Risk of Serious and Opportunistic Infections Associated With Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Risk, Course, and Effect of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Children and Adults with Chronic Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Susceptibility and disease course of COVID-19 among patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are unclear and epidemiological data on the topic are still limited. There is some concern that patients with immuno-mediated diseases such as IBD, which are frequently treated with immunosuppressive therapies, may have an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection with its related serious adverse outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. Corticosteroids, immunomodulators, and biologic drugs, which are commonly prescribed to these patients, have been associated with higher rates of severe viral and bacterial infections including influenza and pneumonia. It is not known whether these drugs can be so harmful as to justify their interruption during COVID-19 infection or if, on the contrary, patients with IBD can benefit from them. As shown by recent reports, it cannot be excluded that drugs that suppress the immune system can block the characteristic cytokine storm of severe forms of COVID-19 and consequently reduce mortality. Another cause for concern is the up-regulation of angiotensin converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) receptors that has been noticed in these patients, which could facilitate the entry and replication of SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this narrative review is to clarify the susceptibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with IBD, the clinical characteristics of patients who contract the infection, and the relationship between the severity of COVID-19 and immunosuppressive treatment.

[SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination for Adult Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Expert Consensus Statements by KASID]

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the novel coronavirus, is threatening global health worldwide with unprecedented contagiousness and severity. The best strategy to overcome COVID-19 is a vaccine. Various vaccines are currently being developed, and mass vaccination is in progress. Despite the very encouraging clinical trial results of these vaccines, there is insufficient information on the safety and efficacy of vaccines for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients facing various issues. After reviewing current evidence and international guidelines, the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases (KASID) developed an expert consensus statement on COVID-19 vaccination issues for Korean IBD patients. This expert consensus statement emphasizes that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination be strongly recommended for IBD patients, and it is safe for IBD patients receiving immunomodulatory therapy.

TNF-Alpha Blockers in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Practical Recommendations and a User's Guide: An Update

BACKGROUND

Anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) antagonists have been the mainstay in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) for over 20 years.

SUMMARY

This review article aimed to provide an update on recent advances in TNF antagonist therapy for IBDs. Key Messages: Their position in the treatment algorithm has evolved to "rapid step-up therapy" or "top-down therapy" according to disease severity and patients' characteristics. Limitations of anti-TNF antagonists include loss of response in up to 30-50% of patients with or without the development of antibodies. Therapeutic drug monitoring should provide a tailored, personalized approach to this scenario. Recently, biosimilar agents have been approved for IBDs and are considered equivalent in efficacy to the originator.

Pharmacotherapy of inflammatory bowel diseases: efficacy performance and safety management

Treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases IBD (Crohns disease, ulcerative colitis) is aimed at achieving clinical, endoscopic and histological remission, minimizing surgical complications, and ensuring a normal quality of life. However, the use of medical treatment is potentially associated with various adverse events, among which infectious complications, malignant neoplasms, as well as myelotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, skin lesions and others. The risk of side effects depends on the type of drug therapy (5-aminosalicylates, thiopurines, biologicals, etc.), the duration of treatment, the presence of extra-intestinal manifestations, etc. The article provides an overview of data on both the effectiveness and frequency of various side effects of the main classes of drugs in IBD, presents methods of investigation which can predict the effectiveness and development of side effects, the implementation of which can be considered as a variant of personalized therapy in IBD.

Incidence comparison of adverse events in patients with inflammatory bowel disease receiving different biologic agents: retrospective long-term evaluation

Background/Aims

Current literature is lacking in studies comparing the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) treated with adalimumab (ADA) or vedolizumab (VDZ) in a real-life scenario. Therefore, our primary aim was to compare the AEs occurring in patients taking ADA to those of patients taking VDZ.

Methods

In this single center study, data on AEs from IBD patients who underwent treatment with ADA and VDZ were retrospectively collected. AE rates per 100 person-years were calculated. A Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratios of the AEs between the 2 drugs.

Results

A total of 16 ADA patients (17.2%) and 11 VDZ patients (7.6%) had AEs causing drug interruption during the study period (P=0.02). Most of the AEs were noninfectious extraintestinal events (50% in ADA and 54.5% in VDZ) while infections accounted for 31.2% of the AEs in patients treated with ADA and 27.3% in those treated with VDZ. The incidence rate of AEs causing withdrawal of therapy was 13.2 per 100 person-years for ADA and 5.3 per 100 person-years for VDZ, corresponding to a 76% lower risk in patients in VDZ. Considering the first year of treatment, we observed 34 subjects treated with ADA (36.5%) having at least 1 AEs and 57 (39.3%) among those taking VDZ (P=0.67).

Conclusions

VDZ has a lower incidence rate of AEs causing withdrawal of treatment compared to ADA but a similar risk of AEs not causing drug interruption. Real-life head-to-head studies are still necessary to further explore the safety profile of these drugs.

Immunogenicity of cholera vaccination in children with inflammatory bowel disease

The cholera vaccine can protect patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) against both cholera and travelers' diarrhea. However, both immunosuppressive treatment and IBD can affect its vaccine immunogenicity. The aim of this study was to assess the immunogenicity and safety of the cholera vaccine in children with IBD. Children older than 6 years with diagnosed IBD were enrolled in this multicenter study. All patients were administered two doses of the oral cholera vaccine (Dukoral®). Anti-cholera toxin B subunit IgA and IgG seroconversion rates were evaluated in a group with immunosuppressive (IS) treatment and a group without IS treatment (NIS). Immunogenicity was assessed in 70 children, 79% of whom received IS treatment. Post-vaccination seroconversion was displayed by 33% of children, for IgA, and 70% of children, for IgG. No statistically significant differences were found in the immune responses between the IS and NIS groups: 35% vs. 27% (p = .90), for IgA, and 68% vs. 80.0% (p = .16), for IgG, respectively. One case of IBD exacerbation after vaccination was reported. The oral cholera vaccine is safe. The immunogenicity of the oral cholera vaccine in children with IBD was lower than previously observed in healthy ones. The treatment type does not seem to affect the vaccine immunogenicity.

Dose Augmentation of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors is Frequently Performed in Persons With Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the Absence of Objective Evidence of Active Inflammation

BACKGROUND

Antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) dose augmentation is frequently utilized in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), yet the extent to which clinicians assess for objective markers of inflammation before using the strategy is unknown.

AIMS

To determine the incidence of anti-TNF dose augmentation and the frequency with which it is preceded by the objective assessment of IBD activity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All 23 prescribers of anti-TNF for IBD in Manitoba facilitated chart review of their adult anti-TNF users from 2005 to 2016. Time from anti-TNF initiation to dose augmentation was recorded for all previously biologic-naïve patients. The practices of 11 of 23 prescribers were audited in greater detail and the biochemical, imaging, and endoscopic investigations conducted in the 90-day preceding dose augmentation extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 838 patients met inclusion criteria; 70.4% had Crohn's disease, whereas 29.6% had ulcerative colitis or IBD unclassified. The median duration of follow-up was 22.6 [interquartile range (IQR), 10.3-43.2] months for adalimumab and 28.4 (IQR, 10.2-59.9) months for infliximab (P=0.01). The cumulative incidence of dose augmentation at 12 months was 32.9%. Dose augmentation occurred more often in ulcerative colitis than in Crohn's disease (hazard ratio, 1.83; IQR, 1.36-2.47). Overall, 70.7% of patients underwent some form of testing to assess the inflammatory burden before dose augmentation. Objective evidence of inflammation supporting dose augmentation was documented in only 24.7% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

One third of previously biologic-naïve patients had anti-TNF doses increased within the first 12 months of treatment. Dose augmentation frequently occurred in the absence of objective evidence of inflammatory disease activity.

Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Infliximab-dyyb and Infliximab in Biologic-Naive Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the United States

Background

Real-world assessments of biosimilars are needed to understand their effectiveness and safety in practice settings that may differ from those seen in clinical trials or healthcare systems in different countries. To assess the effectiveness and safety of a biosimilar (infliximab-dyyb) and its reference product (infliximab) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in the United States.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of biologic-naive patients with IBD who started treatment with infliximab-dyyb or infliximab. The study included 3206 patients identified through electronic health records in a US integrated healthcare delivery system. The effectiveness outcome was a composite of IBD-related surgery, IBD-related emergency room visit, and IBD-related hospitalization within 12 months of initiation. Safety outcomes included incidence of any or serious infection, cancer, acute liver dysfunction, and tuberculosis. We used a non-inferiority test with an upper-limit margin of 10% to analyze effectiveness. Doubly robust methods incorporating Cox proportional hazard regression with standardized inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to analyze both effectiveness and safety outcomes.

Results

The composite effectiveness outcome occurred in 107 of 870 patients (12.3%) in the infliximab-dyyb and 379 of 2336 patients (16.2%) in the infliximab groups. Infliximab-dyyb was non-inferior (P < .01) and was not different (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.01; P = .06) to infliximab. Safety outcomes were not different between infliximab-dyyb and infliximab for any infections (HR 1.01; CI 0.86-1.17; P = .95), serious infections (HR 0.83; CI 0.54-1.26; P = .38), cancers (HR 0.83; CI 0.44-1.54; P = .55), and tuberculosis (HR 0.59; CI 0.10-3.55; P = .57).

Conclusions

Initiation of infliximab-dyyb was non-inferior to infliximab among biologic-naive patients with IBD in an US integrated healthcare delivery system.

Association Between Biologics Use and Risk of Serious Infection in Patients With Psoriasis

Importance

Biologics and targeted therapies, such as apremilast, are efficient treatments to manage moderate to severe psoriasis. More information about the risk of serious infection is needed for the newest treatment options in a real-world setting.

Objective

To assess the risk of serious infection among biologics and apremilast used to treat psoriasis, with etanercept as the comparator.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This nationwide cohort study from France involved data from the National Health Data System covering approximately 99% of the French population. All adults with psoriasis, defined as receiving at least 2 prescriptions of a topical vitamin D derivative within a 2-year period, registered in the database between January 1, 2008, and May 31, 2019, were eligible. The study population included those who were new users of biologic agents or apremilast (ie, without any prescriptions of a biologic or apremilast during the previous year). Patients with HIV infection or a history of cancer, transplant, or serious infection were excluded. End of follow-up was January 31, 2020.

Main Outcome Measures

The primary end point was a serious infection in a time-to-event analysis using propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models, estimating weighted hazard ratios (wHRs) and 95% CIs.

Results

A total of 44 239 new users of biologic treatment were identified (mean [SD] age, 48.4 [13.8] years; 22 866 [51.7%] men; median follow-up, 12 months [interquartile range, 7-24 months]). A total of 29 618 (66.9%) were prescribed a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor first, 6658 (15.0%) an interleukin (IL) 12/23 inhibitor, 4093 (9.3%) an IL-17 inhibitor, 526 (1.2%) an IL-23 inhibitor, and 3344 (7.6%) apremilast. The total number of serious infections was 1656, and the overall crude incidence rate was 25.0 (95% CI, 23.8-26.2) per 1000 person-years. The most frequent serious infections were gastrointestinal infections (645 patients [38.9%]). After adjusting for time-dependent covariables, risk of serious infections was higher for new users of adalimumab (wHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.07-1.38) or infliximab (wHR, 1.79; 95% CI 1.49-2.16) vs etanercept, whereas ustekinumab was associated with a lower risk of having a serious infection (wHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.94). Risk of serious infections was not increased for new users of IL-17 and the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab or apremilast vs etanercept. Risk of serious infections was increased with concomitant nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or systemic corticosteroids.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of individuals with moderate to severe psoriasis, risk of serious infections was increased in new users of infliximab and adalimumab vs etanercept, whereas ustekinumab users had lower risk of having a serious infection but not new users of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors or apremilast. Other observational studies are needed to confirm results for the most recent drugs.

Translating Treg Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Humanized Mice

Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, two major forms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in humans, afflicted in genetically predisposed individuals due to dysregulated immune response directed against constituents of gut flora. The defective immune responses mounted against the regulatory mechanisms amplify and maintain the IBD-induced mucosal inflammation. Therefore, restoring the balance between inflammatory and anti-inflammatory immunepathways in the gut may contribute to halting the IBD-associated tissue-damaging immune response. Phenotypic and functional characterization of various immune-suppressive T cells (regulatory T cells; Tregs) over the last decade has been used to optimize the procedures for in vitro expansion of these cells for developing therapeutic interventional strategies. In this paper, we review the mechanisms of action and functional importance of Tregs during the pathogenesis of IBD and modulating the disease induced inflammation as well as role of mouse models including humanized mice repopulated with the human immune system (HIS) to study the IBD. "Humanized" mouse models provide new tools to analyze human Treg ontogeny, immunobiology, and therapy and the role of Tregs in developing interventional strategies against IBD. Overall, humanized mouse models replicate the human conditions and prove a viable tool to study molecular functions of human Tregs to harness their therapeutic potential.

Viral infections in inflammatory bowel disease: Tips and tricks for correct management

Over the past decades, the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) has become more targeted, anticipating the use of immune-modifying therapies at an earlier stage. This top-down approach has been correlated with favorable short and long-term outcomes, but it has also brought with it concerns regarding potential infectious complications. This large IBD population treated with immune-modifying therapies, especially if combined, has an increased risk of severe infections, including opportunistic infections that are sustained by viral, bacterial, parasitic, and fungal agents. Viral infections have emerged as a focal safety concern in patients with IBD, representing a challenge for the clinician: they are often difficult to diagnose and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The first step is to improve effective preventive strategies, such as applying vaccination protocols, adopt adequate prophylaxis and educate patients about potential risk factors. Since viral infections in immunosuppressed patients may present atypical signs and symptoms, the challenges for the gastroenterologist are to suspect, recognize and diagnose such complications. Appropriate treatment of common viral infections allows us to minimize their impact on disease outcomes and patients’ lives. This practical review supports this standard of care to improve knowledge in this subject area.

Daily, oral FMT for long-term maintenance therapy in ulcerative colitis: results of a single-center, prospective, randomized pilot study

Background

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is a promising new strategy in the treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, but long-term delivery systems are lacking. This randomized study was designed as a safety and feasibility study of long-term FMT in subjects with mild to moderate UC using frozen, encapsulated oral FMT (cFMT).

Methods

Subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive FMT induction by colonoscopy, followed by 12 weeks of daily oral administration of frozen encapsulated cFMT or sham therpay. Subjects were followed for 36 weeks and longitudenal clinical assessments included multiple subjective and objective markers of disease severity. Ribosomal 16S bacterial sequencing was used to assess donor-induced changes in the gut microbiota. Changes in T regulatory (Treg) and mucosal associated invariant T (MAIT) cell populations were evaluated by flow cytometry as an exploratory endpoint.

Results

Twelve subjects with active UC were randomized: 6 subjects completed the full 12-week course of FMT plus cFMT, and 6 subjects received sham treatment by colonic installation and longitudinal oral placebo capules. Chronic administration of cFMT was found to be safe and well-tolerated but home storage concerns exist. Protocol adherence was high, and none of the study subjects experienced FMT-associated treatment emergent adverse events. Two subjects that received cFMT achieved clinical remission versus none in the placebo group (95% CI = 0.38-infinity, p = 0.45). cFMT was associated with sustained donor-induced shifts in fecal microbial composition. Changes in MAIT cell cytokine production were observed in cFMT recipients and correlated with treatment response.

Conclusion

These pilot data suggest that daily encapsulated cFMT may extend the durability of index FMT-induced changes in gut bacterial community structure and that an association between MAIT cell cytokine production and clinical response to FMT may exist in UC populations. Oral frozen encapsulated cFMT is a promising FMT delivery system and may be preferred for longterm treatment strategies in UC and other chronic diseases but further evaluations will have to address home storage concerns. Larger trials should be done to explore the benefits of cFMT and to determine its long-term impacts on the colonic microbiome. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02390726). Registered 17 March 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02390726?term=NCT02390726&draw=2&rank=1.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-021-01856-9.

Long-term outcomes of antibiotic combination therapy for ulcerative colitis

Aims

An antibiotic combination of amoxicillin, tetracycline and metronidazole (ATM) is effective for ulcerative colitis (UC), but this regimen is discontinued in some cases due to adverse events. This study aimed to assess a revised combination, namely, amoxicillin, fosfomycin and metronidazole (AFM), in UC patients with the goal of reducing side effects while maintaining therapeutic efficacy.

Methods

A prospective open-label trial was undertaken in 104 adult UC patients. A combination of oral amoxicillin (1500 mg), fosfomycin (3000 mg) and metronidazole (750 mg) was administered to patients daily for 2-4 weeks in addition to their conventional medication. Clinical assessment was performed using the Lichtiger index before treatment and at 0, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months and 2 and 3 years. Endoscopic evaluation was performed using the Mayo score before treatment and at 3 and 12 months.

Results

The compliance rate was 99.2%. Response and remission rates were 80.8% and 63.5% at completion, 73.1% and 64.4% at 3 months, and 39.4% for both at 12 months, respectively. Of the 41 patients who were in remission at 12 months, 63.4% maintained that status until the 2-year follow-up. Similarly, 69.2% of those in remission at 2 years remained relapse free at the 3-year follow-up. Side effects were observed in 44.2% of the participants. Fever occurred in one patient (1.0%), which was lower than the rate observed with ATM therapy.

Conclusion

These results indicate that AFM therapy induces remission and is appropriate for long-term maintenance of UC while producing fewer and milder adverse events than ATM therapy.

Clinical trials

This study was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network (No. R000046546).

The elderly IBD patient in the modern era: changing paradigms in risk stratification and therapeutic management

The incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is rising in the elderly population. Compared with patients with onset during their younger years, patients with elderly onset IBD have a distinct clinical presentation, disease phenotype, and natural history. Genetics contribute less to pathogenesis of disease, whereas biological changes associated with aging including immunosenescence, dysbiosis, and frailty have a greater impact on disease outcomes. With the advent of an increasingly wider array of biologic and small-molecule therapeutic options, data regarding efficacy and safety of these agents in elderly IBD patients specifically are paramount, given the unique characteristics of this population.

Combination Therapy Does Not Improve Rate of Clinical or Endoscopic Remission in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Treated With Vedolizumab or Ustekinumab

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) often receive combination therapy with an immunomodulator and tumor necrosis factor antagonists, especially infliximab. However, the benefits of combination therapy with vedolizumab and ustekinumab are unclear.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients with CD or UC initiating vedolizumab or ustekinumab therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital (USA), Alberta Health Sciences (Canada), or Nancy University Hospital (France) with at least 1 year of follow up. The primary outcome was clinical remission or response at week 14, based on the Harvey Bradshaw index for CD or simple clinical colitis index or partial Mayo score for UC. We separately examined week 30 and week 54 clinical outcomes, endoscopic response, and durability of therapy using multivariable regression models and adjusting for relevant confounders.

RESULTS

Our study included 549 patients (263 with UC, 286 with CD) receiving maintenance therapy with vedolizumab and 363 patients (4 with UC, 359 with CD) receiving maintenance therapy with ustekinumab with 1 year of follow up. The mean disease duration was 13-15 years. One-hundred thirty-one patients receiving vedolizumab (23.9%; 78 receiving thiopurine, 53 receiving methotrexate) and 120 patients receiving ustekinumab (33.1%, 57 receiving thiopurine, 63 receiving methotrexate) were receiving combination therapy. For vedolizumab, there was no difference in clinical response or remission with combination therapy vs monotherapy at week 14 (68.2% vs 74.1%; P = .22), week 30 (74.3% vs 75.6%; P = .78) or week 54 (78.3% vs 72.9%, P = .33). For ustekinumab, there was no difference in clinical response or remission with combination therapy vs monotherapy at week 14 (54.6% vs 65.8%; P = .08), week 30 (71.6% vs 77.4%; P = .33) or week 54 (62.1% vs 67.0%; P = .52). There were similar proportions of patients remaining on treatment or with endoscopic response at 1 year among patients receiving combination or monotherapy with vedolizumab or ustekinumab.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CD or UC initiating ustekinumab or vedolizumab therapy, combination therapy with immunomodulators did not increase rates of clinical remission or response, endoscopic remission, or persistence of therapy at 1 year.

Treatment-based risk stratification of infections in inflammatory bowel disease: A comparison between anti-tumor necrosis factor-α and nonbiological exposure in real-world setting

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Infective issues about anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α agents in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remain controversial, especially when compared with nonbiological treatments. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence and prevalence of several infections in anti-TNF-α-exposed patients compared with nonbiological treatments.

METHODS

All naïve IBD subjects treated with anti-TNF-α and matched nonbiologic-exposed patients were included.

RESULTS

Among 3453 patients in the database, 288 anti-TNF-α-exposed subjects and 288 nonbiologic-exposed IBD controls met inclusion criteria. Fifty-eight infections (20.1%) occurred during anti-TNF-α treatment versus 23 (8%) in the matched group (odds ratio [OR] 2.9, P < 0.001) (incidence 5.72 vs 0.96/100 patient-years, incidence ratio [IR] 6, P < 0.001). IR was higher for anti-TNF-α versus mesalamine/sulfasalazine (IR 40.8, P < 0.001), similar to azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine/methotrexate (IR 0.78, P = 0.32) and lower than corticosteroids (IR 0.05, P < 0.001). The incidence rate of serious infections was 1.3 in the anti-TNF-α-exposed versus 0.38/100 patient-years in nonexposed subjects (IR 3.44, P = 0.002), without significant difference between anti-TNF-α and azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine/methotrexate (1.3 vs 3.03/100 patient-years, IR 0.43, P = 0.1). Predictors of infections in anti-TNF-α-exposed patients were concomitant use of systemic steroids (OR 1.9, P = 0.02) or azathioprine (OR 2.6, P = 0.01) and a body mass index < 18.5 at time of infection (OR 2.2, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of developing infections during anti-TNF-α therapy remains high, although not dissimilar to that found for other immunosuppressants, while concomitant immunosuppression and malnutrition appear the most important causes of infection.

Anti-TNF and immunosuppressive combination therapy is preferential to inducing clinical remission in patients with active inflammatory bowel disease: A systemic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of a combination therapy of biologics and immunosuppressants with biological monotherapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparison of the efficacy and safety of biologics and immunomodulators with biological monotherapy were identified from the EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases published up to 1 May 2020. Raw data were extracted, pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated, the fixed-effect and inverse variance models were used. Funnel plots were performed to analyze publication bias.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were eligible for analysis. Overall, there was statistically a benefit for combination treatment over biologic monotherapy (IFX/ADA) in inducing clinical remission and preventing relapse in patients with IBD (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.98). Moreover, the combination therapy was superior to biological monotherapy for active CD (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.94). Also, there were significant benefits for combination therapy in the subgroup treated with infliximab (IFX) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy has slight benefits in inducing clinical remission in active CD compared with biological monotherapy. Patients with IBD who receive therapy with IFX and immunomodulator also have a mild advantage in comparison with those treated with IFX monotherapy.

Risk of severe COVID-19 in patients treated with IBD medications: a French nationwide study

BACKGROUND

Recently, the SECURE-IBD study, based on a physician-reported registry, suggested that thiopurines, either alone or combined with anti-TNF, may increase risk of severe COVID-19.

