Disease Activity Indices for Pouchitis: A Systematic Review

Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2021 Jun 28;izab124. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izab124. Online ahead of print.

Rocio Sedano 1 2, Tran M Nguyen 2, Ahmed Almradi 1 2, Florian Rieder 3 4, Claire E Parker 2, Lisa M Shackelton 2, Geert D'Haens 2 5, William J Sandborn 2 6, Brian G Feagan 1 2 7, Christopher Ma 2 8, Vipul Jairath 1 2 7


Author information

  • 1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
  • 2Alimentiv Inc., London, Ontario, Canada.
  • 3Department of Inflammation and Immunity, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
  • 4Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Digestive Diseases and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
  • 5Department of Gastroenterology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  • 6Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
  • 7Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
  • 8Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cumming School of Medicine, Departments of Medicine & Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.


Background: Several indices exist to measure pouchitis disease activity; however, none are fully validated. As an initial step toward creating a validated instrument, we identified pouchitis disease activity indices, examined their operating properties, and assessed their value as outcome measures in clinical trials.

Methods: Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials including indices that evaluated clinical, endoscopic, or histologic pouchitis disease activity. A second search identified studies that assessed the operating properties of pouchitis indices.

Results: Eighteen randomized controlled trials utilizing 4 composite pouchitis disease activity indices were identified. The Pouchitis Disease Activity Index (PDAI) was most commonly used (12 of 18; 66.7%) to define both trial eligibility (8 of 12; 66.7%), and outcome measures (12 of 12; 100%). In a separate search, 21 studies evaluated the operating properties of 3 pouchitis indices; 90.5% (19 of 21) evaluated validity, of which 42.1% (8 of 19) evaluated the construct validity of the PDAI. Criterion validity (73.7%; 14 of 19) was evaluated through correlation of the PDAI with fecal calprotectin (FCP; r = 0.188 to 0.71), fecal lactoferrin (r = 0.570 to 0.582), and C-reactive protein (CRP; r = 0.584). Two studies assessed correlation of the modified PDAI (mPDAI) with FCP (r = 0.476 and r = 0.565, respectively). Fair to moderate inter-rater reliability of the PDAI (k = 0.440) and mPDAI (k = 0.389) was reported in a single study. Responsiveness of the PDAI pre-antibiotic and postantibiotic treatment was partially evaluated in a single study of 12 patients.

Conclusions: Development and validation of a specific pouchitis disease activity index is needed given that existing instruments are not valid, reliable, or responsive.


© Copyright 2013-2024 GI Health Foundation. All rights reserved.
This site is maintained as an educational resource for US healthcare providers only. Use of this website is governed by the GIHF terms of use and privacy statement.