Placebo response and remission rates in randomised trials of induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: It is important to minimize placebo rates in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to efficiently detect treatment differences between interventions. Historically, high placebo rates have been observed in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis (UC). A better understanding of factors influencing placebo rates may lead to more informed clinical trial design. OBJECTIVES: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate placebo response and remission rates in RCTs evaluating UC treatments in adult patients. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic databases (i.e. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) were searched from inception to 1 March 2017 with no language restrictions applied. Reference lists and conference proceedings of major gastroenterology meetings were also handsearched to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Placebo-controlled RCTs of adult patients with UC treated with corticosteroids, aminosalicylates, immunosuppressives or biologics were eligible, provided enrolment and outcome assessment was conducted using the Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) or the Mayo Clinic Score. The minimum trial duration was two weeks for induction trials and four months maintenance trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of authors independently determined study eligibility and extracted data with any disagreements resolved through consensus. Outcomes of interest included the proportion of patients with clinical response and remission. Trial characteristics such as the design, participant demographics and disease history, interventions, and enrolment and assessment criteria were also recorded. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Pooled placebo response and remission rates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using a binomial normal model for proportions. Induction of remission and maintenance studies were pooled separately. The impact of study-level characteristics on placebo response and remission rates was investigated using mixed-effects meta-regression analyses with logits of event rates as the outcome variables. An assessment of pooled placebo rates over time was conducted using a cumulative meta-analysis based on date of publication. Publication bias was examined using funnel plots. MAIN RESULTS: The screening process identified 61 included studies which encompass 58 induction phases (5111 patients randomised to placebo) and 12 maintenance phases (1579 patients randomised to placebo). For induction trials, the pooled estimate of placebo response was 33% (95% CI 30% to 36%) while the pooled estimate of placebo remission was 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%). For maintenance trials, the pooled estimate of placebo response was 23% (95% CI 19% to 28%) while the pooled estimate of placebo remission was 17% (95% CI 10% to 27%).Studies enrolling patients with more active disease confirmed objectively by endoscopy were associated with significantly lower placebo remission and response rates than trials enrolling patients with less active disease (27% versus 4%, OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.42, P = 0.01 for UCDAI endoscopy sub score ≥1 versus ≥ 2 for remission; and 27% versus 4%, OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.82, P = 0.02 for UCDAI endoscopy sub score greater than or equal to one versus greater than or equal to two for response). With respect to drug class, the lowest placebo response and remission rates were observed in trials evaluating corticosteroids (23%; 95% CI 19 to 29%, and 5%; 95% CI 2 to 11%, respectively). Trials of biologics had the highest placebo response rate (35%; 95% CI 30 to 41%), while trials evaluating aminosalicylates had the highest placebo remission rate (18%; 95% CI 12 to 24%). Disease duration of greater than five years prior to enrolment was associated with a significantly lower placebo response rate compared to disease duration of less than or equal to five years (29% versus 47%, respectively; OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.92, P = 0.02). The requirement of a minimum rectal bleeding score for study eligibility was associated with an increased placebo response rate compared to studies that did not use rectal bleeding for trial eligibility (37% versus 32%, respectively; OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.82, P = 0.02). Finally, the time point of primary outcome assessment was found to be significantly associated with placebo remission rates such that every one week increment in endpoint assessment was associated with a 6% increase in the placebo remission rate (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10, P = 0.01).Cumulative meta-analysis indicated a consistent increase in the placebo response rate from 1987 to 2007 (from 13% to 33%), although rates have remained constant from 2008 to 2015 (32% to 34%). Similarly, placebo remission rates increased from 1987 to 2007 (5% to 14%) but have remained constant from 2008 to 2015 (12 to 14%). On meta-regression, there were no statistically significant differences between the 1987-2007 and 2008-2015 point estimates for both response (P = 0.81) and remission (P = 0.32). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Placebo response and remission rates vary according to endoscopic disease severity and rectal bleeding score at trial entry, class of agent, disease duration, and the time point at which the primary outcome was measured. These observations have important implications for the design and conduct of future clinical trials in UC and will help researchers design trials, determine required sample sizes and also provide useful information about trial design features which should be considered when planning new trials.

COVID-19 and endoscopy services in intermediately affected countries: a position statement from the saudi gastroenterology association.

With the global pandemic due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there has been a significant strain on healthcare facilities. The infectivity rate, as well as the rate of healthcare workers who have fallen ill to the disease, has raised concerns globally on the proper management of patients as well as the role of safe healthcare provision utilizing personal protective equipment (PPE). Furthermore, the limited supply of PPEs has mandated rationing their use to achieve maximum utility and preservation. Multiple gastroenterology associations have issued guidance and statements that would help healthcare providers in navigating these unprecedented and difficult times, and the Saudi Gastroenterology Association has provided this statement in an effort to bring the most up to date information for the management of endoscopy units in terms of resources, manpower planning, scheduling, as well as infection control policies and leadership.