AIMS

To compare the risk of severe COVID-19 according to IBD medications in a large and unselected population.

METHODS

Using the French national health data system, the risks of hospitalisation and of death or mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 from 15 February 2020 to 31 August 2020 in IBD patients were compared according to IBD treatment (immunomodulators and biologics), using multivariable Cox models adjusted for socio-demographic characteristics, budesonide/corticosteroids and aminosalicylates use, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Among 268 185 IBD patients, 600 were hospitalised for COVID-19 and 111 of them died or were mechanically ventilated (including 78 deaths). In multivariable analysis, the risk of hospitalisation for COVID-19 did not differ according to IBD treatment category, with adjusted Hazard Ratios (aHR, unexposed patients used as reference) of 0.94 (95%CI: 0.66-1.35) for immunomodulator monotherapy, 1.05 (0.80-1.38) for anti-TNF monotherapy, 0.80 (0.38-1.69) for anti-TNF combination therapy, 1.06 (0.55-2.05) for vedolizumab and 1.25 (0.64-2.43) for ustekinumab. Similarly, the risk of death or mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 did not differ according to IBD treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunomodulators and biologics prescribed in patients with IBD do not appear to increase the severity of COVID-19 infection.

Positioning biologics and small molecules in the management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review addresses the selection of biologic and small molecule therapy for patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). With several new treatment options approved within the past few years, an update in positioning is timely and relevant.

RECENT FINDINGS

Updates on the safety and comparative efficacy of approved therapeutic agents for UC are presented. Newly approved therapies including tofacitinib and ustekinumab, as well as where to position these treatments are discussed. Data on the first-ever head-to-head trial of biologic therapy in UC are examined. This review provides an evidence-based overview of the optimal management strategies of patients in both the inpatient and outpatient settings.

SUMMARY

As we move closer towards the goal of personalized therapy for our patients with UC, we hope to better select appropriate and effective treatment options. Newly approved therapies provide us with additional options for management. Future advancements in predictive serologic, mucosal, genetic, and fecal markers can enable us to tailor therapy to an individual patient.

Management of patients with Intestinal Bowel Disease and COVID-19: A review of current evidence and future perspectives

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge for countries and health professionals worldwide. Viral entry by ACE-2 receptor and an excessive activation of the immune system are key to understand both incidence and severity of disease. Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) represents a special condition associated with an inordinate response of the immune system to external agents. IBD treatments have been associated to an increased risk of bacterial and viral infections. This has raised the question of possible higher incidence and severity of COVID-19 infection in IBD patients. Several papers have been published during this year of pandemic to answer that question. Moreover, COVID-19 vaccination offers great promise in controlling infection in patients with IBD. Based on current evidence, patients with IBD do not have a higher incidence of COVID-19 than the general population, and they do not have worse disease evolution. Advanced age and presence of a greater number of comorbidities have been associated with worse outcomes, similar to the general population. Corticosteroids are associated to an increased risk of COVID-19 infection, higher hospitalization rate and higher risk of severe COVID-19. 5-ASA/Sulfasalazine and Thiopurines have a possible increased risk of severe COVID-19, although studies are lacking. On the other hand, Anti-TNF may have a possible protective effect. It is recommended to maintain the treatment. Anti-IL-12/23, anti-integrins and tofacitinib have results comparable to anti-TNF. Based on the efficacy, expert recommendations, and the absence of other evidence, it is recommended that patients with IBD be vaccinated.

Understanding attitudes, concerns, and health behaviors of patients with inflammatory bowel disease during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a rapid shift in care delivery models for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); however, little is known about patient perceptions during this period. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the attitudes, concerns, and health behavior of IBD patients during COVID-19.

METHODS

An online survey was sent to patients from a tertiary IBD Service. The survey included demographic information and questions about the impact of COVID-19, levels of concern caused by COVID-19, perceived risk of IBD medications, medication cessation, and care delivery preferences.

RESULTS

Of 97 respondents (39%), 95 (98%) reported concern about the impact of COVID-19 on their health, and 43% felt their risk of contracting COVID-19 was above average; 62% reported concern about medication-induced COVID-19 risk, and 11% stopped medications because of COVID-19. Patients considered all medications to increase the risk of COVID-19 susceptibility and severity; 45% preferred telehealth while 16% preferred face-to-face clinic reviews. Preference for IBD monitoring tools in decreasing order was blood testing, stool collection, gastrointestinal ultrasound, magnetic resonance enterography, and then colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with IBD are demonstrated to experience concern related to their diagnosis and medications. The insights provided by the survey are informative for a possible "second-wave" of COVID-19 and routine care, including acceptance of telemedicine, preference for non-invasive investigations, and a need for dissemination of information and education.

Egypt's second wave of coronavirus disease of 2019 pandemic and its impact on patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Background and Aim

After a decrease of COVID‐19 cases in summer, Europe faced the appearance of a COVID‐19 second wave. IBD patients are more vulnerable to various emotional and psychological stresses than normal individuals. The aim of this study explored the emotional state, perception, and coping strategies of patients with IBD during the COVID 19 pandemic period.

Methods

A cross‐sectional study was conducted between 15 November and 15 December 2020. Patients presented to IBD Study Group Clinic, Department of Tropical Medicine, Ain Shams University Hospitals. The study included 105 IBD patients. A predesigned questionnaire was used that focused on patients’ knowledge of the COVID‐19 pandemic, and how it influenced patient care. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, and medication type were analyzed.

Results

We found 10.5% of patients stopped or delayed their medications owing to the COVID‐19 pandemic second wave and 61% reported that their clinic visits were affected. Seven patients were tested, and two patients reported having been diagnosed with COVID‐19, and 18 patients reported having relatives diagnosed with COVID‐19.

Conclusion

A considerable number of patients with IBD had an interruption to their care because of the second wave COVID‐19 pandemic. So, patients with IBD should take attention before, during, and after such pandemics to avoid undesirable disease‐related outcomes.

AGA Technical Review on the Medical Management of Moderate to Severe Luminal and Perianal Fistulizing Crohn's Disease

The incidence and prevalence of Crohn's disease (CD) is rising globally. Patients with moderate to severe CD are at high risk for needing surgery and hospitalization and for developing disease-related complications, corticosteroid dependence, and serious infections. Optimal management of outpatients with moderate to severe luminal and/or fistulizing (including perianal) CD often requires the use of immunomodulator (thiopurines, methotrexate) and/or biologic therapies, including tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists, vedolizumab, or ustekinumab, either as monotherapy or in combination (with immunomodulators) to mitigate these risks. Decisions about optimal drug therapy in moderate to severe CD are complex, with limited guidance on comparative efficacy and safety of different treatments, leading to considerable practice variability. Since the last iteration of these guidelines published in 2013, significant advances have been made in the field, including the regulatory approval of 2 new biologic agents, vedolizumab and ustekinumab. Therefore, the American Gastroenterological Association prioritized updating clinical guidelines on this topic. To inform the clinical guidelines, this technical review was completed in accordance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. The review addressed the following focused questions (in adult outpatients with moderate to severe luminal CD): overall and comparative efficacy of different medications for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with or without prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists, comparative efficacy and safety of biologic monotherapy vs combination therapy with immunomodulators, comparative efficacy of a top-down (upfront use of biologics and/or immunomodulator therapy) vs step-up treatment strategy (acceleration to biologic and/or immunomodulator therapy only after failure of mesalamine), and the role of corticosteroids and mesalamine for induction and/or maintenance of remission. Finally, in adult outpatients with moderate to severe fistulizing CD, this review addressed the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions for achieving fistula and the role of adjunctive antibiotics without clear evidence of active infection.

Hyposplenism and Gastrointestinal Diseases: Significance and Mechanisms

BACKGROUND

Functional hyposplenism is a recognized complication of several gastroenterological disorders, including coeliac and inflammatory bowel diseases, and is believed to contribute to the increased infection risk seen in these disorders.

