. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Feb 1.

Published in final edited form as: Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Nov 22;51(4):435–445. doi: 10.1111/apt.15577

Table 2:

Differences in prevalence of Mayo endoscopic sub-scores during maintenance across patient reported outcome permutations when using local versus central endoscopy scores in tofacitinib trials

Patient-reported outcome	Endoscopic activity	Local Reads		Central Reads
Patient-reported outcome	Endoscopic activity	n/N	Prevalence	n/N	Prevalence
RBS0 + SFS0/1	MES 0/1 (p<0.001)	214/250	85.6 (80.7–89.4)	179/250	71.3 (65.4–76.6)
	MES 0 (p<0.001)	111/250	44.4 (38.4–50.6)	68/250	27.1 (22.0–32.9)
	MES 1 (p=0.49)	61/151	40.4 (32.9–48.4)	66/151	43.7 (36.0–51.7)
RBS0 + SFS0	MES 0/1 (p=0.001)	135/151	89.4 (83.4–93.4)	112/151	74.2 (66.6–80.5)
	MES 0 (p=0.001)	74/151	49.0 (41.1–56.9)	46/151	30.5 (23.7–38.3)
	MES 1 (p=0.56)	103/250	41.2 (35.3–47.4)	111/250	44.2 (38.2–50.4)
RBS0 + SFS2/3	MES 0/1 (p=0.57)	10/30	33.3 (19.0–51.5)	8/30	26.7 (13.9–45.0)
	MES 0 (p=0.36)	0/30	1.6 (0.1–21.1)	2/30	6.7 (1.7–23.1)
	MES 1 (p=0.25)	10/30	33.3 (19.0–51.6)	6/30	20.0 (9.3–37.9)
RBS 2/3 + SFS2/3	MES 0/1 (p=1.00)	0/31	1.6 (0.1–20.6)	0/31	1.6 (0.1–20.6)
	MES 0 (p=1.00)	0/31	1.6 (0.1–20.6)	0/31	1.6 (0.1–20.6)
	MES 1 (p=1.00)	0/31	1.6 (0.1–20.6)	0/31	1.6 (0.1–20.6)

RBS: rectal bleeding score; SFS: stool frequency score; MES: Mayo endoscopic score