Tag Archives: Ulcerative colitis

How to Score the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) Properly

Posted on by
Reply

J Blackwell et al. Gastroenterol 2026; 170: 452-455: Open Access! A Normal UCEIS Is Zero: A Score Divided by a Common Language

“The index uses a Likert scale of vascular pattern, bleeding, erosions and ulcers, with a total score intended to reflect severity of disease. When the index was first published, the baseline score for each descriptor was 1, meaning that a normal vascular pattern, no bleeding, and no erosions or ulcers scored 3. However, when the index was subsequently validated, the values attributed to each descriptor were rebased to 0, to improve clinical utility…This means that a completely normal flexible sigmoidosopy scored 0 rather than 3, and the worst activity of UC ever seen by the investigators (compared with a visual analogue scale 0 to 100) was 8 rather than 11…

The UCEIS has since been shown to predict the need for escalation of medical treatment and has recently been incorporated into a validated prognostic clinical index to predict response to intravenous steroids among patients with acute severe UC.10,11 Accurate scoring is therefore essential, with direct implications for clinical decision making.”

My take: The UCEIS is more detailed than the Mayo score. However, I expect that before long artificial intelligence will be able to review images and give a more consistent interpretation of the severity of endoscopic findings than either of these scoring systems.

Related blog posts:

Oral Integrin Inhibitor for Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

BE Sands et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2026; 23: 525-534. Open Access! A Phase 2 Study of MORF-057, an Oral α4β7 Integrin Inhibitor in Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis

Background: MORF-057 is an orally administered small-molecule drug that inhibits α4β7 integrin-mediated recruitment of α4β7-expressing lymphocytes to the gut. It has a similar target as vedolizumab, a monoclonal anti-integrin antibody used to treat ulcerative colitis (approved in 2014), but it requires parenteral administration.

Methods: This open-label, phase 2a, single-arm, multicenter trial (EMERALD-1) comprised a 6-week screening period, a 52-week active treatment period (including a 12-week induction period and 40-week maintenance period), and a 4-week safety follow-up period. Of the 35 participants enrolled in the main cohort, 18 participants received 100 mg of oral MORF-057 twice daily for the entire treatment period.

The primary efficacy endpoint was a change in the Robarts Histopathology
Index (RHI) score from baseline to week 12. “RHI was chosen as the primary efficacy assessment because it is an objective measure that can be assessed in a blinded fashion, which was critical given the open label study design. RHI also allows for a deeper, more quantitative probe than endoscopy.”

Key findings:

  • MORF-057 was well tolerated, and no treatment-emergent serious adverse events were
    observed
  • At week 12, participants (n= 35) exhibited a mean change from baseline in RHI
    score of ‒6.4 (standard deviation, 11.2). Additionally, 22.9% of participants (8/35) achieved
    RHI remission (RHI score ≤3)
  • In participants with evaluable data (n=18), the effects of MORF-057 on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical efficacy were achieved at week 12 and remained consistent to week 52
Symptomatic remission based on whether patient was advanced therapy (AT)-naive or AT-experienced

My take: This small open label study shows that an oral medication targeting α4β7 integrin has potential as an effective therapy for ulcerative colitis. If effective, then it would be important to understand how it compares to vedolizumab.

Related blog post: In Trials: An Oral IL-23 Antagonist Peptide

Chronic Nonbacterial Osteomyelitis Associated with Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Posted on by

M Matar et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2026;82:487–494. Chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis associated with pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: : A multicenter retrospective study from the Paediatric inflammatory bowel disease Porto Group of ESPGHAN

Methods: Retrospective study with 45 pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease (n=32 with Crohn’s disease, n=8 with ulcerative colitis, n=5 with IBD-U)

Key findings:

  • CNO presented in 15 patients (33%) within 3 months of IBD diagnosis, and in additional 20 (44%) patients after IBD diagnosis; in 10 (22%) patients CNO preceded the diagnosis of IBD with a median time 46 (25–248) weeks
  • 11 (24%) subjects displayed at least one additional extra-intestinal manifestations, including arthritis (6, 13%), erythema nodosum (4, 9%), sacro-ileitis (2, 4%), psoriasis (1, 2%), and pyoderma gangrenosum (1, 2%).
  • Complications occurred in six patients and included vertebral collapse, bone fracture, and bone deformity. In eight (18%) subjects vertebral collapse was present already at the time of diagnosis.
  • “While in most patients, diagnosis of CNO was associated with either clinical or laboratory indices of active IBD, especially CD, in some cases, the intestinal disease was quiescent.”
  • “All patients achieved remission of CNO at some point during follow-up, which may support the hypothesis that anti-TNF treatment is unlikely to promote CNO development and does not reinforce the theory of a paradoxical effect that has been suggested by Cordesse et al.22“

