Dashboard

Disease indication

Ulcerative Colitis

The endoscope was part of the score from the start. And unlike its sibling disease, this one has an operation that can actually cure it.

Therapeutic goal

Disease-modifying: Stop the inflammation eroding the colonic lining, judged on an endpoint that has never been purely symptomatic: the Mayo score has included direct visualisation of the mucosa as one of its four components since 1987. Seven distinct mechanisms have reached approval since 1998 — this site's most successful translational record.

Distinct mechanisms approved
7

Aminosalicylates, TNF, leukocyte-integrin trafficking, IL-12/23 (p40), IL-23 (p19), JAK, and S1P receptor modulation. Matches rheumatoid arthritis' count and exceeds Crohn's disease's five.

high confidence
Did not reach approval
3 of 12

Two outright failures, and one — faecal microbiota transplantation — with genuine randomised-trial benefit that has never translated into an approved, labelled product.

high confidence
Endoscopy in the registrational endpoint
Since 1987

The Mayo score's endoscopic subscore has been one of its four components since the instrument was first published — the objectivity Crohn's spent two decades bolting on was present here from the start.

high confidence
Typical pivotal design
~350–450 · induction + 52 wk maintenance

An induction trial, then a re-randomised maintenance trial in responders — a design ulcerative colitis programmes have run since well before Crohn's needed an endoscopic co-primary to catch up.

moderate confidence

What a trial has to prove

Compare the founding year of this page's primary endpoint against Crohn's. The Mayo score has included an endoscopic component since it was first published in 1987 — the objectivity Crohn's spent two decades trying to bolt on afterward was built into this disease's endpoint from day one.

Endpoints used in Ulcerative Colitis trials for the Disease-modifying goal, how each is measured, how long it takes to read, and whether it is accepted as evidence for the claim. Select one for detail.
EndpointTypeRead atStanding
Full Mayo Score (Mayo Clinic Score)Composite8–52 weeksAccepted
Endoscopic remission (Mayo endoscopic subscore)Imaging8–52 weeksAccepted
Histologic remissionLaboratory8–52 weeksExploratory
Fecal calprotectinLaboratory2–8 weeksSurrogate
Colectomy-free survivalClinician-rated1–5+ yearsExploratory
Accepted
Regulators accept this as evidence for the claim.
Surrogate
A stand-in for clinical benefit, accepted or under negotiation for accelerated approval — the benefit itself must still be confirmed.
Contested
Used in trials, but not accepted as establishing the claim on its own.
Exploratory
Informative for development — target engagement, enrichment — but never the basis of an approval.
None accepted
No endpoint has ever been accepted as establishing this claim in this disease.

Preclinical model validity

Compare this matrix with Crohn's disease. The models are largely the same tools, but rated differently here: a chemical-injury model that under-represents transmural, ileal Crohn's is a genuinely closer match to mucosal, colon-restricted ulcerative colitis. Anatomy, not just immunology, changes what a model is good for.

Validity of Ulcerative Colitis preclinical models across face, construct, and predictive validity. Predictive validity is shown for the Heal the mucosa goal.
ModelFaceDoes it look like the disease?ConstructDoes it arise the same way?PredictiveHeal the mucosa
ValidityNoneLowModerateHighNo evidencenever tested — not a low score

Translation ledger

Seven distinct mechanisms reached approval, matching rheumatoid arthritis and beating Crohn's disease's five. The most tractable indication on this site, and the endpoint story below is a large part of why.

