Long-term effects and colectomy rates in ulcerative colitis patients treated with infliximab: a Danish single center experience

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Loss of Response and Need for Dose Escalation of Infliximab and Adalimumab in Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

Loss of response to infliximab or adalimumab in ulcerative colitis occurs frequently, and dose escalation may aid in regaining clinical benefit. This study aimed to systematically assess the annual loss of response and dose escalation rates for infliximab and adalimumab in ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted from August 1999 to July 2021 for studies reporting loss of response and dose escalation during infliximab and/or adalimumab use in ulcerative colitis patients with primary response. Annual loss of response, dose escalation rates, and clinical benefit after dose escalation were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed for studies with 1-year follow-up or less.

RESULTS

We included 50 unique studies assessing loss of response (infliximab, n = 24; adalimumab, n = 21) or dose escalation (infliximab, n = 21; adalimumab, n = 16). The pooled annual loss of response for infliximab was 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1-14.3) and 13.6% (95% CI, 9.3-19.9) for studies with 1-year follow-up. The pooled annual loss of response for adalimumab was 13.4% (95% CI, 8.2-21.8) and 23.3% (95% CI, 15.4-35.1) for studies with 1-year follow-up. Annual pooled dose escalation rates were 13.8% (95% CI, 8.7-21.7) for infliximab and 21.3% (95% CI, 14.4-31.3) for adalimumab, regaining clinical benefit in 72.4% and 52.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Annual loss of response was 10% for infliximab and 13% for adalimumab, with higher rates during the first year. Annual dose escalation rates were 14% (infliximab) and 21% (adalimumab), with clinical benefit in 72% and 52%, respectively. Uniform definitions are needed to facilitate more robust evaluations.

Are Surgical Rates Decreasing in the Biological Era In IBD?

Crohn's Disease (CD) and Ulcerative Colitis (UC), known as Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD), are multifactorial, potentially debilitating diseases with probable genetic heterogeneity and unknown etiology. During the disease course of IBD, periods of inflammatory activity alternate with periods of remission. Severe complications in IBD often result in surgery. In the last two decades, major advances in medical treatment have changed the management of IBD. The advent of monoclonal antibodies targeting cytokines and adhesion molecules has brought a revolution in the treatment of IBD refractory to conventional therapy. However, it is not well established if these treatments could influence the long-term course of the diseases and the need for surgical treatment, though they have no severe adverse effects and improve quality of life. It has been shown that in the era of biologic agents, there has been a relative reduction in surgery rate for mild disease presentation, while the incidence of emergency or urgent surgery both for CD and UC remains unmodified. We summarized key data about current surgical rates in IBD after the advent of biologic agents.

Surgery in the age of biologics

Since the introduction of the first anti-tumor necrosis factor antibodies in the late 1990s, biologic therapy has revolutionized the medical treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Nevertheless, surgery continues to play a significant role in treating IBD patients. Rates of intestinal resection in patients with Crohn's disease or colectomy in ulcerative colitis are reducing but not substantially over the long term. An increasing variety of biologic medications are now available to treat IBD patients in various clinical situations. Consequently, a number of questions persist about how biologic medications affect the need for surgery and overall course in IBD patients. Given the trend for earlier and more frequent use of biologic medications in IBD patients, a working knowledge of the effects of these medications on surgical decision-making and outcomes is essential for the practicing colorectal surgeon and gastroenterologist. This review seeks to summarize the relevant literature surrounding biologic use and IBD surgery with a focus on the effect of biologics on the frequency, type and complications of surgery in this 'age of biologics'.

Comparison Of iNfliximab and ciclosporin in STeroid Resistant Ulcerative Colitis: pragmatic randomised Trial and economic evaluation (CONSTRUCT)

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of infliximab and ciclosporin in treating severe ulcerative colitis (UC) is proven, but there has been no comparative evaluation of effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of infliximab and ciclosporin in treating steroid-resistant acute severe UC.