My take: This is a useful review highlighting the association of CNO with both active disease and quiescent IBD. The authors argue that their data does not support the development of CNO as a paradoxical effect. I disagree with this premise. Many of the extraintestinal manifestations, that anti-TNF agents can treat, rarely can be caused by them. Besides CNO, paradoxical reactions to anti-TNF agents have included the development of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa and autoimmune liver disease.

Related blog posts:

How to Improve the Value of Biologic Infusions: Reduce Lab Testing and Frequency

Posted on by

T Shah et al. JPGN Reports 2026;1–5. Responsible laboratory surveillance of pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease on biologic infusion therapy

This retrospective single-center study with 34 pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease examined the laboratory costs (2020-2021) associated with monitoring biologic therapy.

Methods: “Routine laboratory studies were defined as those part of the standardized infusion protocol at SBCH and were obtained with each scheduled infusion. The following laboratory studies were considered routine/standard: complete blood count with differential, basic metabolic panel, liver function tests, amylase, lipase, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, vitamin D, iron, ferritin, vitamin B12, folate, urine hCG (if a subject was female). Other laboratory studies that were collected, but not considered routine studies included QuantiFERON-TB, and biologic drug and antibody level.”

Key findings:

  • The average hospital charge for studies obtained per infusion was $1308.36 with an average annual cost of $9543.44 per patient
  • Fifteen (6%) instances of change in clinical management were found. “Only a limited subset of the 15 laboratory studies included were utilized in making changes: biologic drug, Vitamin D, and iron level”
  • During the study, 248 infusions were administered with a “total annual charge amongst all patients in the study was $324,447”

Discussion:

  • “Our study population had well controlled disease as evident by low PCDAI and PUCAI scores…Our observations suggest the utility of routine laboratory surveillance at each biologic infusion is minimal, favoring decreased testing for IBD patients, especially those in clinical remission.”
  • “We propose obtaining laboratory tests twice a year, or with every third infusion, for patients with mild disease or in remission based on their disease activity index scores. In our small cohort of patients, this change in practice would reduce the total annual costs by 66% ($214,154.82)”

My take: It has been my practice, for most patients with IBD, to obtain labs with every other infusion (~3 times per year). Typically, I will obtain a CBC/d, CMP and CRP and obtain other labs like Vit D, GGT, Quantiferon Gold and drug level monitoring less frequently. I rarely check Vit B12, ESR, Folate, Amylase, and Lipase.

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure. This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.

Afimkibart for Ulcerative Colitis (TUSCANY-2)

Posted on by

S Danese et al. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2025; 10: 882 – 895. Anti-TL1A antibody, afimkibart, in moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (TUSCANY-2): a multicentre, double-blind, treat-through, multi-dose, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial

Briefly noted:

Methods: “The multicentre, double-blind, treat-through, multi-dose, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b, TUSCANY-2 trial” enrolled 228 people who completed induction. All patients had moderate to severe ulcerative colitis who were treated with either subcutaneous afimkibart (a TNF-like ligand 1A (TL1A)) or placebo. There was a 12-week induction phase followed by a 40-week maintenance phase.

Key findings:

  • At week 14, the primary endpoint of clinical remission by total Mayo score was reported in 12 (26%) of 47 patients in the afimkibart 50 mg group, 14 (23%) of 60 patients in the afimkibart 150 mg group, and 21 (24%) of 88 patients in the in the afimkibart 450 mg group versus five (12%) of 43 patients in the placebo group
  • Incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events during induction were similar with placebo and afimkibart
  • The percentages of remission were higher for every afimkibart dose but this did not reach statistical significance compared to placebo

My take: Further testing is needed to determine whether afimkibart will have a significant place for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.

