Treatment endpoints in ulcerative colitis: Does one size fit all?

A treat-to-target strategy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) involves treatment intensification in order to achieve a pre-determined endpoint. Such uniform and tight disease control has been demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes compared to treatment driven by a clinician’s subjective assessment of symptoms. However, choice of treatment endpoints remains a challenge in management of IBD via a treat-to-target strategy. The treatment endpoints for ulcerative colitis (UC), recommended by the Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE) consensus have changed somewhat over time. The latest STRIDE-II consensus advises immediate (clinical response), intermediate (clinical remission and biochemical normalisation) and long-term treatment (endoscopic healing, absence of disability and normalisation of health-related quality of life, as well as normal growth in children) endpoints in UC. However, achieving deeper levels of remission, such as histologic normalisation or healing of the gut barrier function, may further improve outcomes among UC patients. Generally, all medical therapy should seek to improve short- and long-term mortality and morbidity. Hence treatment endpoints should be chosen based on their ability to predict for improvement in short- and long-term mortality and morbidity. Potential benefits of treatment intensification need to be weighed against the potential harms within an individual patient. In addition, changing therapy that has achieved partial response may lead to worse outcomes, with failure to recapture response on treatment reversion. Patients may also place different emphasis on certain potential benefits and harms of various treatments than clinicians, or may have strong opinions re certain therapies. Potential benefits and harms of therapies, incremental benefits of achieving deeper levels of remission, as well as uncertainties of the same, need to be discussed with individual patients, and a treatment endpoint agreed upon with the clinician. Future research should focus on quantifying the incremental benefits and risks of achieving deeper levels of remission, such that clinicians and patients can make an informed decision about appropriate treatment end-point on an individual basis.

Treating chronic hepatitis delta: The need for surrogate markers of treatment efficacy

Chronic hepatitis delta represents the most severe form of chronic viral hepatitis. The current treatment of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection consists of the use of interferons and is largely unsatisfactory. Several new compounds are currently in development for the treatment of HDV infection. However, surrogate markers that can be used to develop clinical endpoints in HDV infection are not well defined. In the current manuscript, we aimed to evaluate the existing data on treatment of HDV infection and to suggest treatment goals (possible "trial endpoints") that could be used across different clinical trials.

A qualitative study of ovarian cancer survivors' perceptions of endpoints and goals of care

OBJECTIVES

A survey of the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance revealed a communication gap between physicians and survivors. This qualitative study explored the space between perceptions in hopes of better defining treatment endpoints meaningful to treating physicians and their patients.

METHODS

A focus group of ovarian cancer survivors (n=22) was assembled via the survivor support network SHARE. A physician-guided session explored expectations of treatment, perceived outcomes, toxicity thresholds and decision making. The session was recorded, transcribed and coded. Common themes were identified and used to perform intra-case analysis by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

The main themes identified were barriers to communication, importance of frequent communication between patient and physician regarding goals, and expectations of treatment changing with position along the treatment continuum. One hundred percent of participants identified communication with their physician as an essential element in determining treatment course. However, only 14% reported having a discussion about goals, values and perceptions with their physician preceding treatment decisions. Participants reported that the terms progression free and overall survival held minimal significance for them and instead they preferred an individualized approach to care focusing on quality of life. Many women underreported side effects with reasons ranging from fear of dose reductions and additional tests to forgetting about symptoms due to anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

An objective measure of treatment success meaningful to survivors, physicians and regulators is, at present, elusive and may not exist. Ideally, future trial design would place equal weight on quantitative and qualitative measures and include information about goals of treatment.