METHOD

Between May 2010 and February 2013 we recruited 270 participants from 52 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales to an open-label parallel-group, pragmatic randomised trial. Consented patients admitted with severe colitis completed baseline quality-of-life questionnaires before receiving intravenous hydrocortisone. If they failed to respond within about 5 days, and met other inclusion criteria, we invited them to participate and used a web-based adaptive randomisation algorithm to allocate them in equal proportions between 5 mg/kg of intravenous infliximab at 0, 2 and 6 weeks or 2 mg/kg/day of intravenous ciclosporin for 7 days followed by 5.5 mg/kg/day of oral ciclosporin until 12 weeks from randomisation. Further treatment was at the discretion of physicians responsible for clinical management. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted survival (QAS): the area under the curve (AUC) of scores derived from Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis Questionnaires completed by participants at 3 and 6 months, and then 6-monthly over 1-3 years, more frequently after surgery. Secondary outcomes collected simultaneously included European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) scores and NHS resource use to estimate cost-effectiveness. Blinding was possible only for data analysts. We interviewed 20 trial participants and 23 participating professionals. Funded data collection finished in March 2014. Most participants consented to complete annual questionnaires and for us to analyse their routinely collected health data over 10 years.

RESULTS

The 135 participants in each group were well matched at baseline. In 121 participants analysed in each group, we found no significant difference between infliximab and ciclosporin in QAS [mean difference in AUC/day 0.0297 favouring ciclosporin, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0088 to 0.0682; p = 0.129]; EQ-5D scores (quality-adjusted life-year mean difference 0.021 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI -0.032 to 0.096; p = 0.350); Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions scores (mean difference 0.0051 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI -0.0250 to 0.0353; p = 0.737). There was no statistically significant difference in colectomy rates [odds ratio (OR) 1.350 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.832 to 2.188; p = 0.223]; numbers of serious adverse reactions (event ratio = 0.938 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI 0.590 to 1.493; p = 0.788); participants with serious adverse reactions (OR 0.660 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI 0.282 to 1.546; p = 0.338); numbers of serious adverse events (event ratio 1.075 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.603 to 1.917; p = 0.807); participants with serious adverse events (OR 0.999 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.473 to 2.114; p = 0.998); deaths (all three who died received infliximab; p = 0.247) or concomitant use of immunosuppressants. The lower cost of ciclosporin led to lower total NHS costs (mean difference -£5632, 95% CI -£8305 to -£2773; p < 0.001). Interviews highlighted the debilitating effect of UC; participants were more positive about infliximab than ciclosporin. Professionals reported advantages and disadvantages with both drugs, but nurses disliked the intravenous ciclosporin.

CONCLUSIONS

Total cost to the NHS was considerably higher for infliximab than ciclosporin. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between the two drugs in clinical effectiveness, colectomy rates, incidence of SAEs or reactions, or mortality, when measured 1-3 years post treatment. To assess long-term outcome participants will be followed up for 10 years post randomisation, using questionnaires and routinely collected data. Further studies will be needed to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of new anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs and formulations of ciclosporin.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22663589.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Long-term outcome of infliximab treatment in chronic active ulcerative colitis: a Swedish multicentre study of 250 patients

BACKGROUND

Real-life long-term data on infliximab treatment in ulcerative colitis are limited.

AIM

To study the long-term efficacy and safety of infliximab in chronic active ulcerative colitis and possible predictors of colectomy and response were also examined.

METHODS

A retrospective multi-centre study of infliximab treatment in 250 patients with chronic active ulcerative colitis with inclusion criteria: age ≥18 years, ambulatory treated, steroid-dependent or intolerant and/or immunomodulator refractory or intolerant.

