We thank Saward and Heerasing for their interest in our article on the 1‐year effectiveness of upadacitinib in patients with highly refractory perianal Crohn's disease (pCD) [1, 2]. We agree with their comments on the limitations of clinical evaluation of pCD.
In our article, as most retrospective real‐world studies in pCD, we focused on clinically meaningful outcomes, namely the absence of fistula drainage and healing of ulcerations. Although these outcomes are highly relevant to routine clinical practice, they are not validated and may be subject to limited intra‐ and inter‐observer reliability. In contrast, scores such as Perianal Disease Activity Index (PDAI) were developed using rigorous methodological standards; however, their use and feasibility in routine practice remain insufficiently studied [3]. Interestingly, real‐world studies suggest that the PDAI continues to be infrequently used, more than 30 years after its original description [4]. Moreover, the characterisation of fistula drainage and of the degree of induration within the PDAI retains a degree of subjectivity, which may contribute to the limited reproducibility reported for this score [3]. More broadly, these limitations are likely inherent to the clinical evaluation of pCD rather than to any specific scoring system. To overcome these limitations, there has been increasing interest in incorporating radiological assessment into both clinical trials and routine practice [3, 5]. Magnetic resonance imaging offers the advantage of evaluating the entire fistula tract, whereas clinical examination is largely restricted to the assessment of external openings and has demonstrated prognostic value for long‐term outcomes [6]. Despite these advantages, only a minority of patients in our cohort underwent radiological assessment [1]. This likely reflects the reality that, in highly refractory patients, clinicians currently have limited therapeutic options capable of consistently achieving radiological healing.
In our view, the frequency of re‐induction observed in our cohort and the challenge of maintaining long‐term disease control represent the two faces of Janus. The limited ability of upadacitinib to induce deep radiological remission in most patients may contribute to subsequent loss of response and the need for dose escalation over time. The complex and multifactorial pathogenesis of pCD may partly explain these incomplete or unsustained responses [7], as JAK inhibitors are unlikely to target all pathogenic pathways involved. A better understanding of these mechanisms of treatment escape could pave the way for tailored combination strategies in pCD [8].
In conclusion, the limitations of our study mirror the current challenges in the clinical management of pCD, where objective and reproducible outcome measures still need to be better integrated into routine practice. The definition of therapeutic targets should be balanced against the efficacy realistically achievable with currently available treatments. In the absence of validated biomarkers or clinical features that allow a truly personalised therapeutic strategy, clinicians should individualise treatment goals according to disease severity and treatment history, including the number of previous advanced therapy failures and the TOpClass classification system [9].
Author Contributions
Nicolas Richard: writing – review and editing, writing – original draft. Mathurin Fumery: writing – review and editing.
Funding
The authors have nothing to report.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors' declarations of personal and financial interests are unchanged from those in the original article [1].
Linked Articles
This article is linked to Richard et al. papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.70815 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.70682.
Handling Editor: Sree Subramanian
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
- 1. Richard N., Seksik P., Altwegg R., et al., “One‐Year Effectiveness of Upadacitinib in Perianal Crohn's Disease: A Real‐World GETAID Study,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 64, no. 2 (2026): 235–242, 10.1111/apt.70682. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Saward G. and Heerasing N., “Letter: Upadacitinib in Perianal Crohn's Disease: Does Clinical Closure Reflect True Remission?,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 64, no. 6 (2026): 852–853, 10.1111/apt.70815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Vuyyuru S. K., Solitano V., Singh S., et al., “Scoring Indices for Perianal Fistulising Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review,” Journal of Crohn's & Colitis 18, no. 6 (2024): 836–850, 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Irvine E. J., “Usual Therapy Improves Perianal Crohn's Disease as Measured by a New Disease Activity Index. McMaster IBD Study Group,” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology 20, no. 1 (1995): 27–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Reinisch W., Atreya R., Rieder F., et al., “Clinical Trial Endpoints for Perianal Fistulizing Crohn's Disease,” Journal of the American College of Gastroenterology 121 (2022): 1576, 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003906. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Richard N., Derinck A., Bridoux V., Charpentier C., Savoye Collet C., and Savoye G., “Which Magnetic Resonance Imaging Feature Is Associated With Treatment Response in Perianal Fistulizing Crohn's Disease?,” Abdominal Radiology 49, no. 8 (2024): 2913–2920, 10.1007/s00261-024-04238-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Cao S., Colonna M., and Deepak P., “Pathogenesis of Perianal Fistulising Crohn's Disease: Current Knowledge, Gaps in Understanding, and Future Research Directions,” Journal of Crohn's & Colitis 17, no. 6 (2023): 1010–1022, 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Richard N. and Fumery M., “Editorial: Upadacitinib in Perianal Crohn's Disease. Authors' Reply,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 64, no. 4 (2026): 546–547, 10.1111/apt.70817. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Vuyyuru S. K., Hanzel J., Brar M. S., et al., “Recommendations to Standardize the Conduct of Clinical Trials Evaluating Novel Therapies for Perianal Fistulizing Crohn's Disease,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 24, no. 7 (2026): 1928–1937, 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
