Endoscopic endpoints in biologic clinical trials and beyond: the case for Crohn's Disease.

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Marlou P M Adriaanse, Mark Löwenberg, Geert R A M D'Haens
{"title":"Endoscopic endpoints in biologic clinical trials and beyond: the case for Crohn's Disease.","authors":"Marlou P M Adriaanse, Mark Löwenberg, Geert R A M D'Haens","doi":"10.1080/14712598.2024.2430614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Standardized evaluation of endoscopic disease activity using valid, responsive and reliable instruments is crucial for optimizing the efficiency of clinical trials with therapeutic agents for Crohn's disease (CD). Achieving endoscopic remission and/or mucosal healing is associated with improved long-term outcomes, making it an important treatment goal.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>Several endoscopic indices have been used over the past two decades, though they lack complete validation. The Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS) and Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD) demonstrate fair reliability and responsiveness to treatment. The CDEIS is rather complex and time-consuming, and both endoscopic indices are prone to variability. The Lewis Score and Capsule Endoscopy CD Activity Index (CECDAI) provide useful alternative instruments using video capsule endoscopy, but they need further validation. The Rutgeerts score predicts post-surgical recurrence but lacks evaluation for follow-up.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>While recent guidelines emphasize co-primary clinical and endoscopic endpoints to improve trial effectiveness, these are typically based on expert consensus rather than empirical data. We advocate to use SES-CD as the preferred endoscopic index given its simplicity, strong correlation with CDEIS, and treatment responsiveness. Future research should focus on establishing clinically relevant cutoff values for endoscopic response and endoscopic remission in CD trials, including post-operative settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":12084,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2024.2430614","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Standardized evaluation of endoscopic disease activity using valid, responsive and reliable instruments is crucial for optimizing the efficiency of clinical trials with therapeutic agents for Crohn's disease (CD). Achieving endoscopic remission and/or mucosal healing is associated with improved long-term outcomes, making it an important treatment goal.

Areas covered: Several endoscopic indices have been used over the past two decades, though they lack complete validation. The Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS) and Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD) demonstrate fair reliability and responsiveness to treatment. The CDEIS is rather complex and time-consuming, and both endoscopic indices are prone to variability. The Lewis Score and Capsule Endoscopy CD Activity Index (CECDAI) provide useful alternative instruments using video capsule endoscopy, but they need further validation. The Rutgeerts score predicts post-surgical recurrence but lacks evaluation for follow-up.

Expert opinion: While recent guidelines emphasize co-primary clinical and endoscopic endpoints to improve trial effectiveness, these are typically based on expert consensus rather than empirical data. We advocate to use SES-CD as the preferred endoscopic index given its simplicity, strong correlation with CDEIS, and treatment responsiveness. Future research should focus on establishing clinically relevant cutoff values for endoscopic response and endoscopic remission in CD trials, including post-operative settings.

生物临床试验中的内窥镜终点及其他:克罗恩病案例。
导言:使用有效、灵敏和可靠的工具对内镜下疾病活动进行标准化评估,对于优化克罗恩病(CD)治疗药物临床试验的效率至关重要。实现内镜下疾病缓解和/或粘膜愈合与改善长期预后有关,因此是一项重要的治疗目标:在过去的二十年中,已经使用了几种内镜指标,但这些指标还没有得到完全的验证。克罗恩病内镜下严重程度指数(CDEIS)和克罗恩病内镜下简单评分(SES-CD)显示出相当的可靠性和对治疗的反应性。CDEIS 相当复杂且耗时,两种内窥镜指数都容易产生变异。刘易斯评分和胶囊内镜 CD 活动指数(CECDAI)提供了有用的替代工具,但还需要进一步验证。Rutgeerts 评分可预测手术后复发,但缺乏后续评估:专家意见:虽然近期的指南强调共同主要临床和内镜终点以提高试验效果,但这些终点通常基于专家共识而非经验数据。我们主张将 SES-CD 作为首选的内镜指标,因为它简单易行、与 CDEIS 有很强的相关性,而且对治疗反应灵敏。未来的研究应侧重于在 CD 试验中(包括术后环境)建立与临床相关的内镜反应和内镜缓解的临界值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 医学-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
96
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy (1471-2598; 1744-7682) is a MEDLINE-indexed, international journal publishing peer-reviewed research across all aspects of biological therapy. Each article is structured to incorporate the author’s own expert opinion on the impact of the topic on research and clinical practice and the scope for future development. The audience consists of scientists and managers in the healthcare and biopharmaceutical industries and others closely involved in the development and application of biological therapies for the treatment of human disease. The journal welcomes: Reviews covering therapeutic antibodies and vaccines, peptides and proteins, gene therapies and gene transfer technologies, cell-based therapies and regenerative medicine Drug evaluations reviewing the clinical data on a particular biological agent Original research papers reporting the results of clinical investigations on biological agents and biotherapeutic-based studies with a strong link to clinical practice Comprehensive coverage in each review is complemented by the unique Expert Collection format and includes the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results; Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信