RESULTS

Steroid-free clinical remission was achieved by 123/250 patients (49.2%) at 12 months and in 126/250 patients at a median follow-up of 2.9 years (50.4%). Primary response at 3 months was achieved by 190/250 (76.0%) patients and associated with a high probability of response 168/190 (88.4%) at 12 months and 143/190 (75.3%) at follow-up. Long-term rate of colectomy in primary responders was 6/190 (3.2%) at 12 months and 27/190 (14.2%) at last follow-up. Failure to achieve response at 3 months was associated with a high risk of subsequent colectomy, 29/60 (48.3%) at 12 months and 41/60 (68.3%) at follow-up. Response at 12 months was associated with a low risk of subsequent colectomy, 14/181 (7.7%) compared with non-response 19/34 (55.9%) (P < 0.0001). Non-response at 3 months was an independent predictor of subsequent colectomy (HR = 9.40, 95% CI = 5.10-17.35, P < 0.001). Concomitant azathioprine therapy did not influence outcome in terms of colectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term efficacy of infliximab treatment in chronic active ulcerative colitis is excellent especially in patients who respond to induction treatment. Conversely, non-response at 3 months predicts a poor outcome, with a high risk of subsequent colectomy.

Comparison of the therapeutic efficacy and safety between tacrolimus and infliximab for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: a single center experience

OBJECTIVE

Both tacrolimus (Tac) and infliximab (IFX) are effective for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). The aim of this study was to compare the therapeutic efficacy and safety of both drugs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 46 patients with moderate-to-severe UC who were treated either by Tac (n = 21) or IFX (n = 25). We compared the remission and response rates for 10 weeks between the two groups. In patients who achieved a clinical response, the subsequent relapse rate was compared. The overall adverse events were also compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The remission and response rates at week 10 did not differ between patients treated with Tac (67% and 86%, respectively) and patients treated with IFX (76% and 92%, respectively). Among 41 patients showing a clinical response, eight of 23 patients treated with IFX and eight of 18 patients treated with Tac showed a subsequent relapse. The risk of relapse was not different between the two groups. While no serious adverse events were observed, the incidence of adverse events was higher in patients treated with Tac than in those treated with IFX.

CONCLUSION

Tac and IFX may be equally efficacious for the induction and maintenance of remission in patients with UC while minor adverse events are more frequent with the former treatment.

Mucosal Healing Is Associated With Improved Long-term Outcomes of Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The paradigm for treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC) is shifting from resolving symptoms toward objective measures such as mucosal healing (MH). However, it is unclear whether MH is associated with improved long-term outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify and analyze studies comparing long-term outcomes of patients with MH with those without MH.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of 3 large databases to identify prospective studies of patients with active UC that included outcomes of patients found to have MH at the first endoscopic evaluation after initiation of UC therapy (MH1) compared with those without MH1. The primary outcome was clinical remission after at least 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included proportions of patients who were free of colectomy or corticosteroids and rate of MH after at least 52 weeks.

RESULTS

We analyzed 13 studies comprising 2073 patients with active UC. Patients with MH1 had pooled odds ratio of 4.50 for achieving long-term (after at least 52 weeks) clinical remission (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.12-9.52), 4.15 for remaining free of colectomy (95% CI, 2.53-6.81), 8.40 for achieving long-term MH (95% CI, 3.13-22.53), and 9.70 for achieving long-term corticosteroid-free clinical remission (95% CI, 0.94-99.67), compared with patients without MH1. We found no difference in outcomes if patients achieved MH1 while receiving biologic versus non-biologic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In a meta-analysis, we associated MH with long-term clinical remission, avoidance of colectomy, and corticosteroid-free clinical remission. MH is therefore appropriate goal of UC therapy.

Infliximab in ulcerative colitis: real-life analysis of factors predicting treatment discontinuation due to lack of response or colectomy: ECIA (ACAD Colitis and Infliximab Study)

OBJECTIVE

To describe clinical practice with infliximab (IFX) in ulcerative colitis (UC); identification of predictive factors for IFX treatment discontinuation due to insufficient response and for colectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective, multicentric and observational study including every UC IFX-treated patient in 10 Spanish hospitals. Variables analyzed: epidemiological data; variables for poor prognosis; IFX prior treatments; characteristics of the IFX treatment; time from the UC diagnosis to induction with IFX; time from induction to colectomy or until data collection. Predictive and protective factors for IFX discontinuation due to lack of response and for colectomy were analyzed with binary logistic regression and Cox analysis.

