Evaluating the optimum number of biopsies to assess histological inflammation in ulcerative colitis: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal ulcerative colitis biopsy protocol is unclear. AIM: To evaluate the number of biopsies required to accurately assess microscopic disease activity in ulcerative colitis METHODS: Biopsies from patients with ≥4 rectosigmoid samples, and clinical and endoscopic data, were retrospectively obtained from a prospective biobank. Histology and endoscopic videos were read blindly. A 4-biopsy Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI) reference score, consisting of the worst item-level ratings from four biopsies, was compared to 1-, 2- and 3-biopsy estimates. Agreement was determined using bivariate errors-in-variable regression analysis (acceptance interval: ±8.25). Endoscopic activity and disease location subgroup analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Forty-six patients had ≥4 rectosigmoid biopsies available (N = 287). The 2-biopsy (tolerance interval: -7.66, 4.79) and 3-biopsy (tolerance interval: -4.86, 3.46) RHI scores demonstrated acceptable agreement with 4-biopsy scores. One-biopsy scores demonstrated unacceptable agreement (tolerance interval: -13.99, 7.78). Mean RHI scores using the 2-, 3- and 4-biopsy approaches were similar (6.1 ± 9.6 P = 0.36; 6.8 ± 10.5, P = 0.7; 7.5 ± 11.2), whereas the 1-biopsy estimate was lower (4.4 ± 8.1, P = 0.06). Histological remission rates were identical for the 2-, 3- and 4-biopsy methods (65.2%, P = 1.0). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that three biopsies were required in patients with endoscopically active disease. Sampling additional colonic locations yielded lower histological remission rates compared to rectosigmoid sampling alone (33.3% vs 61.9%, P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: A minimum of two - conservatively, three - biopsies are required to reliably assess disease activity in a single colonic segment using the RHI. Further studies are needed of endoscopically active patients and sampling locations. These results have implications for biopsy strategies in clinical trials and practice.