Iguazu Falls

VedoKids Study: Vedolizumab for Extraintestinal Manifestations of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Posted on by

G D’Arcangelo et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2026;82:495–502. Open Access! Vedolizumab for extraintestinal manifestations in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: Results from the VedoKids study

Background: “Since vedolizumab is a gut-selective anti-α4β7 integrin, its effect on EIMs has been a matter of debate, with relevant data lacking in pediatric IBD. A systematic review, which included three interventional studies, five non-interventional studies, and three case series, concluded that there is insufficient evidence supporting the efficacy of vedolizumab for treating pre-existing EIMs in adults.3“

Methods: This was a subgroup analysis of the pediatric VedoKids cohort, a multicenter, prospective “real-life” study of children (aged 0–18 years) with IBD treated with vedolizumab and followed through 54 weeks.

Key findings:

  • EIMs were identified in 18/142 (12.6%) children at baseline
  • Children with EIMs had an average age of diagnosis of 9 yrs compared to 12 yrs in those without EIMs
  • Children with EIMs had higher rate of pancolitis in UC and ileocolonic distribution in CD
  • Prior anti-TNF medication was noted in 16 (89%) of EIM cohort compared to 74 (60%) of non-EIM cohort
  • Concomitant medications were administered in 72% of EIM cases and to a similar number of non-EIM patients. For EIM patients, ASA were given in 7, steroids in 10, thiopurines in 4 and methotrexate in 2
  • Children with EIMs had more active disease (see below)
  • EIM resolution rate of 89%, mainly occurring within the early weeks of vedolizumab treatment

My take: While this study has several limitations, including the high rate of concomitant medications, it shows that most patients receiving vedolizumab had resolution of their EIMs. In addition, it shows that patients with EIMs had a more severe IBD phenotype.

Related blog posts:

Methotrexate Tolerance and Toxicity in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Posted on by

E Vermeer et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2026;82:477–486. Open Access! Methotrexate toxicity and intolerance in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease: A retrospective cohort study

This was a  a retrospective single-center cohort study, including pediatric IBD patients (n=207) initiating MTX between 2010 and 2023. The median follow-up time was 303 days.

Key findings:

  • Methotrexate was used in combination with a biologic medication in 114 patients (55%)
  • 157 patients (75.8%) experienced at least one MTX-induced AE, with hepatotoxicity occurring in 84 patients (53.5%), myelotoxicity in 43 patients (27.4%), and nausea in 95 patients (60.5%). Most hepato- and myelotoxicity cases were categorized as grade 1 or mild (60.7% and 81.4%, respectively). 10 patients had grade 3 hepatotoxicity (ALT 195-780 U/L)
  • Nausea was reported in 46%. Fatigue was identified in 13, Headache in 6, and Alopecia in 6
  • MTX was discontinued in 60 out of 157 cases with an AE (38%), including 27 following nausea, 27 and 4 following hepatotoxicity
  • Sixty-five (43.0%) of all biochemical toxicities occurred within the first 3 months of MTX initiation
  • Strategies to manage AEs included reduced dosage, use of antiemetics or PPIs, and change in route of administration

Discussion:

  • The authors recommend biochemical testing after initiation “at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks, as most actionable toxicities occurred during this period. After 3 months, laboratory assessments could potentially be spaced out to every 4–6 months instead of every 3 months for stable patients, aligning with the new Dutch guideline for monitoring MTX toxicity in rheumatology.41 More frequent testing should be reserved for patients with risk factors such as renal dysfunction, hepatotoxic co-medications, or prior toxicity.42“
  • A study limitation was “the frequent use of combination therapy, leading to a heterogeneous study population and possible overestimation of AE rates”

My take: Methotrexate remains an important part of treatment, especially combination treatment to prevent or overcome immunogenicity. Careful monitoring and prophylactic treatments of nausea may improve durability.

Related blog posts:

Japanese Garden, Buenos Aires

Case Report: Car-T for Refractory Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

 F Muller et al. NEJM 2025;393:1239-1241. CD19 CAR T-Cell Therapy in Multidrug-Resistant Ulcerative Colitis

This case study involved the use of “autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells targeting CD19 in a 21-year-old woman with severe multidrug-resistant ulcerative colitis, who had declined colectomy. Previous treatments with prednisolone, mesalamine, infliximab, ustekinumab, ozanimod, filgotinib, vedolizumab, upadacitinib, and cyclosporine combined with mirikizumab had not induced clinical remission.”

