P997 New Objective Assessment of perianal Crohn’s disease, Perianal Lesion Index; PLI

Abstract

Abstract Background In the previous survey, decisions of biological treatment (Bio) success for perianal Crohn’s disease (pCD) were made by the patient’s subjective improvement and physician’s assessment, so it lacks objectivity. Moreover, physicians, surgeons, and proctologists are related to treating pCD. This aspect is the difficulty of the treatment of pCD. We need a common assessment for each area’s doctor. We aimed to develop a new objective assessment of pCD, including endoscopic findings, and assess the efficacy of the newly launched Bio except anti-TNFα agents for pCD. Methods Usually, perianal abscesses and fistula are derived from ulcers in the lower rectum and anal canal, so we adapted SES-CD to the location and checked discharge and needs of setons, and finally scored it (Table 1). We named this assessment Perianal Lesion Index; PLI. We retrospectively evaluated 20 pCD patients who received Ustekinumab (UST) and Vedolizumab (VDZ) from March 2017 to March 2023 at our institute. We checked each patient’s PLI, CRP, LRG, and CDAI and compared them before starting Bio and eight weeks after initiation of Bio using a paired T-test. Finally, we used the Pearson correlation coefficient to examine the correlation between PLI and conventional serum biomarkers and CDAI. Results The male-to-female ratio was 4.0, the average age at the treatment initiation was 35. Eighteen patient’s diseases were located in the small and large intestines, 10 patients were penetrating type, and 2 patients were stenotic type. We used UST for 16 patients and VDZ for 4 patients. Seven patients were naïve for Bio, 8 patients were treated by one Bio, and 5 patients were treated by two Bio.PLI was positively correlated with CRP (r=0.59, p<0.001) but not correlated with LRG (r=0.77, p=0.077) and CDAI (r=0.35, p=0.07). The pretreatment average PLI was 8.5 and significantly decreased to 3.9 (p<0.001) 8 weeks after Bio initiation. There was a significant change in CRP (3.1 to 0.9, p =0.03) but not CDAI (193 to 147, p=0.2). There were significant PLI changes in each treatment group; the UST group’s PLI change was 8.3 to 3.1 (p<0.001), and the VDZ group's PLI was 9.5 to 8.0 (p=0.02) (Figure 1). Conclusion PLI seems to be an objective assessment for pCD, and it was positively correlated to CRP. We could assess each drug’s efficacy for pCD. Further investigation is needed to establish PLI’s accuracy, and we hope this assessment will contribute to the choices of Bio for pCD and the evaluation of its efficacy