The Impact of Clinical Information on the Assessment of Endoscopic Activity: Characteristics of the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index Of Severity [UCEIS].

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To determine whether clinical information influences endoscopic scoring by central readers using the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity [UCEIS; comprising 'vascular pattern', 'bleeding', 'erosions and ulcers']. METHODS: Forty central readers performed 28 evaluations, including 2 repeats, from a library of 44 video sigmoidoscopies stratified by Mayo Clinic Score. Following training, readers were randomised to scoring with ['unblinded', n = 20, including 4 control videos with misleading information] or without ['blinded', n 20] clinical information. A total of 21 virtual Central Reader Groups [CRGs], of three blinded readers, were created. Agreement criteria were pre-specified. Kappa [κ] statistics quantified intra- and inter-reader variability. RESULTS: Mean UCEIS scores did not differ between blinded and unblinded readers for any of the 40 main videos. UCEIS standard deviations [SD] were similar [median blinded 0.94, unblinded 0.93; p = 0.97]. Correlation between UCEIS and visual analogue scale [VAS] assessment of overall severity was high [r blinded = 0.90, unblinded = 0.93; p = 0.02]. Scores for control videos were similar [UCEIS: p ≥ 0.55; VAS: p ≥ 0.07]. Intra- [κ 0.47-0.74] and inter-reader [κ 0.40-0.53] variability for items and full UCEIS was 'moderate'-to-'substantial', with no significant differences except for intra-reader variability for erosions and ulcers [κ blinded: 0.47 vs unblinded: 0.74; p 0.047]. The SD of CRGs was lower than for individual central readers [0.54 vs 0.95; p < 0.001]. Correlation between blinded UCEIS and patient-reported symptoms was high [stool frequency: 0.76; rectal bleeding: 0.82; both: 0.81]. CONCLUSIONS: The UCEIS is minimally affected by knowledge of clinical details, strongly correlates with patient-reported symptoms, and is a suitable instrument for trials. CRGs performed better than individuals.

High- and low-dose oral delayed-release mesalamine in children with mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the safety and efficacy of high- and low-dose oral, delayed-release mesalamine in a randomized, double-blind, active control study of children with mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: Patients ages 5 to 17 years, with a Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index (PUCAI) score of ≥ 10 to ≤ 55 and a truncated Mayo Score of ≥ 1 for both rectal bleeding and stool frequency, were enrolled. They received body weight-dependent doses of oral, delayed-release mesalamine for 6 weeks in a low- (27-71 mg · g(-1) · day(-1)) or high-dose group (53-118 mg · g(-1) · day(-1)). The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as the proportion of patients who achieved remission (PUCAI score <10) or partial response (PUCAI score ≥ 10 with a decrease from baseline by ≥ 20 points). Secondary endpoints included truncated Mayo Score and global assessment of change of disease activity. RESULTS: The modified intent-to-treat population included 81 of 83 patients enrolled. Treatment success by PUCAI was achieved by 23 of 41 (56%) and 22 of 40 (55%) patients in the mesalamine low- and high-dose groups, respectively (P = 0.924). Truncated Mayo Score (low-dose 30 [73%] and high-dose 28 [70%] patients) and other efficacy results did not differ between the groups. The type and severity of adverse events were consistent with those reported in previous studies of adults with ulcerative colitis and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both low- and high-dose oral, delayed-release mesalamine doses were equally effective as short-term treatment of mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis in children, without a specific benefit or risk to using either dose.