Endoscopic scoring indices for evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic assessment of mucosal disease activity is routinely used to determine eligibility and response to therapy in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis. The operating properties of the existing endoscopic scoring indices are unclear. OBJECTIVES: A systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the development and operating characteristics of endoscopic scoring indices for the evaluation of ulcerative colitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 5 July 2016. We also searched references and conference proceedings (Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week, European Crohn's and Colitis Organization). SELECTION CRITERIA: Any study design (e.g. randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series) that evaluated endoscopic indices for evaluation of ulcerative colitis disease activity were considered for inclusion. Eligible participants were adult patients (> 16 years), diagnosed with ulcerative colitis using conventional clinical, radiologic and endoscopic criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed the studies identified from the literature search. These authors also independently extracted and recorded data on the number of patients enrolled; number of patients per treatment arm; patient characteristics including age and gender distribution; endoscopic index; and outcomes such as reliability (intra-rater and inter-rater), validity (content, construct, criterion), responsiveness and feasibility. Any disagreements regarding study inclusion or data extraction were resolved by discussion and consensus with a third author. Risk of bias was assessed by determining whether assessors were blinded to clinical information and whether assessors scored the endoscopic index independently. We also assessed the methodological quality of the validation studies using the COSMIN checklist MAIN RESULTS: A total of 23 reports of 20 studies met the pre-defined inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Of the 20 included validation studies, 19 endoscopic scoring indices were assessed, including the Azzolini Classification, Baron Score, Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation, Chinese Grading System of Ulcerative Colitis, Endoscopic Activty Index, Jeroen Score, Magnifying Colonoscopy Grade, Matts Score, Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Modified Baron Score, Modified Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Osada Score, Rachmilewtiz Endoscopic Score, St. Mark's Index, Ulcerative Colitis Colonoscopic Index of Serverity (UCCIS), endoscopic component of the Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI), Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS), Witts Sigmoidoscopic Score and Watson Grade. The individuals who performed the endoscopic scoring were blinded to clinical and/or histologic information in ten of the included studies, not blinded to clinical and/or histologic information in one of the included studies, and it was unclear whether blinding occurred in the remaining nine included studies. Independent observation was confirmed in four of the included studies, unclear in five of the included studies, and non-applicable (since inter-rater reliability was not assessed) in the remaining eleven included studies. The methodological quality (COSMIN checklist) of most of the included studies was rated as 'good' or 'excellent'. One study that assessed responsiveness was rated as 'fair'. The inter-rater reliability of nine endoscopic scoring indices including the Baron Score, Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation, Endoscopic Activity Index, Matts Score, Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Osada Score, UCCIS, UCEIS, Watson Grade was assessed in seven studies, with estimates of correlation, ƙ, ranging from 0.44 to 0.97. The iIntra-rater reliability of seven endoscopic scoring indices including the Baron Score, Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation, Matts Score, Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Osada Score, UCCIS and UCEIS was assessed in three studies, with estimates of correlation, ƙ, ranging from 0.41 to 0.86. No studies assessed content validity. Three studies evaluated the criterion validity of three endoscopic scoring indices including the Rachmilewitz Endoscopic Score, Magnifying Colonoscopy Grade and the UCCIS. These indices were correlated with objective markers of disease activity including albumin, blood leukocytes, C-reactive protein, fecal calprotectin, hemoglobin, mucosal interleukin-8 concentration and platelet count. Correlation estimates ranged from r = -0.19 to 0.83. Thirteen endoscopic scoring indices were tested for construct validity in 13 studies. Estimates of correlation between the endoscopic scoring indices and other measures of disease activity ranged from r = 0.27 to 0.93. Two studies explored the responsiveness of four endoscopic scoring indices including the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore, Modified Baron Score, Modified Mayo Endoscopic Subscore and UCEIS. One study concluded that the Modified Baron Score, Modified Mayo Endoscopic Subscore and UCEIS had similar responsiveness for detecting disease change in ulcerative colitis. The other included study concluded that the UCEIS may be the most accurate endoscopic scoring tool. None of the included studies formally assessed feasibility. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While the UCEIS, UCCIS and Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore have undergone extensive validation, none of these instruments have been fully validated and only two studies assessed responsiveness. Further research on the operating properties of these indices is needed given the lack of a fully-validated endoscopic scoring instrument for the evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis.

Histologic scoring indices for evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Disease activity can be determined using clinical, endoscopic or histologic criteria in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Persistent disease activity is associated with poor outcomes. Histologic disease activity has been shown to be associated with relapse, colectomy and colorectal cancer. The ability to objectively evaluate microscopic disease activity using histology is important for both clinical practice and clinical trials. However, the operating properties of the currently available histologic indices remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: A systematic review was undertaken to identify and evaluate the development and operating characteristics of histologic disease activity indices used to assess disease activity in people with ulcerative colitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CENTRAL and the Cochrane IBD Review Group Specialized Trials Register from inception to 2 December 2016 for applicable studies. There were no language or document type restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any study design (e.g. randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series) that evaluated a histologic index in patients with UC were considered for inclusion. Eligible patients were adults (> 18 years), diagnosed with UC using conventional clinical, radiographic, endoscopic and histologic criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (MHM and CEP) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the studies identified from the literature search. A standardized form was used to assess eligibility of trials for inclusion and for data extraction.Two authors (MHM and CEP) independently extracted and recorded data, which included the number of patients enrolled, number of patients per treatment arm, patient characteristics including age and gender distribution, and the name of the histologic index. Outcomes (i.e. intra-rater reliability, inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, content validity, criterion validity, construct validity, responsiveness, and feasibility) were recorded for each trial. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 126 reports describing 30 scoring indices were identified through the screening process. Eleven of the 30 scoring indices have undergone some form of index validation. Intra-rater reliability was assessed for eight scoring indices. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated for all 11 of the scoring indices. Three of the indices underwent content validation. Two of the included scoring indices assessed criterion validity. Six of the included scoring indices explored content validity. Two of the included scoring indices were tested for responsiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The Nancy Index and the Robarts Histopathology Index have undergone the most validation in that four operating properties including reliability, content validity, construct validity (hypothesis testing) and criterion validity have been tested. However, none of the currently available histologic scoring indices have been fully validated. In order to determine the optimal endpoint for histologic healing in UC, more research is required. The optimal index would need to be fully validated.

