CDEIS score of 2 is optimal cut-off associated with lower risk of disease progression in early Crohn's disease: Data from the CALM study

Abstract Background The optimal endoscopic target in early Crohn’s disease (CD) that limits long-term disease complications is unknown. Methods We analysed medical records from patients who had follow-up data since the end of CALM. Patients with Crohn’s disease endoscopic index of severity (CDEIS) scores at the end of CALM were included. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse outcomes reflecting CD progression: new internal fistula/abscess, stricture, perianal fistula/abscess, CD hospitalisation, or CD surgery since the end of CALM. We compared median CDEIS and per cent improvement from baseline CDEIS. Youden index analysis was used to identify optimal CDEIS cut-off score associated with CD progression. Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression methods were used to compare rates of progression by different CDEIS targets. Multivariable models were adjusted for age, prior surgery, and stricturing behaviour. Results 110 patients with median age 28 (IQR 22–38) years, disease duration 0.2 (0.1–0.5) years, and median follow up of 3.1 (1.9–4.4) years were included. Eleven per cent had a history of stricture, 5.5% history of surgery, and 52% were originally in the tight control arm of the CALM study. Median CDEIS score at end of CALM was 3 (0–5.4) and 32 (29%) patients had disease progression. Baseline median CDEIS score was similar between those with and without progression [10.9 (7.5–15.5) vs. 11.9 (8–17.5)]. Median CDEIS score at the end of CALM was higher among those with progression [1.3 (0–5.1) vs. 4.9 (3–9.1), p < 0.001)]. Patients within higher quartiles of CDEIS score had higher rates of progression over time (Figure 1). Patients without disease progression had a greater median decrease in CDEIS score from baseline to end of CALM [90% (60–100%) vs. 50% (30–80%), p < 0.001]. The optimal CDEIS score cut-off was 2 with sensitivity 84%, specificity 60% and NPV 90% for progression. Patients with CDEIS ≤ 2 had less progression over time compared with patients with > 50% improvement from baseline CDEIS (not reaching CDEIS ≤ 2) and those not meeting either endpoint (Figure 2). On adjusted analysis, CDEIS score ≤ 2 was associated with a decreased risk of progression (aHR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09–0.56). Conclusion In early CD, a CDEIS score ≤ 2 is optimal cut-off associated with a lower risk of disease progression.