Reliability and initial validation of the ulcerative colitis endoscopic index of severity.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We studied the reliability of the previously described Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) and validated it with an independent cohort of investigators. METHODS: We created a new library of 57 videos of flexible sigmoidoscopy and stratified them based on disease severity. Twenty-five investigators were each randomly assigned to assess 28 videos (which included 4 duplicates to assess intraobserver reliability). Investigators were blinded to clinical details except for 2 of 4 duplicated videos (to assess the impact of knowledge of symptoms on assessment). Three descriptors ("vascular pattern", "bleeding", and "erosions and ulcers") comprising the UCEIS were scored with a visual analogue scale (VAS) to assess overall severity. Intrainvestigator and interinvestigator agreement was characterized by κ statistical analysis; reliability ratios were used to compare VAS and UCEIS scores. RESULTS: There was a high level of correlation between UCEIS scores and overall assessment of severity (correlation coefficient, 0.93). Internal consistency (Cronbach α analysis) was 0.86. Intrainvestigator and interinvestigator reliability ratios for UCEIS scores were 0.96 and 0.88, respectively. Intrainvestigator agreement in determination of the UCEIS score was good (κ = 0.72), with individual descriptors ranging from a κ of 0.47 (for bleeding) to 0.87 (for vascular pattern). Interinvestigator agreement in determination of UCEIS scores was moderate (κ = 0.50), with descriptors ranging from a κ of 0.48 (for bleeding) to 0.54 (for vascular pattern). Intrainvestigator variability in determining UCEIS scores did not change appreciably when a video was presented with clinical details. CONCLUSIONS: The UCEIS and its components show satisfactory intrainvestigator and interinvestigator reliability. Among investigators, the UCEIS accounted for a median of 86% of the variability in evaluation of overall severity on the VAS when assessing the endoscopic severity of UC and was unaffected by knowledge of clinical details.

Developing an instrument to assess the endoscopic severity of ulcerative colitis: the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS).

BACKGROUND: Variability in endoscopic assessment necessitates rigorous investigation of descriptors for scoring severity of ulcerative colitis (UC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate variation in the overall endoscopic assessment of severity, the intra- and interindividual variation of descriptive terms and to create an Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity which could be validated. DESIGN: A two-phase study used a library of 670 video sigmoidoscopies from patients with Mayo Clinic scores 0-11, supplemented by 10 videos from five people without UC and five hospitalised patients with acute severe UC. In phase 1, each of 10 investigators viewed 16/24 videos to assess agreement on the Baron score with a central reader and agreed definitions of 10 endoscopic descriptors. In phase 2, each of 30 different investigators rated 25/60 different videos for the descriptors and assessed overall severity on a 0-100 visual analogue scale. κ Statistics tested inter- and intraobserver variability for each descriptor. A general linear mixed regression model based on logit link and ß distribution of variance was used to predict overall endoscopic severity from descriptors. RESULTS: There was 76% agreement for 'severe', but 27% agreement for 'normal' appearances between phase I investigators and the central reader. In phase 2, weighted κ values ranged from 0.34 to 0.65 and 0.30 to 0.45 within and between observers for the 10 descriptors. The final model incorporated vascular pattern, (normal/patchy/complete obliteration) bleeding (none/mucosal/luminal mild/luminal moderate or severe), erosions and ulcers (none/erosions/superficial/deep), each with precise definitions, which explained 90% of the variance (pR(2), Akaike Information Criterion) in the overall assessment of endoscopic severity, predictions varying from 4 to 93 on a 100-point scale (from normal to worst endoscopic severity). CONCLUSION: The Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity accurately predicts overall assessment of endoscopic severity of UC. Validity and responsiveness need further testing before it can be applied as an outcome measure in clinical trials or clinical practice.

Delayed-release oral mesalamine 4.8 g/day (800-mg tablet) is effective for patients with moderately active ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: It is not clear what induction dose of mesalamine is optimal for treating patients with mildly and moderately active ulcerative colitis (UC). This study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of mesalamine 4.8 g/day compared with 2.4 g/day for the treatment of moderately active UC. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 6-week, active-control study (ASCEND III) was conducted to assess the noninferiority of delayed-release mesalamine 4.8 g/day (Asacol HD, 800-mg tablet; Procter & Gamble, Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Mason, Ohio) with 2.4 g/day (Asacol, 400-mg tablet; Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc) in 772 patients with moderately active UC. The primary endpoint was treatment success (overall improvement) at week 6, defined as improvement in the Physician's Global Assessment (based on clinical assessments of rectal bleeding, stool frequency, and sigmoidoscopy), with no worsening in any individual clinical assessment. RESULTS: The primary objective of noninferiority was met. Seventy percent (273 of 389) of patients who received 4.8 g/day of mesalamine achieved treatment success at week 6, compared with 66% (251 of 383) of patients receiving 2.4 g/day (95% confidence interval for 2.4 g/day minus 4.8 g/day, -11.2 to 1.9). In addition, 43% of patients who received 4.8 g/day mesalamine achieved clinical remission at week 6 compared with 35% of patients who received 2.4 g/day (P = .04). A therapeutic advantage for the 4.8 g/day dose was observed among patients previously treated with corticosteroids, oral mesalamines, rectal therapies, or multiple UC medications. Both regimens were well-tolerated with similar adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed-release mesalamine 4.8 g/day (800-mg tablet) is efficacious and well-tolerated in patients with moderately active UC.