RESULTS

Follow-up time from induction with IFX to the collection of data or colectomy: 36.7 ± 25.7 months. Prior treatment with immunomodulator medications (IMM): 79%; IFX + immunosuppressant therapy: 77%; discontinuation of IFX: 26%, colectomy 16%. Independent predictive or protective factors for IFX discontinuation: IMM resistance (OR: 2.9, p = 0.022, 95% CI: 1.2-7.2), prior use of leukocytapheresis (OR: 3.3, p = 0.024, 95% CI: 1.1-9.4), IFX + IMM therapy (OR: 0.3, p = 0.022, 95% CI: 0.1-0.9, and HR: 0.4, p = 0.006, 95% CI: 0.2-0.8) and corticosteroid use in induction (HR: 1.9, p = 0.049, 95% CI: 1.0-3.8). Independent predictive or protective factors for colectomy: Use of leukocytapheresis (OR: 3.0, p = 0.036, 95% CI: 1.1-8.4), IFX + IMM therapy (OR: 0.3, p = 0.022, 95% CI: 0.1-0.8, and HR: 0.3, p = 0.011, 95% CI: 0.1-0.8) and severe cortico-resistant flare-up (HR: 2.5, p = 0.032, 95% CI: 1.1-5.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Prior use of IMM and leukocytapheresis, the use of corticosteroids in induction and a severe cortico-resistant flare predict a worse response to IFX and the need for colectomy. Combination therapy is a protective factor for both.

Colectomy rates in patients with ulcerative colitis following treatment with infliximab or ciclosporin: a systematic literature review

This review aimed to compile all available published data on colectomy rates following treatment using infliximab or ciclosporin in adult ulcerative colitis patients and to analyse colectomy rates, timing to colectomy and postcolectomy mortality for each treatment. We systematically reviewed the literature after 1990 reporting colectomy rates in ulcerative colitis patients treated with infliximab or ciclosporin, excluding articles on paediatric patients, patients with indeterminate colitis or Crohn's disease and bowel surgery not related to ulcerative colitis. We presented weighted mean colectomy rates and mortality rates. Cox's regression was used to assess time to colectomy adjusting for colitis severity, patient age and sex. We tabulated 78 studies reporting on ciclosporin and/or infliximab and colectomy rates or postcolectomy mortality rates. Not all studies reported data in a standardized manner. Infliximab had a significantly lower colectomy rate than ciclosporin at 36 months when analysing all studies, studies directly comparing infliximab and ciclosporin and studies using severe colitis patients, but not at 3, 12 or 24 months. Severity and age were key indicators in the likelihood of undergoing colectomy after treatment. Postcolectomy mortality rates were less than 1.5% for both drugs. This review indicates that long-term colectomy rates following infliximab are significantly lower than ciclosporin in the longer term, and that postcolectomy mortality following infliximab and ciclosporin is very low. However, many key data items were missing from research articles, reducing our ability to establish with more confidence the actual impact of these two drugs on colectomy rates and postcolectomy mortality rates.

The outcome of infliximab dose doubling in 157 patients with ulcerative colitis after loss of response to infliximab

BACKGROUND

Optimising infliximab therapy is recommended in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients who lose response to infliximab; however, there are no data on the outcome of ulcerative colitis (UC) patients after doubling the dose.

AIM

To determine the efficacy and safety of infliximab dose doubling in UC patients with a loss of response to infliximab.

METHODS

From January 2006 to May 2013, we retrospectively reviewed the outcome of the consecutive UC patients who were treated with infliximab dose doubling (10 mg/kg) for loss of response in four French academic centres. The clinical response and remission were assessed. A composite event-free survival analysis was performed using the log-rank test and the Cox model.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-seven patients [84 males; median age 37. 6 (IQR 28.2-49.4) years] were included. The median follow-up after infliximab dose doubling was 1.8 (1.0-3.1) years. At weeks 8 and 24, 55% and 43% of the patients achieved a clinical response respectively. The probabilities of the event-free survival were 71%, 61% and 55% at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years respectively. In the multivariate analysis, the predictors of infliximab dose doubling failure were the absence of the introduction of an immunomodulator concomitantly to dose doubling, a partial Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index >6, a C-reactive protein level >10 mg/L, a leucocyte count >8000/mm(3) and a haemoglobin level <12.5 g/dL. Adverse events were reported in 12 patients (8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab dose doubling led to short- and long-term event-free survival in UC patients, who had a loss of response to infliximab, in greater than 50% of the cases. The benefits of such a strategy were significantly improved by adding a concomitant immunomodulator.