Interventions that showed benefit in a Ulcerative Colitis preclinical model, and what happened when they reached the clinic.
InterventionRested onPrimary endpointReachedOutcome
Mirikizumab
Eli Lilly · Selective neutralisation of the interleukin-23 p19 subunit
IL-10 KO
Clinical remission on the full Mayo Score at week 12 (induction) and week 40 (maintenance)
Approved
LUCENT-1 / LUCENT-2 · 2023
Approved
Ozanimod
Bristol Myers Squibb · Sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulation, trapping lymphocytes in lymph nodes and reducing those available to traffic to the gut
T-cell transfer colitis
Clinical remission on the full Mayo Score at week 10 (induction) and week 52 (maintenance)
Approved
True North · 2021
Approved
Etrolizumab
Genentech · Blockade of the β7 integrin subunit, affecting both α4β7 and αEβ7
T-cell transfer colitis
Clinical remission on the full Mayo Score, co-primary with endoscopic improvement
Phase 3
HICKORY / GARDENIA / LAUREL · 2020
Failed
Ustekinumab
Janssen · Neutralisation of the shared p40 subunit of interleukin-12 and interleukin-23
IL-10 KO
Clinical remission on the full Mayo Score at week 8 (induction) and week 44 (maintenance)
Approved
UNIFI · 2019
Approved
Tofacitinib
Pfizer · Pan-JAK inhibition, blocking intracellular signalling downstream of several inflammatory cytokines
IL-10 KO
Full Mayo Score remission at week 8 (induction) and week 52 (maintenance)
Approved
OCTAVE Induction 1 / 2, OCTAVE Sustain · 2018
Approved
Faecal microbiota transplantation
Investigator-led · Transfer of a donor's gut microbial community to restore microbial diversity and immune tolerance
Muc2 KOIL-10 KO
Clinical and endoscopic remission on the full Mayo Score
Phase 2/3, multiple trials
2017
Benefit, no approval
Vedolizumab
Takeda · Blockade of α4β7 integrin, selectively disrupting leukocyte trafficking into the gut
T-cell transfer colitis
Clinical response on the full Mayo Score at week 6 (induction) and week 52 (maintenance)
Approved
GEMINI 1 · 2014
Approved
Golimumab
Janssen · Neutralisation of tumour necrosis factor
T-cell transfer colitis
Clinical response on the full Mayo Score at week 6
Approved
PURSUIT · 2013
Approved
Adalimumab
Abbott · Neutralisation of tumour necrosis factor
T-cell transfer colitis
Full Mayo Score remission at week 8 and week 52
Approved
ULTRA 1 / ULTRA 2 · 2012
Approved
Alicaforsen
Ionis / various · Antisense oligonucleotide against ICAM-1, delivered as a rectal enema to reduce leukocyte adhesion locally
DSS colitis
Clinical and endoscopic improvement in distal disease
Phase 3
2010
Failed
Infliximab
Centocor · Neutralisation of tumour necrosis factor
T-cell transfer colitis
Clinical response on the full Mayo Score at week 8
Approved
ACT 1 / ACT 2 · 2005
Approved
Mesalamine (5-ASA)
Multiple · Topical and luminal anti-inflammatory action within the colonic mucosa
DSS colitis
Full Mayo Score remission or response
Approved
1987
Approved
Endpoint · Composite

Full Mayo Score (Mayo Clinic Score)

A four-part composite of stool frequency, rectal bleeding, endoscopic appearance, and physician global assessment

AcceptedRead at 8–52 weeks
Scale
Continuous, 0 to 12 (each of four subscores rated 0-3). Remission is conventionally a total score of 2 or less, with no individual subscore above 1.
How it is administered
Two self-reported daily diary items over several days, combined with a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy read by the treating physician, and that physician's own global assessment of disease severity.
What it contains
  • Stool frequency relative to the patient's own normal, self-reported
  • Rectal bleeding, self-reported
  • Endoscopic findings on direct visualisation of the mucosa
  • Physician's global assessment of overall disease activity
How a score is produced
Each of the four components is scored 0 to 3 and simply summed. Unlike the Crohn's Disease Activity Index, an objective visual assessment of the mucosa has been one of the four components since the instrument was first described, not a later addition.
What counts as success
The registrational standard for ulcerative colitis since infliximab's approval in 2005, and largely unchanged since — because the endoscope was already part of the definition, this disease never needed the kind of endpoint overhaul Crohn's underwent in the 2020s.
Why it matters here

The instrument Crohn's disease spent two decades trying to become.

Schroeder et al., NEJM 1987high confidence

What the clinic costs

A common disease with an endpoint that was never purely symptomatic, so there is no equivalent of Crohn's steroid-era blind spot to correct for — the disease-modifying trial design has looked roughly the same since the 1980s.

An induction programme, then a re-randomised maintenance trial in responders, run to a year — a design this disease has used since before Crohn's needed an endoscopic co-primary to catch up. Costs slightly more per programme than Crohn's, and less per approval, because more of these programmes actually succeed.

the exposure
2.3×
the cost

693 patient-years against 233 for a symptomatic programme. Cost grows more slowly than exposure because the fixed enrolment cost of each participant — screening, baseline imaging — is paid once however long they are then followed. The goal, not the molecule, still sets the budget.

Citedenrolment, duration and study counts, from named trials.Assumptionthe two cost parameters below.Computedeverything else.