SUMMARY

The mechanisms of hyposplenism are poorly understood. In this article, we review possible mechanisms underlying development of functional hyposplenism and discuss implications for its management.

KEY MESSAGES

Identifying functional hyposplenism is important, as it may permit earlier recognition and treatment of serious infections through patient education and vaccination.

Herb-partitioned moxibustion alleviates colonic inflammation in Crohn's disease rats by inhibiting hyperactivation of the NLRP3 inflammasome via regulation of the P2X7R-Pannexin-1 signaling pathway

Crohn's disease is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease and the NLRP3 inflammasome plays an important role in Crohn's disease. Previous studies have shown that Herb-partitioned moxibustion treating (at Qihai (CV 6) and Tianshu (ST 25)) prevented the excessive activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome and repaired damaged colonic mucosa in Crohn's disease. However, the mechanism by which Herb-partitioned moxibustion (at CV 6 and ST 25) regulates NLRP3 remains unclear. In this study, we treated Crohn's disease rats with herb-partitioned moxibustion (at CV 6 and ST 25) to investigate the mechanism by which Herb-partitioned moxibustion regulates the colonic NLRP3 inflammasome by observing colon length, the colon macroscopic damage indexes, and the expression of ATP, P2X7R, Pannexin-1, NF-κBp65, NLRP3, ASC, caspase-1, IL-1β and IL-18 in the colon in Crohn's disease. Here, this study shows that herb-partitioned moxibustion (at CV 6 and ST 25) can reduce colon macroscopic damage indexes and colon histopathological scores, alleviate colon shortening and block the abnormal activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by inhibiting the ATP content and the expression of P2X7R, Pannexin-1 and NF-κBp65, thereby reducing the release of the downstream inflammatory cytokine IL-1β and ultimately suppressing colonic inflammation in Crohn's disease rats. This study for the first time identifies the mechanism by which herb-partitioned moxibustion (at CV 6 and ST 25) may inhibit the abnormal activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by inhibiting the P2X7R-Pannexin-1 signaling pathway in Crohn's disease rats.

Potential application of immunotherapy for modulation of pulp inflammation: opportunities for vital pulp treatment

Caries results in the demineralization and destruction of enamel and dentine, and as the disease progresses, irreversible pulpitis can occur. Vital pulp therapy (VPT) is directed towards pulp preservation and the prevention of the progression of inflammation. The outcomes of VPT are not always predictable, and there is often a poor correlation between clinical signs and symptoms, and the events occurring at a molecular level. The inflamed pulp expresses increased levels of cytokines, including tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1α, IL-1β, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-17 and IL-23, which recruit and drive a complex cellular immune response. Chronic inflammation and sustained cytokine release can result in irreversible pulp damage and a decreased capacity for tissue healing. Other chronic inflammatory diseases, such as psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases and rheumatoid arthritis, are also characterized by an dysregulated immune response composed of relatively high cytokine levels and increased numbers of immune cells along with microbial and hard-soft tissue destructive pathologies. Whilst anti-cytokine therapies have been successfully applied in the treatment of these diseases, this approach is yet to be attempted in cases of pulp inflammation. This review therefore focuses on the similarities in the aetiology between chronic inflammatory diseases and pulpitis, and explores how anti-cytokine therapies could be applied to manage an inflamed pulp and facilitate healing. Further proof-of-concept studies and clinical trials are justified to determine the effectiveness of these treatments to enable more predictable outcomes in VPT.

The Impact of Vedolizumab on COVID-19 Outcomes Among Adult IBD Patients in the SECURE-IBD Registry

BACKGROUND

The impact of immune-modifying therapies on outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19] is variable. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of vedolizumab [VDZ], a gut-selective anti-integrin, on COVID-19 outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] patients.

METHODS

Using data from the Surveillance of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for IBD [SECURE-IBD], an international registry of IBD patients with confirmed COVID-19, we studied the impact of VDZ on COVID-19 hospitalization and severe COVID-19 [intensive care unit stay, mechanical ventilation and/or death].

RESULTS

Of 3647 adult patients on any IBD medication in the registry, 457 [12.5%] patients were on VDZ. On multivariable analyses using backward selection of covariates, VDZ use was not associated with hospitalization or severe COVID-19 when compared with patients on all other medications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71, 1.1 and aOR 0.95; 95% CI 0.53, 1.73, respectively). On comparing VDZ monotherapy to anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] monotherapy, the odds for hospitalization, but not severe COVID-19, were higher [aOR CI 1.39; 95% CI 1.001, 1.90 and aOR 2.92; 95% CI 0.98, 8.71, respectively]. In an exploratory analysis, VDZ monotherapy, compared to anti-TNF monotherapy, was associated with new-onset gastrointestinal symptoms at the time of COVID-19, especially among patients whose IBD was in remission.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 outcomes among IBD patients on VDZ are comparable to those on all other therapies. Hospitalization, but not severe COVID-19, is more likely with VDZ monotherapy than with anti-TNF monotherapy. Overall, VDZ appears to be safe in IBD patients with COVID-19.

Use of thiopurines in inflammatory bowel disease: an update

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), once considered a disease of the Western hemisphere, has emerged as a global disease. As the disease prevalence is on a steady rise, management of IBD has come under the spotlight. 5-Aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, immunosuppressive agents and biologics are the backbone of treatment of IBD. With the advent of biologics and small molecules, the need for surgery and hospitalization has decreased. However, economic viability and acceptability is an important determinant of local prescription patterns. Nearly one-third of the patients in West receive biologics as the first/initial therapy. The scenario is different in developing countries where biologics are used only in a small proportion of patients with IBD. Increased risk of reactivation of tuberculosis and high cost of the therapy are limitations to their use. Thiopurines hence become critical for optimal management of patients with IBD in these regions. However, approximately one-third of patients are intolerant or develop adverse effects with their use. This has led to suboptimal use of thiopurines in clinical practice. This review article discusses the clinical aspects of thiopurine use in patients with IBD with the aim of optimizing their use to full therapeutic potential.

Combination therapy in inflammatory bowel disease - from traditional immunosuppressors towards the new paradigm of dual targeted therapy

BACKGROUND

Combining immunosuppressors has been proposed as a strategy to enhance treatment efficacy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD).

AIM

To summarize current evidence on combinations of targeted therapies with traditional immunosuppressors or with other targeted therapies.

METHODS

A literature search on PubMed and Medline databases was performed to identify relevant articles.

RESULTS

Current evidence supports that the combination of infliximab and thiopurines is more effective than monotherapy with both agents in inducing remission in Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative colitis. Data on other combinations of other biologics and traditional immunosuppressors is lacking or show conflicting results. Vedolizumab seems a potentially effective maintenance regimen after calcineurin inhibitors-based rescue therapy in acute severe ulcerative colitis, as an alternative to thiopurines. Dual Targeted Therapy, which is the combination of 2 targeted therapies, might be a reasonable choice in patients with concomitant IBD and extraintestinal manifestations, or in patients with medical-refractory IBD who lack valid alternatives. Combinations with thiopurines are associated with an increased risk of infections and lymphoma. Data on other combinations is scarcer, but no specific safety issue has emerged so far.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapies seem to be effective in selected patients, with an overall acceptable safety profile.

The complex relationship between viruses and inflammatory bowel disease - review and practical advices for the daily clinical decision-making during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak emerged in December 2019 in China and rapidly spread worldwide. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients are likely to be more susceptible to viral infections, and this is significantly influenced by the type of therapy they receive. Thus, issues specifically concerning the medical treatment of IBD patients were shortly addressed at the beginning of the pandemic. However, recently available data on the occurrence and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in IBD patients does not address the concerns raised at the beginning of the pandemic. Growing evidence and the rapid changes happening over the past few weeks have helped elucidate the current situation, contribute to our understanding of the disease, and many previously raised questions could now be answered. We hereby summarise available evidence regarding viral infections and IBD, focusing on SARS-CoV infections, and we provide practical recommendations related to patient management during the COVID-19 pandemic era.