“Clinical and biochemical remission occurred and were maintained over the 14-week follow-up period… without the use of concomitant therapy. Endoscopic, histologic, and ultrasonographic assessments showed signs of mucosal healing over time….These data suggest the possibility that CD19 CAR T-cell therapy can induce rapid drug-free remission in refractory ulcerative colitis, a disease that was previously thought to be largely B-cell–independent, given that rituximab treatment showed no efficacy..”

My take: This is only a single case report. However, it shows that modulation of the immune system could potentially cure ulcerative colitis. At the same time, long term adverse effects of CAR-T therapy will need to be monitored.

Related blog posts:


PREdiCCt Trial: Lower Calprotectin Targets in Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis

Posted on by

Constantine-Cooke N, Gros B, Plevris N, et al Gut 2026. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2025-337846. (Open Access!) Associations between demographic, clinical and dietary factors and flares in inflammatory bowel disease: the PRognostic effect of Environmental factors in Crohn’s and Colitis (PREdiCCt) prospective cohort study

Methods: Multicentre, prospective cohort study conducted across 47 UK centres. Patients with Crohn’s disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC) or IBD unclassified (IBDU) in self-reported remission were prospectively followed up. 2629 participants (1370 CD; 1259 UC/IBDU) – followed up for a median of 4.1 years.

Key findings:

  • Baseline FC was strongly associated with patient-reported flares (FC ≥250 µg/g: adjusted HR (aHR) 2.22; FC 50–250 µg/g: aHR 1.52 (reference <50 µg/g)).
  • Baseline FC was also strongly associated with objective flares (FC ≥250 µg/g: aHR 3.25; FC 50–250 µg/g: aHR 1.98). Objective flares were “clinical flare plus C-reactive protein >5 mg/L and/or faecal calprotectin (FC) >250 µg/g with treatment escalation.” In ulcerative colitis, the probability of an objective flare within two years rose from 11% in those with baseline calprotectin below 50 µg/g to 34% in those above 250.
  • At 24 months, cumulative patient-reported and objective flare rates were 28% and 12% in CD, and 33% and 15% in UC/IBDU, respectively. Overall, patient-reported flares were more common (31%), while objective flares were less frequent (14%).
  • In UC, higher total meat intake was associated with increased risk of objective flares (highest versus lowest quartile: aHR 1.95, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.56). The absolute two-year risk rose from 12% in the lowest quartile of meat intake to 26% in the highest.
  • No consistent associations were observed for ultraprocessed foods, fiber or polyunsaturated fatty acids and flare.
Flares by faecal calprotectin (FC) stratified into FC < 50, 50 ≤ FC ≤ 250, and FC >250 μg/g. (A) Patient-reported flare in Crohn’s disease; (B) objective flare in Crohn’s disease; (C) patient-reported flare in ulcerative colitis/inflammatory bowel disease unclassified; (D) objective flare in ulcerative colitis/inflammatory bowel disease unclassified. aHR, adjusted hazard ratio.

My take: Lower calprotectin values, even in remission, are associated with better outcomes. Risk was meaningfully increased even in the 50–250 µg/g range, compared with levels below 50. Higher meat intake may increase the risk of flares for UC.

Summary of study information from Charlie Lees: The PREdiCCt Study: Can We Predict IBD Flares?

Related blog posts:

Etrasimod for Ulcerative Colitis (2026)

Posted on by

AJ Yarur et al. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2026; 24: 210 – 220. Open Access! Efficacy of Etrasimod in Ulcerative Colitis: Analysis of ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 by Baseline Endoscopic Severity.

Methods: Efficacy end points were evaluated at Weeks 12 (pooled population) and 52 (ELEVATE UC 52)

Key findings:

  • Clinical remission in the moderate group compared to placebo: Week 12: 38.3% vs 17.9%; Week 52: 36.5% vs 14.3%
  • Clinical remission in the severe group compared to placebo: Week 12: 18.2% vs 6.1%; Week 52: 29.4% vs 3.4%
  • “Our findings were consistent with those for other UC treatments…with efficacy improvements generally being greater among patients who were naive rather than experienced with biologics and/or JAKi.12–17“

My take: Etrasimod demonstrated significant induction and maintenance efficacy over placebo in both moderate and severe endoscopic disease. Its role remains limited as there are other treatments with improved likelihood of response, especially in those with prior advanced therapies. However, it is notable that recent AGA guidelines promote etrasimod as one of the higher efficacy agents in patients naive to advanced therapies.

Related blog posts: