STOCKHOLM — , a new study showed.
Capsule endoscopy reveals small-intestinal inflammation in over 70% of patients with CD who are in clinical remission, said Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, from Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. The question remains however, which patients would benefit from treatment intensification.
The randomized controlled CURE-CD trial showed that patients who have high inflammatory activity — a Lewis score ≥ 350 as seen in video capsule endoscopy findings — experienced statistically significantly fewer relapses during the 2-year follow-up vs patients with the same amount of inflammation who continued their standard treatment, he said.
Dr. Ben-Horin presented the results at the annual congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation on behalf of the Israeli IBD Research Nucleus.
He and his colleagues aimed to examine the value of video capsule endoscopy to guide proactive treat-to-target strategy in patients with CD who are in clinical remission, adding onto their previous work published in 2019 that established the benefit of video capsule endoscopy over calprotectin in predicting relapse.
The prospective randomized controlled trial recruited 60 patients with CD involving the small bowel who were in clinical remission (Crohn’s Disease Activity Index [CDAI] < 150). Patients underwent clinical, biomarker, and imaging checks as well as video capsule endoscopies at baseline and every 6 months thereafter for up to 24 months.
A total of 40 patients with a Lewis score ≥ 350 and who were considered high-risk were randomized to either proactive treatment optimization (targeting video capsule endoscopy mucosal healing, n = 20) or to continued standard care (n = 20) for 24 months. Patients with a Lewis score < 350 who were considered to be low-risk continued standard care (n = 20) which may or may not have been biologic.
The primary outcome was the rate of clinical relapse (disease exacerbation comprised of a CDAI increase > 70 points or hospitalization/surgery) by 24 months in high-risk patients who received standard care vs proactive care.
Secondary outcomes included risk for flare in the low-risk group (all on standard care) vs the high-risk group also on standard care, predictive profiles for flare of calprotectin, MRI, intestinal ultrasound, and Lewis score over the 24 months.
A Nearly Threefold Difference
Treatment intensification in the high-risk proactive strategy group was split between therapeutic drug monitoring–based biologic dose-escalation (n = 11 in 20), starting a biologic (8 in 20), or swapping a biologic (1 in 20).
By 24 months, clinical flare occurred in 5 in 20 (25%) of the high-risk proactive group vs 14 (70%) of the high-risk standard-care group (odds ratio [OR], 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04-0.57; P = .006), Dr. Ben-Horin reported.
The data also showed that low-risk patients had a lower incidence of clinical flare at approximately 45% compared with 70% in high-risk patients also on standard care (P = .11 by intention-to-treat analysis; P = .06 by per-protocol analysis).
In an interview, Dr. Ben-Horin said that despite the results, there remained a “big dilemma” about who should be treated if they show mucosal inflammation on video capsule endoscopy.
“Crohn’s disease is a progressive disease, and we don’t want flares down the road in a patient that currently feels okay but has underlying inflammation,” he said. “On the other hand, it’s important to consider that our therapies are sometimes associated with adverse events, they can be very costly, and become a huge burden to our healthcare systems and to some of the patients.”
It is important to ask whether we should or treat patients in remission more aggressively “because not everyone will progress and some of them may never flare,” he explained.
The findings offer three layers of added evidence to the field, Dr. Ben-Horin said. First, it offers further support to the treat-to-target approach if tailored to a high-risk group. Second, the study suggests that treat-to-target studies should be looking only at the high-risk patients and not the entire study population. “This is the first study of its kind to take this approach,” he pointed out.
“Thirdly, our results build on our preceding trial to show that using video capsule endoscopy enables us to stratify the risk of patients’ with small-bowel Crohn’s disease and tailor their treatment accordingly, probably more accurately than calprotectin or C-reactive protein.”
Asked to comment on the results, Maria Abreu, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist who specializes in inflammatory bowel disease at the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, said that though it was a small study, it highlights that patients need to be closely monitored with objective, quantifiable tests for the best outcomes.
She continued: “Capsule endoscopy is certainly the most sensitive test we have and lends itself in short order to artificial intelligence interpretation and quantification to make it even more robust.”
“We now need to nuance who needs a capsule vs intestinal ultrasound vs a colonoscopy, and that is likely to depend on disease location and manifestations of the disease,” ie, mucosa-only or transmural-predominant disease, she noted.
Dr. Ben-Horin has declared that the trial was funded by the Helmsley Charitable Trust. The VCE was partly provided by Medtronic. He disclosed advisory board fees and/or consulting and/or research support from Janssen, AbbVie, CellTrion, Takeda, Schering Plough, Pfizer, Ferring, Falk Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Roche, Galmed, EviNature, Galmed, PredictaMed, NeoPharm.
Dr. Abreu has served as a consultant and scientific advisory board member for AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Janssen Biotech, and Prometheus Biosciences, University of California, Berkeley; a speaker for Alimentiv; and has had projects funded by Pfizer, Prometheus Laboratories, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.