Pretreatment HLADQA1-HLADRB1 Testing for the Prevention of Azathioprine-Induced Pancreatitis in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Prospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Azathioprine-induced pancreatitis is an idiosyncratic and unpredictable response, occurring in up to 7% of azathioprine-exposed patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The haplotype HLADQA1-HLADRB1*07:01A>C is strongly associated with azathioprine-induced pancreatitis in IBD. We aimed to evaluate whether pretreatment HLADQA1-HLADRB1*07:01A>C screening will reduce the risk of azathioprine-induced pancreatitis.

METHODS

Participants with IBD were screened for HLADQA1-HLADRB1*07:01A>C, and participants with a variant genotype were excluded from azathioprine treatment. Wild-type participants were started on azathioprine and followed for 3 months. The incidence of pancreatitis was compared with unscreened historical controls.

RESULTS

HLADQA1-HLADRB1*07:01A>C screening resulted in an 11-fold reduction in the incidence of azathioprine-induced pancreatitis (n = 1/328 or 0.30% vs n = 13/373 or 3.4%). In propensity score-matched cohorts (age and sex), HLA DQA1-HLADRB1*07:01A>C screening was significantly associated with a reduction in the incidence of AZA-induced pancreatitis independent of weight, glucocorticoid exposure, and smoking status (adjusted odds ratio = 0.075, 95% confidence interval = 0.01-0.58, P = 0.01). Up to 45% (n = 271/599) of participants were excluded from azathioprine therapy based on the haplotype in the HLADQA1-HLADRB1*07:01A>C-screened cohort.

DISCUSSION

HLADQA1-HLADRB1*07:01A>C screening reduced the risk of azathioprine-induced pancreatitis; however, using this strategy to guide the use of azathioprine therapy in IBD may eliminate a large proportion of patients from being eligible for treatment with azathioprine. In regions where there is access to other IBD therapies, and given the short-term and long-term toxicities associated with azathioprine, HLADQA1-HLADRB1*07:01A>C-screening may be a clinically relevant strategy for enhancing the safe use of azathioprine in IBD. In addition, cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to further solidify the utility of HLADQA1-HLADRB1*07:01A>C screening in IBD populations.

Temporal trend in inpatient mortality in inflammatory bowel disease-associated colorectal cancer vs non-inflammatory colorectal cancer: a nationwide retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Early detection and advancement in therapy have successfully achieved a steady decrease in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality over the last two decades. On the other hand, studies investigating mortality trends in inflammatory bowel disease-associated CRC (IBD-CRC) are scarce and inconclusive. We conducted a retrospective analysis aiming to identify differences between inpatient mortality trends in IBD-CRC vs non-IBD-CRC and possible contributing factors.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2006-2014 was queried to identify all patients admitted with a diagnosis of CRC. The main outcome was the prevalence and trend of mortality among IBD-CRC and non-IBD-CRC. The secondary outcome was the evaluation of predictors of inpatient mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1,190,759 weighted cases with the admission diagnosis of CRC were included in the study. Of which 10,997 (0.9%) had a co-diagnosis of IBD. The population with non-IBD-CRC had a statistically significant downward temporal trend in mortality (p < 0.001), while patients with IBD-CRC did not have any statistically significant temporal trend in inpatient mortality (p = 0.067). After subgroup analysis, patients with Crohn's disease-CRC had an upward temporal trend in mortality (p = 0.183) compared to patients with ulcerative colitis-CRC with a downward trend in mortality (p = 0.001). Sepsis resulted to be a stronger predictor of mortality for CD-CRC, while VTE for UC-CRC.

CONCLUSION

Multiples strategies established to prevent morbidity and mortality in CRC have been fruitful in non-IBD-CRC population, but have not been enough for IBD-CRC population to cause the same effect. Further strategies are needed to achieve a reduction in IBD-CRC mortality trend.

Effect of IBD medications on COVID-19 outcomes: results from an international registry

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate COVID-19 clinical course in patients with IBD treated with different medication classes and combinations.

DESIGN

Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) is a large, international registry created to monitor outcomes of IBD patients with confirmed COVID-19. We used multivariable regression with a generalised estimating equation accounting for country as a random effect to analyse the association of different medication classes with severe COVID-19, defined as intensive care unit admission, ventilator use and/or death.

RESULTS

1439 cases from 47 countries were included (mean age 44.1 years, 51.4% men) of whom 112 patients (7.8%) had severe COVID-19. Compared with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist monotherapy, thiopurine monotherapy (adjusted OR (aOR) 4.08, 95% CI 1.73 to 9.61) and combination therapy with TNF antagonist and thiopurine (aOR 4.01, 95% CI 1.65 to 9.78) were associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19. Any mesalamine/sulfasalazine compared with no mesalamine/sulfasalazine use was associated with an increased risk (aOR 1.70, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.29). This risk estimate increased when using TNF antagonist monotherapy as a reference group (aOR 3.52, 95% CI 1.93 to 6.45). Interleukin-12/23 and integrin antagonists were not associated with significantly different risk than TNF antagonist monotherapy (aOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.12 to 8.06 and aOR 2.42, 95% CI 0.59 to 9.96, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy and thiopurines may be associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19. No significant differences were observed when comparing classes of biologicals. These findings warrant confirmation in large population-based cohorts.MKH should be changed to MDK for co-last author line.

No Benefit of Concomitant Immunomodulator Therapy on Efficacy of Biologics That Are Not Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is debate over whether patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) treated with biologics that are not tumor necrosis factor antagonists (such as vedolizumab or ustekinumab) should receive concomitant treatment with immunomodulators. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of concomitant immunomodulator therapy vs vedolizumab or ustekinumab monotherapy.

METHODS

In a systematic search of publications, through July 31, 2019, we identified 33 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 27 cohort studies) of patients with IBD treated with vedolizumab or ustekinumab. The primary outcome was clinical benefit, including clinical remission, clinical response, or physician global assessment in patients who did vs did not receive combination therapy with an immunomodulator. Secondary outcomes were endoscopic improvement and safety. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and estimated odds ratio (OR) and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Overall, combination therapy was not associated with better clinical outcomes in patients receiving vedolizumab (16 studies: OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-1.05; I2=13.9%; Q test P = .17) or ustekinumab (15 studies: OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.87-1.38; I2 = 11%; Q test P = .28). Results were consistent in subgroup analyses, with no difference in clinical remission or response in induction vs maintenance studies or in patients with Crohn's disease vs ulcerative colitis in studies of vedolizumab. Combination therapy was not associated with better endoscopic outcomes in patients receiving vedolizumab (3 studies: OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.48-2.68; I2 = 0; Q test P=.96) or ustekinumab (2 studies: OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.21-1.16; I2 = 47%; Q test P = .17). Combination therapy was not associated with an increase in adverse events during vedolizumab therapy (4 studies: OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.75-1.84; I2 = 0; Q test P = .110).

CONCLUSIONS

In a meta-analysis of data from studies of patients with IBD, we found that combining vedolizumab or ustekinumab with an immunomodulator is no more effective than monotherapy in induction or maintenance of remission.

Long-term Outcomes after the Discontinuation of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Therapy in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease under Clinical Remission: A Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease Multicenter Study

Background/Aims

Our study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes and risk factors for relapse after anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α cessation in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients because they are not well established.

Methods

A retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted involving patients with Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) from 10 referral hospitals in Korea who discontinued firstline anti-TNF therapy after achieving clinical remission.