Endoscopic scoring indices for evaluation of disease activity in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic assessment of mucosal disease activity is widely used to determine eligibility and response to therapy in clinical trials of treatment for Crohn's disease. However, the operating properties of the currently available endoscopic indices remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: A systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the development and operating characteristics of the Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS) and Simple Endoscopic Scale for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD). SEARCH METHODS: Electronic searches of the MEDLINE (1966 to December 2015), EMBASE (1980 to December 2015), and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 12, 2015) databases were supplemented by manual reviews of reference listings and conference proceedings (Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week, European Crohn's and Colitis Organization). SELECTION CRITERIA: Any study design (e.g. randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series) that evaluated either or both the CDEIS or SES-CD in patients with Crohn's disease was considered for inclusion. Eligible participants were adult patients (> 16 years), diagnosed with Crohn's disease using conventional clinical, radiographic, and endoscopic criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (RK, JKM) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the studies identified from the literature search. The full texts of potentially relevant citations were reviewed for inclusion and the study investigators were contacted to clarify any unclear data. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus with a third author. A standardized form was used to assess eligibility of trials for inclusion in the study and for data extraction.Two authors independently extracted and recorded data (RK, SAN). The number of patients enrolled; number of patients per treatment arm; patient characteristics including age and gender distribution; endoscopic index; and outcomes such as intra-rater reliability, inter-rater reliability responsiveness, validity, feasibility, construct validity, and criterion validity were recorded for each trial. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-three reports of 30 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria.For the SES-CD, inter-rater reliability was assessed in four studies. In the development study for the SES-CD (Daperno 2004), the overall ICC (0.9815, 95% CI 0.9705 to 0.9884) and the kappa for the regions is high; however the paired raters were in the same room which introduces the potential for bias.For the CDEIS, inter-rater reliability was assessed in six studies. Daperno 2014 reported that the ICC for the CDEIS was 0.985 (95% CI 0.939-1.000) for average measures of video score and was 0.835 (95% CI 0.540-0.995) for single measures of video score.With respect to validity, correlation between the CDEIS and clinical measures, including C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), was also reported. The estimates of correlation with CRP were r = 0.521 (Sipponen 2010b), r = 0.553 (Sipponen 2008a) and r = 0.608 (Sipponen 2008c). For the SES-CD, the corresponding values for correlation with CRP ranged from r = 0.46 (Jones 2008) to r = 0.68 (Green 2011).Responsiveness data for the CDEIS were available in nine studies. Seven studies demonstrated statistically significant decreases in the CDEIS score after administration of a treatment of known efficacy. Minimal responsiveness data were available for the SES-CD. Sipponen 2010a and Sipponen 2010b demonstrated statistically significant changes in the SES-CD score after subjects were administered a treatment of known efficacy.No studies were identified that explicitly evaluated the feasibility for either the SES-CD or the CDEIS. The SES-CD requires fewer calculations and may therefore be easier to use than the CDEIS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although they are used in clinical trials, the CDEIS and SES-CD remain incompletely validated. Future research is required to determine the operating properties and to define the optimal index.

Simplified therapeutic intervention to control hypertension and hypercholesterolemia: a cluster randomized controlled trial (STITCH2).

