DOP29 Capsule endoscopy-guided proactive treatment versus standard treatment of patients with quiescent Crohn’s Disease: The CURE-CD randomized controlled trial
S Ben-Horin,A Lahat,B Ungar,O Ukashi,D Yablecovitch,M M Amitai,Y Haberman,L Selinger,A Talan-Asher,O Kriger-Sharabi,T Naftali,Y Ron,H Yanai,I Dotan,U Kopylov,R Eliakim
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.0069
2024-01-01
Journal of Crohn's and Colitis
Abstract:Abstract Background Optimal strategies for treat-to-target in Crohn’s disease (CD) are still being sought. We aimed to examine the value of capsule endoscopy (CE) to guide proactive treatment optimization in patients with CD Methods A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial with temporally-restricted blinding. Patients with CD involving the small bowel who were in clinical remission (CDAI<150) for over three months were enrolled. Baseline clinical, biomarker, imaging, patency capsule and CE assessments were performed. ‘High risk’ patients, defined as CE Lewis score ≥350 were randomized to either proactive treatment optimization or continued standard care for 24 months. ‘Low risk’ patients with Lewis score<350 continued their standard care. All patients repeated CE every six months for 24 months. Primary outcome was the rate of clinical exacerbation (CDAI increase>70 points and CDAI>150 or hospitalization/surgery) in the standard-care versus the proactive-care sub-groups of high-risk patients, at 24 months. Secondary outcomes included risk of flare in the low-risk versus the standard-care high-risk arms, and predictive profiles for flare of calprotectin, MRI, intestinal ultrasound and Lewis score. Results Out of 118 screened patients, 60 were enrolled (20 in each of the three arms). Treatment intensification in CE-determined high-risk group, who were allocated to proactive treatment, comprised biologic dose-escalation (n=11/20), starting a biologic (8/20) or swapping a biologic (1/20) at study entry. Notably, 9/20 proactive-group patients underwent a second optimization following detected inflammation on subsequent semi-annual CE studies. Clinical exacerbation by 24 months (primary outcome) occurred in 5/20 (25%) of the high-risk proactive-treatment group versus 14/20 (70%) of the high-risk standard-care group (OR=0.14, 95%CI 0.04-0.57, p=0.006). For secondary outcomes, the rate of clinical flare in the standard-care low-risk group was numerically but not significantly lower than in standard-care high-risk group (9/20 versus 14/20, respectively, OR 0.3, 0.1-1.3, P=0.11). Among all patients continuing standard care, baseline CE Lewis score was higher among relapsers versus non-relapsers (median 450, IQR [225-900] versus 225, [135-600], respectively, p=0.03). Of 251 CE ingested, there was a single (0.4%) temporarily-retained CE, which resolved spontaneously. Conclusion In a randomized strategy-finding controlled trial, proactive treatment optimization based on CE findings in patients with CD in remission, proved safe and superior for prevention of disease exacerbation compared with continued standard care. NCT03555058
gastroenterology & hepatology