Results

A total of 109 IBD patients (71 CD and 38 UC) with a median follow-up duration of 56 months were analyzed. The cumulative relapse rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 11.3%, 46.7%, and 62.5% for CD patients and 28.9%, 45.3%, and 60.9% for UC patients. Multivariable Cox analysis revealed that discontinuation owing to the clinician's decision was associated with lower risk of relapse (vs patient's preference: hazard ratio [HR], 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.48; p=0.002) and adalimumab use was associated with higher risk of relapse (vs infliximab: HR, 4.42; 95% CI, 1.24 to 17.74; p=0.022) in CD patients. Mucosal healing was associated with lower risk of relapse (vs nonmucosal healing: HR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.83; p=0.031) in UC patients. Anti-TNF re-induction was provided to 52 patients, and a response was obtained in 50 patients. However, 25 of them discontinued retreatment owing to a loss of response (n=15), the patient's preference (n=6), and other factors (n=4).

Conclusions

More than 60% of IBD patients in remission under anti-TNF therapy relapsed within 5 years of treatment cessation. Anti-TNF re-induction was effective. However, half of the patients discontinued anti-TNF therapy, and 50% of these patients discontinued treatment owing to loss of response.

Risk and outcomes of coronavirus disease in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in inflammatory bowel disease are unclear.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase with the keywords: inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis and COVID-19, novel coronavirus and SARS-CoV-2. We included studies reporting the frequency of COVID-19 infection and outcomes (hospitalisation, need for intensive care unit care and mortality) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. We estimated the pooled incidence of COVID-19 in inflammatory bowel disease and comparative risk vis-a-vis the general population. We also estimated the pooled frequency of outcomes and compared them in patients who received and did not receive drugs for inflammatory bowel disease.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were included. The pooled incidence rate of COVID-19 per 1000 patients of inflammatory bowel disease and the general population were 4.02 (95% confidence interval [CI, 1.44-11.17]) and 6.59 [3.25-13.35], respectively, with no increase in relative risk (0.47, 0.18-1.26) in inflammatory bowel disease. The relative risk of the acquisition of COVID-19 was not different between ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease (1.03, 0.62-1.71). The pooled proportion of COVID-19-positive inflammatory bowel disease patients requiring hospitalisation and intensive care unit care was 27.29% and 5.33% while pooled mortality was 4.27%. The risk of adverse outcomes was higher in ulcerative colitis compared to Crohn's disease. The relative risks of hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission and mortality were lower for patients on biological agents (0.34, 0.19-0.61; 0.49, 0.33-0.72 and 0.22, 0.13-0.38, respectively) but higher with steroids (1.99, 1.64-2.40; 3.41, 2.28-5.11 and 2.70, 1.61-4.55) or 5-aminosalicylate (1.59, 1.39-1.82; 2.38, 1.26-4.48 and 2.62, 1.67-4.11) use.

CONCLUSION

SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in patients with inflammatory bowel disease is comparable to the general population. Outcomes of COVID-19-positive inflammatory bowel disease patients are worse in ulcerative colitis, those on steroids or 5-aminosalicylates but outcomes are better with biological agents.

How to manage inflammatory bowel disease during the COVID-19 pandemic: A guide for the practicing clinician

Managing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been a challenge faced by clinicians and their patients, especially concerning whether to proceed with biologics and immunosuppressive agents in the background of a global outbreak of a highly contagious new coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, SARS-CoV-2). The knowledge about the impact of this virus on patients with IBD, although it is still scarce, is rapidly evolving. In particular, concerns surrounding medications' impact for IBD on the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection or developing COVID-19, and potentially exacerbate viral replication and the COVID-19 course, are a current thinking of both practicing clinicians and providers caring for patients with IBD. Managing patients with IBD infected with SARS-CoV-2 depends on both the clinical activity of the IBD and the occasional development and severity of COVID-19. In this review, we summarize the current data regarding gastrointestinal involvement by SARS-CoV-2 and pharmacologic and surgical management for IBD concerning this infection, and the COVID-19 impact on both the patient's psychological functioning and endoscopy services, and we concisely summarize the telemedicine roles during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Epidemiology and Natural History of Elderly-onset Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Results From a Territory-wide Hong Kong IBD Registry

BACKGROUND

Elderly-onset inflammatory bowel disease [IBD], defined as age ≥60 at diagnosis, is increasing worldwide. We aimed to compare clinical characteristics and natural history of elderly-onset IBD patients with those of adult-onset IBD patients.

METHODS

Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of IBD from 1981 to 2016 were identified from a territory-wide Hong Kong IBD registry involving 13 hospitals. Demographics, comorbidities, clinical features, and outcomes of elderly-onset IBD patients were compared with those of adult-onset IBD patients.

RESULTS

A total of 2413 patients were identified, of whom 270 [11.2%] had elderly-onset IBD. Median follow-up duration was 111 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 68-165 months). Ratio of ulcerative colitis [UC]: Crohn's disease [CD] was higher in elderly-onset IBD than in adult-onset IBD patients [3.82:1 vs 1.39:1; p <0.001]. Elderly-onset CD had less perianal involvement [5.4% vs 25.4%; p <0.001] than adult-onset CD. Elderly-onset IBD patients had significantly lower cumulative use of immunomodulators [p = 0.001] and biologics [p = 0.04]. Elderly-onset IBD was associated with higher risks of: cytomegalovirus colitis (odds ratio [OR]: 3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.92-4.89; p <0.001); herpes zoster [OR: 2.42; 95% CI 1.22-4.80; p = 0.12]; and all cancer development [hazard ratio: 2.97; 95% CI 1.84-4.79; p <0.001]. They also had increased number of overall hospitalisations [OR: 1.14; 95% CI 1.09-1.20; p <0.001], infections-related hospitalisation [OR: 1.87; 95% CI 1.47-2.38; p <0.001], and IBD-related hospitalisation [OR: 1.09; 95% CI 1.04- 1.15; p = 0.001] compared with adult-onset IBD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly-onset IBD was associated with increased risk of infections and cancer development, and increased infection- and IBD-related hospitalisations. Specific therapeutic strategies to target this special population are needed.

Risk of COVID 19 in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases compared to a control population

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

This observational study compared the prevalence of COVID-19 symptoms, diagnosis and hospitalization in IBD patients with a control population with non-inflammatory bowel disorders.

METHODS

This multicentre study, included 2733 outpatients (1397 IBD patients and 1336 controls), from eight major gastrointestinal centres in Lombardy, Italy. Patients were invited to complete a web-based questionnaire regarding demographic, historical and clinical features over the previous 6 weeks. The prevalence of COVID-19 symptoms, diagnosis and hospitalization for COVID-19 was assessed.

RESULTS

1810 patients (64%) responded to the questionnaire (941 IBD patients and 869 controls). IBD patients were significantly younger and of male sex than controls. NSAID use and smoking were more frequent in controls. IBD patients were more likely treated with vitamin-D and vaccinated for influenza. Highly probable COVID-19 on the basis of symptoms and signs was less frequent in the IBD group (3.8% vs 6.3%; OR:0.45, 95%CI:0.28-0.75). IBD patients had a lower rate of nasopharyngeal swab-PCR confirmed diagnosis (0.2% vs 1.2%; OR:0.14, 95%CI:0.03-0.67). There was no difference in hospitalization between the groups (0.1% vs 0.6%; OR:0.14, 95%CI:0.02-1.17).

CONCLUSION

IBD patients do not have an increased risk of COVID-19 specific symptoms or more severe disease compared with a control group of gastroenterology patients.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a British Society of Gastroenterology Inflammatory Bowel Disease section and IBD Clinical Research Group position statement

SARS-CoV-2 has caused a global health crisis and mass vaccination programmes provide the best opportunity for controlling transmission and protecting populations. Despite the impressive clinical trial results of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines, important unanswered questions remain, especially in patients with pre-existing conditions. In this position statement endorsed by the British Society of Gastroenterology Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) section and IBD Clinical Research Group, we consider SARS-CoV-2 vaccination strategy in patients with IBD. The risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are anticipated to be very low, and we strongly support SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with IBD. Based on data from previous studies with other vaccines, there are conceptual concerns that protective immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may be diminished in some patients with IBD, such as those taking anti-TNF drugs. However, the benefits of vaccination, even in patients treated with anti-TNF drugs, are likely to outweigh these theoretical concerns. Key areas for further research are discussed, including vaccine hesitancy and its effect in the IBD community, the effect of immunosuppression on vaccine efficacy, and the search for predictive biomarkers of vaccine success.