Clinical programme by phase: enrolment, duration, exposure in patient-years, and modelled cost.
PhaseDesignN × studiesDurationPatient-yearsModelled cost
Phase 1
SAD / MAD, healthy volunteers
Reads: Safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics
Biologic, JAK and S1P mechanisms all carry their own monitoring requirements, so first-in-human work is not abbreviated.
Conventional first-in-human designmoderate confidence
50
9 mo
38
$1.4M–$2.2M
Phase 2
Dose-ranging, full Mayo response
Reads: Clinical response and endoscopic improvement on the full Mayo Score
The endoscopic subscore is already part of the score being read at this phase — there is no separate 'early endoscopic signal' to bolt on, unlike the modern Crohn's Phase 2 design.
OCTAVE, True North and LUCENT Phase 2 programmesmoderate confidence
220
6 mo
110
$4.8M–$7.8M
Phase 3 · Induction
Two induction pivotals
Reads: Clinical remission on the full Mayo Score at 8-12 weeks
Sized after True North and LUCENT-1: two induction trials, both required to clear the bar before a patient enters maintenance.
Sandborn et al., NEJM 2021 (True North); D'Haens et al., NEJM 2023 (LUCENT)moderate confidence
450 × 2
3 mo
225
$15M–$24M
Phase 3 · Maintenance
Re-randomised maintenance trial in induction responders
Reads: Clinical remission on the full Mayo Score at 44-52 weeks
Only induction responders are re-randomised, so this trial enrols fewer patients than induction despite running four times as long.
LUCENT-2 and True North maintenance designsmoderate confidence
320
1 yr
320
$10M–$17M
Total2.5 yr of clinical development, treating phases as sequential693$32M–$51M
AssumptionThe two cost parameters
Fixed, per participant
$12,000–$18,000
Running, per year on study
$20,000–$35,000

Model assumptions, not citations — the only free parameters here. The fixed component covers screening, baseline imaging and randomisation, incurred once per participant; the running component covers visits, monitoring and site fees for each year on study. Splitting them matters: a single rate per patient-year would price short symptomatic trials far below what pivotal trials actually cost.

Calibration: priced this way a single pivotal trial in this programme comes to $5.0M–$8.0M, against published pivotal trial costs of $1233M (median $19M) across all indications. A single symptomatic induction trial here is small and short by design, the same steroid-era logic as Crohn's — so it lands below the published range entirely. The range is set by the larger, longer biologic, JAK and S1P programmes below. Moore et al., JAMA Internal Medicine 2018.

ComputedRisk-adjusted cost
$198M$319M

Programme cost divided by a 16% likelihood of approval from Phase 1 in immune-mediated inflammatory disease (gastroenterology) — what one success costs once the failures are paid for. BIO / Informa / QLS, Clinical Development Success Rates — inflammatory bowel disease sits below the broader immunology average.

Read this one carefully: The same area-level rate used on the Crohn's disease page, nudged up slightly here: this page's ledger reached approval more often (nine of twelve disease-modifying attempts, against Crohn's seven of eleven), consistent with an endpoint that has been objective since 1987 rather than fixed midstream. A generic gastroenterology-wide rate may still understate this specific disease's odds.

moderate confidence
For scale — industry-wide, per approved drug
$985M
Median R&D cost per approval
Wouters et al., JAMA 2020 (capitalised; estimates range $314M–$2.8B)
$2.6B
Capitalised cost per approval
DiMasi et al., J Health Econ 2016

These are portfolio figures spanning all of R&D and already carry the cost of failure, so they are not comparable with the per-programme clinical costs above — they are the order of magnitude those costs roll up into.

What is changing

The remaining questions are about reading the endoscope more reliably and about whether a therapy with real trial evidence but no sponsor willing to file for it can ever become an approved drug.

Reading the endoscope more reliably, not adding one

Unlike Crohn's, this disease never lacked an objective component in its primary endpoint — the problem was that the endoscopic subscore was read locally and without blinding for decades. Central, blinded reading and more granular instruments such as UCEIS are the modern fix, refining an existing objective measure rather than bolting one on.

UCEIS (Travis et al., Gut 2012); central-reading methodology in modern IBD trials

Choosing among seven mechanisms

With aminosalicylates, TNF, integrin, IL-12/23, IL-23-selective, JAK and S1P blockade all approved, the practical problem here increasingly resembles rheumatoid arthritis': matching mechanism to patient, not finding a mechanism that works at all.

Late-stage ulcerative colitis pipeline disclosures

A therapy with real evidence and no approved path

Faecal microbiota transplantation has repeatedly shown benefit in randomised trials, yet donor variability, regulatory classification, and the difficulty of patenting a biological community have kept it from becoming an approved product. Defined bacterial consortia and live biotherapeutic products are attempts to engineer the same effect into something a sponsor can actually file for.

Live biotherapeutic product pipeline disclosures in ulcerative colitis

Educational. Validity ratings are a coded reading of the published literature, not a consensus standard. Approval years refer to the first ulcerative colitis indication in the US. Every figure carries an explicit confidence flag. Not medical, regulatory, or investment advice.