Clinical outcome of adalimumab therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis previously treated with infliximab: a Danish single-center cohort study

OBJECTIVE

TNF inhibitors are effective in the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Adalimumab (ADL), a fully human TNF inhibitor, is increasingly used both as primary anti-TNF agent and in patients switching from another TNF inhibitor due to treatment failure or side effects. This study investigated clinical outcomes of ADL therapy in a clinical setting where infliximab (IFX) had been used as first choice of anti-TNF agent, and followed by ADL as second line agent.

METHODS

Retrospective, observational single-center cohort study including all ulcerative colitis patients treated with ADL at a tertiary Danish inflammatory bowel disease center until 2014. Clinical outcomes were assessed after 12 and 52 weeks and classified according to physician's global evaluation.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 33 patients. Main reasons for switching from IFX to ADL were infusion reactions to IFX (45%) or IFX treatment failure (33%). Short-term efficacy of ADL after 12 weeks revealed 15 patients (45%) with clinical response, and 6 (18%) in clinical remission. Twenty-three patients continued ADL for more than 12 weeks, and at long-term follow-up after 1 year of ADL treatment, eight of these (34%) had clinical response (24% of the entire cohort) and six (26%) were in clinical remission (18% of the entire cohort). A total of five patients (15%) were colectomized mainly due to primary ADL failure (four of five patients).

CONCLUSION

Efficacy of ADL therapy in ulcerative colitis patients previously treated with IFX appears to be modest in clinical practice, and with higher colectomy rates than reported for anti-TNF-naive patients in the registration trials.

Managing paediatric acute severe ulcerative colitis according to the 2011 ECCO-ESPGHAN guidelines: Efficacy of infliximab as a rescue therapy

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of medical therapy in paediatric acute severe colitis is scarcely described. We aimed to assess the efficacy of infliximab in children prospectively enrolled at Sapienza University of Rome between May 2010 and 2012.

METHODS

Clinical assessment and laboratory data were recorded at admission and at day 3 and 5. All patients received corticosteroids; infliximab was administered in refractory patients. Colectomy rate was assessed at 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients (mean age 10.6±4.9 years, 52% females) were included: 21 responded to corticosteroids (68%), 10 were refractory and received infliximab (32%). Among the latter, 2 required urgent colectomy (20%); 80% responded, however 50% of these required elective colectomy during follow-up. Patients refractory to corticosteroids showed a significantly shorter interval from ulcerative colitis diagnosis to acute severe colitis compared to responders (7.4±9.6 vs. 23.1±21.6 months, respectively; p=0.01), and a higher rate of colectomy at follow-up (50% vs. 14%, respectively; p=0.007). More than 2 courses of corticosteroids before acute severe colitis were predictive of surgical need (OR 4.4).

CONCLUSION

Despite its short-term efficacy, infliximab did not modify the long-term surgical rate of paediatric acute severe colitis in our cohort. Children with an early severe colitis commonly need a second-line therapy, whilst frequent courses of corticosteroids are predictive of a poor outcome.

Surgical management of ulcerative colitis in the era of biologicals

PURPOSE

Proctocolectomy has been a curative option for patients with severe ulcerative colitis. In recent years, there has been a growing use of medical salvage therapy in the management of patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. We aimed at reviewing the role of surgical management in a time of intensified medical management on the basis of published trial data. The aim was to determine the efficacy of aggressive medical versus surgical management in achieving multifaceted treatment goals.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of Pubmed, Medline, the Cochrane database was performed. Abstracts were evaluated for relevance. Selected articles were then reviewed in detail, including references. Recommendations were then drafted based on evidence and conclusions in the selected articles.