Efficiency and patient experience with propofol vs conventional sedation: A prospective study.

AIM: To determine whether anaesthesiologist-administered sedation with propofol (AAP) or endoscopist-administered conscious sedation (EAC) with fentanyl/midazolam shortens colonoscopy duration/total room time. METHODS: This is a prospective, non-randomized, comparative study that enrolled patients greater than 18 years of age undergoing colonoscopy in a single Canadian academic outpatient endoscopy unit over a three-month consecutive period. Colonoscopies in this unit are performed both with AAP and EAC. Patient demographics, procedure-related data and adverse events were documented. Additionally, the level of procedure difficulty, and whether a staff endoscopist, trainee with assistance, or independent trainee, performed the procedure were documented. A validated modified 4-question, 5-point Likert scale telephone survey was used to assess patient satisfaction with colonoscopy. The telephone patient satisfaction survey was conducted 24-72 h following the procedure. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty patients were enrolled during the study period with 126 patients in the AAP group and 104 patients in the EAC group. Mean procedure time was 18.3 ± 10.1 min in the AAP group and 14.7 ± 7.1 min in the EAC group (P = 0.002). Mean total room time was 36.8 ± 13.7 with AAP and 30.1 ± 11 min with EAC (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed the use of AAP (P = 0.002), resident participation (P < 0.001), diagnostic interventions (P = 0.033), therapeutic interventions (P < 0.001), lower body mass index (P = 0.008) and American Society of Anaesthesiologist class (P = 0.016), to be predictors of longer total room time. Patient age and gender were not significant predictors. After excluding cases in which trainees were involved, there was no significant difference in procedure time between the two groups (P = 0.941), however total room time was still prolonged in the AAP group (P = 0.019). The amount of pain experienced was lower with AAP (P = 0.02), with a trend toward overall higher patient satisfaction (P = 0.074). There were 2 sedation-related adverse events, both in the AAP group involving a patient with aspiration requiring hospitalization and a patient with hypoxia managed with bronchodilators. CONCLUSION: EAC results in reduced total room time compared to AAP. Resident participation doubles procedure time regardless of sedation type.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Placebo Rates in Induction and Maintenance Trials of Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Minimisation of the placebo responses in randomised controlled trials [RCTs] is essential for efficient evaluation of new interventions. Placebo rates have been high in ulcerative colitis [UC] clinical trials, and factors influencing this are poorly understood. We quantify placebo response and remission rates in UC RCTs and identify trial design factors influencing them. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception through April 2014 for placebo-controlled trials in adult patients with UC of a biological agent, corticosteroid, immunosuppressant, or aminosalicylate. Data were independently doubly extracted. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: In all, 51 trials [48 induction and 10 maintenance phases] were identified. Placebo response and remission rates were pooled according to random-effects models, and mixed-effects meta-regression models were used to evaluate effects of study-level characteristics on these rates. Pooled estimates of placebo remission and response rates for induction trials were 10% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7-13%) and 33% [95% CI 29-37%], respectively. Corresponding values for maintenance trials were 19% [95% CI 11-30%] and 22% [95% CI 17-28%]. Trials enrolling patients with more active disease confirmed by endoscopy [endoscopy subscore ≥ 2] were associated with lower placebo rates. Conversely, placebo rates increased with increasing trial duration and number of study visits. CONCLUSIONS: Objective assessment of greater disease activity at trial entry by endoscopy lowered placebo rates, whereas increasing trial duration and more interactions with healthcare providers increased placebo rates. These findings have important implications for design and conduct of clinical trials.

Advances in the diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel disease: challenges and uncertainties.

Over the past two decades, several advances have been made in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from both evaluative and therapeutic perspectives. This review discusses the medical advancements that have recently been made as the standard of care for managing patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's Disease (CD) and to identify the challenges associated with implementing their use in clinical practice. A comprehensive literature search of the major databases (PubMed and Embase) was conducted for all recent scientific papers (1990-2013) giving the recent updates on the management of IBD and the data were extracted. The reported advancements in managing IBD range from diagnostic and evaluative tools, such as genetic tests, biochemical surrogate markers of activity, endoscopic techniques, and radiological modalities, to therapeutic advances, which encompass medical, endoscopic, and surgical interventions. There are limited studies addressing the cost-effectiveness and the impact that these advances have had on medical practice. The majority of the advances developed for managing IBD, while considered instrumental by some IBD experts in improving patient care, have questionable applications due to constraints of cost, lack of availability, and most importantly, insufficient evidence that supports their role in improving important long-term health-related outcomes.