeks thereafter for 52 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants, and baseline disease activity. All participants and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had both clinical response at week 10 (MCS ≥3-point decrease and ≥30% reduction from baseline, plus ≥1-point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore or absolute rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1) and clinical remission at week 54 (MCS ≤2, with individual subscores ≤1); efficacy was analysed using a modified intention-to-treat population (all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug). GARDENIA was designed to show superiority of etrolizumab over infliximab for the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02136069, and is now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Dec 24, 2014, and June 23, 2020, 730 patients were screened for eligibility and 397 were enrolled and randomly assigned to etrolizumab (n=199) or infliximab (n=198). 95 (48%) patients in the etrolizumab group and 103 (52%) in the infliximab group completed the study through week 54. At week 54, 37 (18·6%) of 199 patients in the etrolizumab group and 39 (19·7%) of 198 in the infliximab group met the primary endpoint (adjusted treatment difference -0·9% [95% CI -8·7 to 6·8]; p=0·81). The number of patients reporting one or more adverse events was similar between treatment groups (154 [77%] of 199 in the etrolizumab group and 151 [76%] of 198 in the infliximab group); the most common adverse event in both groups was ulcerative colitis (55 [28%] patients in the etrolizumab group and 43 [22%] in the infliximab group). More patients in the etrolizumab group reported serious adverse events (including serious infections) than did those in the infliximab group (32 [16%] vs 20 [10%]); the most common serious adverse event was ulcerative colitis (12 [6%] and 11 [6%]). There was one death during follow-up, in the infliximab group due to a pulmonary embolism, which was not considered to be related to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this trial is the first phase 3 maintenance study in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis to use infliximab as an active comparator. Although the study did not show statistical superiority for the primary endpoint, etrolizumab performed similarly to infliximab from a clinical viewpoint. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Etrolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis in patients previously treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (HICKORY): a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted, anti-ß7 integrin, monoclonal antibody. In an earlier phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission compared with placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who had been previously treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents. METHODS: HICKORY was a multicentre, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in adult (18-80 years) patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6-12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) previously treated with TNF inhibitors. Patients were recruited from 184 treatment centres across 24 countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and the Middle East. Patients needed to have an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. In cohort 1, patients received open-label etrolizumab 105 mg every 4 weeks for a 14-week induction period. In cohort 2, patients were randomly assigned (4:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for the 14-week induction phase. Patients in either cohort achieving clinical response to etrolizumab induction were eligible for the maintenance phase, in which they were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg or placebo every 4 weeks through to week 66. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants (induction randomisation only), baseline disease activity, week 14 MCS remission status (maintenance randomisation only), and induction cohort (maintenance randomisation only). All patients and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were remission (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] ≤2, with individual subscores of ≤1 and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0) at week 14, and remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response (MCS with ≥3-point decrease and ≥30% reduction from baseline, plus ≥1 point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore or absolute rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1) at week 14. Efficacy was analysed using a modified intent-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug during the induction phase. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02100696. FINDINGS: HICKORY was conducted from May 21, 2014, to April 16, 2020, during which time 1081 patients were screened, and 609 deemed eligible for inclusion. 130 patients were included in cohort 1. In cohort 2,479 patients were randomly assigned to the induction phase (etrolizumab n=384, placebo n=95). 232 patients were randomly assigned to the maintenance phase (etrolizumab to etrolizumab n=117, etrolizumab to placebo n=115). At week 14, 71 (18·5%) of 384 patients in the etrolizumab group and six (6·3%) of 95 patients in the placebo group achieved the primary induction endpoint of remission (p=0·0033). No significant difference between etrolizumab and placebo was observed for the primary maintenance endpoint of remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response at week 14 (27 [24·1%] of 112 vs 23 [20·2%] of 114; p=0·50). Four patients in the etrolizumab group reported treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. The proportion of patients reporting at least adverse event was similar between treatment groups for induction (etrolizumab 253 [66%] of 384; placebo 63 [66%] of 95) and maintenance (etrolizumab to etrolizumab 98 [88%] of 112; etrolizumab to placebo 97 [85%] of 114). The most common adverse event in both groups was ulcerative colitis flare. Most adverse events were mild or moderate. During induction, the most common serious adverse event was ulcerative colitis flare (etrolizumab ten [3%] of 384; placebo: two [2%] of 95). During maintenance, the most common serious adverse event in the etrolizumab to etrolizumab group was appendicitis (two [2%] of 112) and the most common serious adverse events in the etrolizumab to placebo group were ulcerative colitis flare (two [2%] of 114) and anaemia (two [2%] of 114). INTERPRETATION: HICKORY demonstrated that a significantly higher proportion of patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who had been previously treated with anti-TNF agent were able to achieve remission at week 14 when treated with etrolizumab compared with placebo; however, there was no significant difference between groups in remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response at week 14. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Training and deploying a deep learning model for endoscopic severity grading in ulcerative colitis using multicenter clinical trial data.

INTRODUCTION: The Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore is a commonly used grading system to assess the severity of ulcerative colitis. Correctly grading colonoscopies using the Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore is a challenging task, with suboptimal rates of interrater and intrarater variability observed even among experienced and sufficiently trained experts. In recent years, several machine learning algorithms have been proposed in an effort to improve the standardization and reproducibility of Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore grading. METHODS: Here we propose an end-to-end fully automated system based on deep learning to predict a binary version of the Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore directly from raw colonoscopy videos. Differently from previous studies, the proposed method mimics the assessment done in practice by a gastroenterologist, that is, traversing the whole colonoscopy video, identifying visually informative regions and computing an overall Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore. The proposed deep learning-based system has been trained and deployed on raw colonoscopies using Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore ground truth provided only at the colon section level, without manually selecting frames driving the severity scoring of ulcerative colitis. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Our evaluation on 1672 endoscopic videos obtained from a multisite data set obtained from the etrolizumab Phase II Eucalyptus and Phase III Hickory and Laurel clinical trials, show that our proposed methodology can grade endoscopic videos with a high degree of accuracy and robustness (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve = 0.84 for Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore ⩾ 1, 0.85 for Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore ⩾ 2 and 0.85 for Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore ⩾ 3) and reduced amounts of manual annotation. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Patient, caregiver and provider thoughts on educational materials about prescribing and medication safety Artificial intelligence can be used to automatically assess full endoscopic videos and estimate the severity of ulcerative colitis. In this work, we present an artificial intelligence algorithm for the automatic grading of ulcerative colitis in full endoscopic videos. Our artificial intelligence models were trained and evaluated on a large and diverse set of colonoscopy videos obtained from concluded clinical trials. We demonstrate not only that artificial intelligence is able to accurately grade full endoscopic videos, but also that using diverse data sets obtained from multiple sites is critical to train robust AI models that could potentially be deployed on real-world data.