RESULTS

The majority of patients with UC will not need surgery. However, steroid-refractoriness and steroid-dependence signal a subset of patients with more challenging disease. Biological therapy has been shown to achieve short-term improvement and temporarily reduce the need for a colectomy. However, there is a substantial financial and medical price to pay because a high fraction of these salvaged patients will still need a curative colectomy but may be exposed to the negative impact of prolonged immunosuppression, chronic illness, and a higher probability to require 3 rather than 2 operations. Proctocolectomy with ileo-anal pouch anastomosis-performed in 1, 2, or 3 steps depending on the patient's condition-remains the surgical procedure of choice. Even though it has its share of possible complications, it has been associated with excellent long-term outcomes and high levels of satisfaction, such that in the majority of patients they become indistinguishable from unaffected normal individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

The current data demonstrate that use of medical salvage therapy in the treatment of UC will likely continue to grow and evolve. Consensus is being developed to better define and predict failure of medical therapy and clarify the role of the different treatment modalities. For many patients, sacrificing the nonresponsive diseased colon is an underused or unnecessarily delayed chance to normalize their health and life. Biologicals in many instances may have to be considered the bridge to that end.

Anti-TNF alpha in the treatment of ulcerative colitis: A valid approach for organ-sparing or an expensive option to delay surgery?

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an inflammatory bowel disease affecting large bowel with variable clinical course. The history of disease has been modified by the introduction of biologic therapy, in particular Infliximab (IFX), that has demonstrated efficacy in inducing fast symptoms remission, promoting mucosal healing and maintaining long-term remission. However, surgery is still needed for UC patients: in case of failure of medical therapy and if acute complications or a malignancy occurred. Surgical treatment is associated with a short-term post-operative mortality and morbidity respectively of 0%-4% and 30%. In this study we systematically analyzed: the role of IFX in reducing the colectomy rate, the risk of post-operative morbidity in pre-operatively IFX-treated patients and the cost-effectiveness of IFX therapy. Four of 5 analyzed randomized controlled trials demonstrated that therapy with IFX significantly reduces the colectomy rate. Moreover, pre-operative treatment with IFX doesn’t seem to increase post-operative infectious complications. By an economic point of view, the cost-effectiveness of IFX-therapy was demonstrated for UC patients suffering from moderate to severe UC in a study based on a cost estimation of the National Health Service of England and Wales. However, the argument is debated.

Outcomes of salvage therapy for steroid-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis: ciclosporin vs. infliximab

BACKGROUND

Up to 40% of patients who present with acute severe ulcerative colitis (UC) fail to make an adequate response to intravenous corticosteroids. Ciclosporin or infliximab are currently employed as salvage therapy in this clinical scenario.

AIM

To compare clinical outcomes in patients treated with ciclosporin or infliximab in the setting of steroid-refractory acute severe UC.

METHODS

A prospective study of 83 consecutive presentations of steroid-refractory acute severe UC from 1999 to 2009 was conducted. All study participants satisfied the Truelove and Witts' criteria for acute severe UC. The primary outcome measures were rates of colectomy at discharge from hospital and at 3 months and 12 months following admission.

RESULTS

Eighty-three steroid-refractory acute severe UC events were generated by 83 patients. Salvage therapy was instituted with ciclosporin in 45 patients and infliximab in the remaining 38 patients. Of those patients who received ≥72 h of ciclosporin (2-4 mg/kg), 56% (24/43) avoided colectomy at the time of discharge, while this figure was 84% (32/38) for those administered one dose of infliximab (5 mg/kg) (P = 0.006). At 3 months, the colectomy-free rate was 53% for ciclosporin (23/43) vs. 76% for infliximab (28/37) (P = 0.04), and 42% (18/43) vs. 65% (24/37) at 12 months (P = 0.04). There were no deaths and two serious adverse events, both occurring in the ciclosporin group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large cohort of patients presenting with acute severe UC, we have observed that infliximab salvage therapy is associated with lower rates of both severe adverse events and colectomy than ciclosporin in the short-term and medium-term.

