DOP11 Early intestinal ultrasound predicts endoscopic response to anti-inflammatory treatment and shows drug-specific response to biologicals and tofacitinib in Ulcerative Colitis
de Voogd, F.(1);Bots, S.(1);Van Wassenaer, E.(2);De Jong, M.(1);Pruijt, M.(1);Löwenberg, M.(1);D'Haens, G.(1);Gecse, K.(1);
(1)Amsterdam University Medical Center, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;(2)Emma Children's Hospital- Amsterdam University Medical Center, Pediatric Gastroenterology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
Background
Objective evaluation of treatment response is the gold standard in ulcerative colitis (UC). In this setting, intestinal ultrasound (IUS) is a non-invasive alternative to endoscopy. Recent studies showed change in IUS parameters after treatment initiation but studies with an endoscopic reference standard are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate early change of IUS parameters and determine cut-off values for endoscopic endpoints in UC patients starting anti-inflammatory treatment.
Methods
In this longitudinal prospective study consecutive patients with moderate-severe UC (baseline endoscopic Mayo score (EMS)≥2) starting an anti-inflammatory treatment were included. Clinical scores, biochemical parameters and IUS parameters were collected at baseline, after 2 (T1), 6 (T2) and 8-26 weeks (T3) around time of the second sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy. IUS parameters were measured as previously established1. Endoscopic remission (ER) and mucosal healing (MH) were evaluated in the sigmoid and defined as EMS=0 and EMS≤1, respectively. The ultrasonographist and endoscopist were blinded for the outcomes of endoscopy and IUS, respectively.
Results
51 consecutive patients were included (Table 1) of whom 31 underwent a second endoscopy (MH: n=15 (45%), ER: n=9 (27%)). Two additional patients underwent colectomy and were considered non-responders. 18 patients did not undergo second endoscopy due to the COVID-19 pandemic (n=2), refusal (n=5), loss to follow-up (n=1) or treatment escalation because of clinical deterioration confirmed by IUS and biomarkers before second endoscopy was performed (n=10). Bowel wall thickness (BWT) was significantly lower from T2 onwards in patients reaching MH (p=0.026) and ER (p=0.002) at T3 (Fig 1). A significant decrease in BWT was already visible at T1 in patients receiving infliximab (p=0.001) or tofacitinib (p=0.007), but not in patients treated with vedolizumab (p=0.11) (Fig 2). Most accurate BWT cut-off values at T3 to determine MH and ER were 3.52 mm (AUROC: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.86-1.00, p<0.0001, sens: 91%, spec: 91%) and 2.98 mm (AUROC: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.85-1.00, p=0.001, sens: 87%, spec: 100%), respectively. Other IUS parameters at T3 did not improve association with MH or ER. IUS parameters at T2 that predict MH and ER are demonstrated in Table 2.
Table 1
Fig 1
Fig 2
Table 2Conclusion
BWT and Colour Doppler Signal 6 weeks after start of treatment are associated with and could predict MH and ER. In addition, treatment response patterns at IUS are drug-specific. Furthermore, we have provided accurate BWT cut-off values for endoscopic outcomes. In a point-of-care setting, (early) treatment evaluation with IUS could guide treatment decision in UC in order to optimize treatment response.
1. Bots et al, JCC, 2021