Development of musculoskeletal toxicity without clear benefit after administration of PG-116800, a matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor, to patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, 12-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group, dose-response study of the efficacy and safety of the oral administration of PG-116800, a matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) inhibitor, in patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis. The primary efficacy endpoints included the progression of joint space narrowing in the osteoarthritic knee, as measured by microfocal radiography with fluoroscopic positioning, and the reduction of symptoms (pain and stiffness) and/or the improvement of function, as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC). Four hundred and one patients were randomly assigned to either placebo (n = 80) or one of fourdoses of PG-116800: 25 mg (n = 81), 50 mg (n = 80), 100 mg (n = 80), or 200 mg (n = 80) taken twice daily for 12 months. During the study, the 200-mg dose was discontinued based on an increased frequency of musculoskeletal adverse effects. After 1 year of treatment, no statistically significant difference was observed between placebo and PG-116800 with regard to mean changes in minimum joint space width of the knee or to WOMAC scores. The most frequent adverse effect was arthralgia (35%). Twenty-three percent of evaluable patients had at least a 30% decrease from baseline of at least onerange-of-motion measurement of either shoulder at a follow-up visit. The percentage of patients with reduction in range of motion was significantly greater in the twohighest dose groups relative to placebo. Thirteen percent of patients, half of whom were in the 200-mg group, reported hand adverse events (oedema, palmar fibrosis, Dupuytren contracture, or persistent tendon thickness or nodules). The threemost frequent shoulder adverse events were reversible arthralgia, stiffness, and myalgia, which mostly affected the twohighest dose groups. The unfavorable risk-benefit balance of the MMP inhibitor PG-116800 in patients with knee osteoarthritis precludes further development of the compound for this indication. This study adds to the weight of evidence suggesting that side effect profiles of MMP inhibitors in general make them unsuitable for use in osteoarthritis.

Effects of selective matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor (PG-116800) to prevent ventricular remodeling after myocardial infarction: results of the PREMIER (Prevention of Myocardial Infarction Early Remodeling) trial.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) inhibitor, PG-116800, reduced left ventricular (LV) remodeling after myocardial infarction (MI). BACKGROUND: PG-116800 is an oral MMP inhibitor with significant antiremodeling effects in animal models of MI and ischemic heart failure. METHODS: In an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 253 patients with first ST-segment elevation MI and ejection fraction between 15% and 40% were enrolled 48+/- 24 h after MI and treated with placebo or PG-116800 for 90 days. Major efficacy end points were changes in LV volumes as determined by serial echocardiography, and clinical and safety outcomes were also collected. RESULTS: In total, 203 patients (80%) completed 90 days of treatment and had evaluable baseline and 90-day echocardiograms. The proportion of patients with anterior MI (78% vs. 81%) and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (90% vs. 91%) along with baseline LV ejection fraction (35.5% vs. 36.8%) did not differ between PG-116800-treated and placebo-treated patients. There was no difference in the change in LV end-diastolic volume index from days 0 to 90 with PG-116800 versus placebo (5.09 +/- 1.45 ml/m(2) vs. 5.48 +/- 1.41 ml/m2, p = 0.42). Changes in LV diastolic volume, LV systolic volume, LV ejection fraction, sphericity index, plus rates of death or reinfarction were not significantly improved with PG-116800. PG-116800 was well tolerated; however, there was increased incidence of arthralgia and joint stiffness without significant increase in overall musculoskeletal adverse events (21% vs. 15%, p = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Matrix metalloproteinase inhibition with PG-116800 failed to reduce LV remodeling or improve clinical outcomes after MI.