Infliximab as rescue therapy in hospitalised patients with steroid-refractory acute ulcerative colitis: a long-term follow-up of 211 Swedish patients

BACKGROUND

Rescue therapy with infliximab (IFX) has been proven effective in a steroid-refractory attack of ulcerative colitis (UC). The long-term efficacy is not well described.

AIM

To present a retrospective study of IFX as rescue therapy in UC. Primary end points were colectomy-free survival at 3 and 12 months.

METHODS

In this multicentre study, 211 adult patients hospitalised between 1999 and 2010 received IFX 5 mg/kg as rescue therapy due to a steroid-refractory, moderate-to-severe attack of UC. Exclusion criteria were duration of current flare for >12 weeks, corticosteroid treatment for >8 weeks before hospitalisation, previous IFX therapy or Crohn's disease.

RESULTS

Probability of colectomy-free survival at 3 months was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.64-0.77), at 12 months 0.64 (95% CI, 0.57-0.70), at 3 years 0.59 (95% CI, 0.52-0.66) and at 5 years 0.53 (95% CI, 0.44-0.61). Steroid-free, clinical remission was achieved in 105/211 (50%) and 112/209 (54%) patients at 3 and 12 months respectively. Of 75 colectomies during the first year, 48 (64%) were carried out during the first 14 days, 13 (17%) on days 15-90 and 14 (19%) between 3 and 12 months. There were three (1.4%) deaths during the first 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab is an effective rescue treatment, both short- and long-term, in a steroid-refractory attack of UC. Most IFX failures underwent surgery during the first 14 days, which calls for studies on how to optimise induction treatment with IFX. Serious complications, including mortality, were rare.

Efficacy of infliximab in acute severe ulcerative colitis: A single-centre experience

AIM: To suggest infliximab (IFX) is effective for acute severe ulcerative colitis, from real-life clinical practice.

METHODS: All patients receiving IFX for the treatment of acute severe ulcerative colitis in a single centre were included. Data were extracted from clinical records in order to assess response to IFX therapy. The primary endpoint was colectomy-free survival, and secondary outcomes included glucocorticosteroid-free remission and safety, which was evaluated by recording deaths and adverse events. Demographic and clinical characteristics of those who underwent colectomy and those who were colectomy-free, both at discharge from their index admission, and during follow-up after an initial response to IFX were compared.

RESULTS: Forty-four patients (16 females, mean age 36 years) received IFX between May 2006 and January 2012 for acute severe ulcerative colitis. The median duration of follow-up post-first infusion was 396 d (interquartile range = 173-828 d). There were 21 (47.7%) patients with < 1 year of follow-up, 10 (22.7%) with 1 years to 2 years of follow-up, and 13 (29.5%) with > 2 years of follow-up post-first infusion of IFX. Overall, 35 (79.5%) responded to IFX, avoiding colectomy during their index admission, 29 (65.9%) were colectomy-free at last point of follow-up (median follow-up 396 d), and 25 (56.8%) were in glucocorticosteroid-free remission at end of follow-up. There was one death from post-operative sepsis, 20 d after a single IFX infusion. Colectomy rates were generally lower among those “bridging” to thiopurine. Of 18 patients “bridged” to thiopurine therapy, 17 (94.4%) were colectomy-free, and 15 (83.3%) were in glucocorticosteroid-free remission at study end. No predictors of response were identified.

CONCLUSION: IFX is effective for acute severe ulcerative colitis in real-life clinical practice. Two-thirds of patients avoided colectomy, and more than 50% were in glucocorticosteroid-free remission.

Cyclosporine in patients with severe steroid refractory ulcerative colitis in the era of infliximab. Review article

Corticosteroids are the mainstay of therapy for severe ulcerative colitis. However, at least a third of patients fail to respond and face a colectomy. In these, rescue therapy with cyclosporine or infliximab (IFX), aimed at avoiding surgery, has been used in recent years. Of the two options, infliximab is largely preferred in both Sweden and Norway, whereas cyclosporine (CyA) is generally regarded as difficult to use, rather toxic and showing limited long-term efficacy. In light of some new recent data, herein, we provide an update of the literature in the field. It appears that there are theoretical and practical arguments on each side, and as of today, the choice between IFX or CyA for rescue therapy cannot be made on strong evidence. Thus, the best choice of medical rescue therapy will depend on the results of ongoing RCTs as well as future research in the field.