BACKGROUND: Notwithstanding improving rates of hypertension control in North America, management of patients with both hypertension and dyslipidemia remains problematic. Based on evidence of improved control utilizing a simplified algorithm for management of hypertension (STITCH), we questioned whether a simplified comprehensive treatment algorithm featuring initial use of single-pill combinations (SPCs) would improve management of participants with both hypertension and dyslipidemia. METHOD: We randomized 35 primary care practices in Ontario to either Guidelines-care (following current Canadian guidelines) or STITCH2-care (following a treatment algorithm featuring SPCs). Practices each enrolled up to 50 participants with at least one risk factor above target at entry based on Canadian guidelines for BP and LDL-cholesterol control. The primary endpoint was achieving targets for both hypertension and dyslipidemia control after 6 months, assessed at the practice level. RESULTS: The primary endpoint was achieved in 31.3% of participants in STITCH2-care practices, compared with 28.1% in Guidelines-care practices, yielding a difference of 3.2% (P = 0.63). Notably, STITCH2-care practices had a significantly greater reduction in SBP while LDL-cholesterol reduction was only marginally greater in STITCH2 practices. CONCLUSION: The STITCH2 algorithm resulted in significantly greater use of any SPC compared with Guidelines-care and greater use of the SPC of calcium channel blocker/statin. Unwillingness of the prescribing physician to advance treatment beyond a monotherapy threshold was found to be an important determinant for failing to achieve blood pressure control. In contrast, the more important determinant for failing to achieve LDL control appeared to be the unwillingness of the prescribing physician to initiate therapy with a statin.

Barriers to blood pressure control: a STITCH substudy.

Despite improvements in blood pressure (BP) control, a substantial percentage of patients do not achieve target. The relative importance of determinants of poor BP control is unclear. Therefore, the authors conducted a post hoc exploratory analysis to assess determinants of BP control. Data were collected in 45 general practices, which enrolled patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Antihypertensive medication changes throughout the 6-month follow-up period were documented. Baseline and 6-month BPs were recorded. Of the 2030 patients analyzed, 320 had diabetes. Overall, 42% of patients did not achieve BP control. In multivariate analysis, failure to intensify therapy was identified as a significant independent predictor of lesser BP reduction. Of patients unable to reach target after 6 months, only 25% were prescribed ≥ 3 drugs. Patients with diabetes were significantly less likely to reach target than those without (26% vs 64%, P<.001). Antihypertensive therapy prescribed to patients with diabetes was only marginally more intensive than to those without. In patients with hypertension, whether with or without coexisting diabetes, poor BP control appears to be at least partially due to failure to uptitrate antihypertensive therapy. Clinical inertia is likely an important barrier to BP control.

A simplified approach to the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension: a cluster randomized, controlled trial.

Notwithstanding the availability of antihypertensive drugs and practice guidelines, blood pressure control remains suboptimal. The complexity of current treatment guidelines may contribute to this problem. To determine whether a simplified treatment algorithm is more effective than guideline-based management, we studied 45 family practices in southwestern Ontario, Canada, using a cluster randomization trial comparing the simplified treatment algorithm with the Canadian Hypertension Education Program guidelines. The simplified treatment algorithm consisted of the following: (1) initial therapy with a low-dose angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/diuretic or angiotensin receptor blocker/diuretic combination; (2) up-titration of combination therapy to the highest dose; (3) addition of a calcium channel blocker and up-titration; and (4) addition of a non-first-line antihypertensive agent. The proportion of patients treated to target blood pressure (systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg for patients without diabetes mellitus or systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure <80 mm Hg for diabetic patients) at 6 months was analyzed at the practice level. The proportion of patients achieving target was significantly higher in the intervention group (64.7% versus 52.7%; absolute difference: 12.0%; 95% CI: 1.5% to 22.4%; P=0.026). Multivariate analysis of patient-level data showed that assignment to the intervention arm increased the chance of reaching the target by 20% (P=0.028), when adjusted for other covariates. In conclusion, the Simplified Treatment Intervention to Control Hypertension Study indicates that a simplified antihypertensive algorithm using initial low-dose fixed-dose combination therapy is superior to guideline-based practice for the management of hypertension.