Implications of COVID-19 for the busy gastroenterologist

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infection caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) originated in China in December 2020 and declared pandemic by WHO. This coronavirus mainly spreads through the respiratory tract and enters cells through angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). The clinical symptoms of COVID-19 patients include fever, cough, and fatigue. Gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, anorexia, and vomiting) may be present in 50% of patients and may be associated with worst prognosis. Other risk factors are older age, male gender, and underlying chronic diseases. Mitigation measures are essential to reduce the number of people infected. Hospitals are a place of increased SARS-CoV-2 exposure. This has implications in the organization of healthcare services and specifically endoscopy departments. Patients and healthcare workers safety must be optimized in this new reality. Comprehension of COVID-19 gastrointestinal manifestations and implications of SARS-CoV-2 in the management of patients with gastrointestinal diseases, under or not immunosuppressant therapies, is essential. In this review, we summarized the latest research progress and major societies recommendations regarding the implications of COVID-19 in gastroenterology, namely the adaptations that gastroenterology/endoscopy departments and professionals must do in order to optimize the provided assistance, as well as the implications that this infection will have, in particularly vulnerable patients such as those with chronic liver disease and inflammatory bowel disease under or not immunosuppressant therapies.

Confounding and bias in observational studies in inflammatory bowel disease: a meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Observational research concerning inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is highly susceptible to spurious findings because of confounding and bias.

AIM

To investigate how these issues were reported in this research field.

METHODS

We identified and appraised a random sample of 160 observational studies concerning IBD published in high-impact gastroenterology journals and the most respected specialty journals of the condition. We applied a standardised methodology to assess how confounding and bias were reported and discussed, and investigated the association between yearly citations and study characteristics using mixed-effect multivariable regression analysis.

RESULTS

The authors of 67 out of 160 articles (41.9%) mentioned confounding, and in 89 cases (55.6%) reported any bias. Although most authors applied strategies to minimise confounding or bias (n = 139; 86.9%) and acknowledged at least one unadjusted confounder (n = 116; 72.5%), a minority commented about whether the main findings could have been affected (n = 60; 37.5%). Very few authors (n = 7; 4.4%) called for caution in interpreting the results in the discussion. Reporting of confounding and bias was particularly lacking for case-control studies, those not using routinely collected data, those employing laboratory analyses as the primary method of assessment and studies investigating non-modifiable exposures. In adjusted analyses, mentioning or alluding to confounding was positively associated with yearly citations (P = 0.010), whereas calling for a cautious interpretation of the findings was not.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of confounding is inadequate and its acknowledgement is often neglected in interpreting high-impact observational research in IBD. These results encourage a more careful evaluation of the consequences of confounding and bias.

Risk of infection associated with Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors and biological therapies in inflammatory intestinal disease and rheumatoid arthritis. Prevention strategies

Patients with certain immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), have an increased risk of severe infectious diseases than the general population, which are mainly associated with the immunosuppressive treatments that they receive. These treatments act on the immune system through different mechanisms, causing different degrees of immunosuppression and a variable risk depending on whether the pathogen is a virus, bacteria or fungus. This article reviews the most relevant literature on the subject, which was selected and discussed by a panel of experts. The aim of this article is to review the risk of infections in patients with IBD and RA, and the potential preventive measures.

Are hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel disease at increased risk of invasive bacterial infections? Results from POLIBD 3-year cohort study

The aim of this study was to determine the dominant species of bacteria found in blood cultures collected from patients under treatment in the tertiary inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) center in Poland. The dominant pathogen isolated from blood in patients with IBD was Staphylococcus epidermidis MRCNS (MRCNS—methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococcus), a strain resistant to all beta-lactam antibiotics (penicillins, penicillins with B-lactamase inhibitor, cephalosporins and carbapenems). The second most commonly isolated pathogen found in the blood samples was Escherichia coli. Blood cultures were found to be positive for these pathogens more frequently in male patients (90.0%). An increased risk of bacteremia in IBD patients was associated with prolonged hospitalization.

Risk of common infections in people with inflammatory bowel disease in primary care: a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk of common infections in individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) [ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease] compared with matched controls in a contemporary UK primary care population.

DESIGN

Matched cohort analysis (2014-2019) using the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre primary care database. Risk of common infections, viral infections and gastrointestinal infections (including a subset of culture-confirmed infections), and predictors of common infections, were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

18 829 people with IBD were matched to 73 316 controls. People with IBD were more likely to present to primary care with a common infection over the study period (46% vs 37% of controls). Risks of common infections, viral infections and gastrointestinal infections (including stool culture-confirmed infections) were increased for people with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease compared with matched controls (HR range 1.12-1.83, all p<0.001). Treatment with oral glucocorticoid therapy, immunotherapies and biologic therapy, but not with aminosalicylates, was associated with increased infection risk in people with IBD. Despite mild lymphopenia and neutropenia being more common in people with IBD (18.4% and 1.9%, respectively) than in controls (6.5% and 1.5%, respectively), these factors were not associated with significantly increased infection risk in people with IBD.

CONCLUSION

People with IBD are more likely to present with a wide range of common infections. Health professionals and people with IBD should remain vigilant for infections, particularly when using systemic corticosteroids, immunotherapies or biologic agents.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03835780).

Management of paediatric IBD after the peak of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: A position paper on behalf of the SIGENP IBD working group

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, spreading in Italy during the first months of 2020, abruptly changed the way of practicing medicine in this country. As a consequence of the lockdown, the diagnostic and therapeutic management of paediatric chronic conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been affected. During the peak of COVID-19 pandemic, elective visits, endoscopies and infusions have been postponed, with potential clinical and psychological impact on disease course and a high likelihood of increasing waiting lists. While slowly moving back towards normality, clinicians need to recognize the best ways to care for patients with IBD, carefully avoiding risk factors for new potential epidemic outbreaks. In this uncertain scenario until the development and spread of COVID-19 vaccine, it is necessary to continue to operate with caution. Hereby we provide useful indications for a safer and gradual restarting of routine clinical activities after COVID-19 peak in Italy.

Cumulative Exposure to Infliximab, But Not Trough Concentrations, Correlates With Rate of Infection

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Infliximab increases the risk of infection in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), but there is controversy over the relationship between drug concentration and infections. We aimed to assess factors associated with infection in infliximab-treated patients, including pharmacokinetic features.

METHODS

We collected data from 209 patients with IBD (102 men; mean age, 39 y; 159 with Crohn's disease; 54 received combination therapy) who received an infliximab maintenance regimen from November 2016 through April 2017 in France. Data were collected from each infusion visit (total of 640 infusions). Infliximab exposure was estimated based on the area under the curve (AUC) of drug concentration in pharmacokinetic models; individual exposures over the 6-month period were estimated based on the sum of the AUC (ΣAUC).

RESULTS

The mean infliximab trough level was 5.46 mg/L, and the mean ΣAUC was 3938 ± 1427 mg.d/L. A total of 215 infections were collected from the 640 infusion visits; 123 patients (59%) had at least 1 infection. Factors independently associated with infection after multivariate analysis were smoking (odds ratio [OR], 2.05; P = .046), IBD flare (OR, 2.71; P = .006), and a high ΣAUC of infliximab (above 3234 mg x d/L) (OR, 2.02; P = .02). The ΣAUC was higher in patients with an occurrence of infection (P = .04) and correlated with the number of infections (P = .04). Trough concentration of infliximab alone was not associated with infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost two-thirds of patients treated with infliximab developed an infection; risk was individually correlated with cumulative increase in drug exposure, but not infliximab trough level.