Incidence of and impact of medications on colectomy in newly diagnosed ulcerative colitis in the era of biologics

BACKGROUND

The cumulative incidence of colectomy and the impact of 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA), azathioprine, and antitumor necrosis factor (TNF) treatment on the long-term need for surgery are unknown in ulcerative colitis (UC) in the era of biologics.

METHODS

This was an observational study of a referral center cohort. The cumulative incidence of UC-related colectomy was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Independent predictors of surgery were identified using Cox proportional hazards regression with propensity scores adjustment. The electronic charts of 151 incident cases of UC from Nancy University Hospital, France, diagnosed between 2000 and 2008, were reviewed through January 2010.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time per patient was 58 months. Twenty-one (14%) underwent surgery. The cumulative probabilities of colectomy were respectively 1.3% and 13.5% at 1 and 5 years from the time of diagnosis. The probability of receiving oral mesalamine at 5 years was 68.1%. The corresponding figures were 48.9% for azathioprine and 29.0% for infliximab. For corticosteroids, methotrexate, and cyclosporin these figures were 75%, 8.8%, and 11.5%, respectively. Using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis after propensity score adjustment, previous use of cyclosporin was the only independent predictor for colectomy (hazard ratio = 4.41; 95% confidence interval 1.75-1.13).

CONCLUSIONS

About one-tenth of patients still require colectomy for UC at 5 years in the era of biologics. Oral 5-ASA, azathioprine, and anti-TNF therapy are not associated with a reduced need for colectomy.

Assessing response and loss of response to biological therapies in IBD

OBJECTIVES

The advent of biological therapies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) began in 1998 with the approval of infliximab for the treatment of refractory (to conventional agents) Crohn's disease (CD). Since then, the indications for anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNFα) therapy have increased to include induction and maintenance of clinical responses and remissions for luminal and fistulizing CD, the treatment of children with CD, and the treatment of adults with ulcerative colitis. Additional utilities of biological therapies have included demonstrable mucosal healing, improvement in quality of life, reduction in surgeries and hospitalizations, and the treatment of extraintestinal manifestations of IBD including central and peripheral arthritis and pyoderma gangrenosum. Natalizumab has also been approved for the treatment of refractory Crohn's in patients who have failed conventional agents and anti-TNFα therapies. Unfortunately, despite the overall effectiveness of biological agents in a spectrum of indications for IBD, a significant proportion of patients do not respond or lose response over time. In this review, we intend to appraise the latest evolution in treatment strategies in IBD and to suggest an evidence-based approach and risk stratification while coping with cases of non-responders or loss of response to biological therapies.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search of English publications listed in the electronic databases of MEDLINE (source PUBMED) and constructed an analytical review based on definitions of response and loss of response, considering potential responsible mechanisms, clinical assessment tools, and finally recommending a practical approach for its prevention and management.

RESULTS

Favorable clinical outcome appears to be the consequence of sustained therapeutic drug levels, and the current literature supports a practice of dose adjustments. When immunogenicity develops to a single biological agent, response can be regained by introduction of an alternative biological agent of the same or different class. Efficacy is reduced with second-line agents either within or across classes compared with naive patients. In the absence of direct measurement of drug levels and anti-drug antibodies, clinical judgment is necessary to assess the mechanisms of loss of response, and more empiric decision making may be necessary to determine the choice of second-line biological agents. Optimal treatment strategies are still controversial.

CONCLUSIONS

It is essential to recognize the spectrum of mechanisms affecting response and loss of response to form a logical and efficient management algorithm, and, perhaps, it is time to incorporate the measurement of trough levels and anti-drug antibodies in the strategy of such an assessment. Prospective controlled trials are direly needed to investigate the optimal tailored management in individual patients who lose response.