Prevalence of Immunomodulator Use as Combination Therapy With Vedolizumab or Ustekinumab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

INTRODUCTION: The benefit of adding an immunomodulator to vedolizumab and ustekinumab remains unclear and may compromise the safety of these biologics. We evaluated the prevalence and predictors of immunomodulator use with vedolizumab or ustekinumab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease in a large longitudinal cohort. METHODS: Clinical information was ascertained from electronic medical records of patients enrolled in TARGET-IBD, a prospective longitudinal observational cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) at 34 sites. The prevalence of immunomodulator use with vedolizumab, ustekinumab, and antitumor necrosis factor therapies and predictors of immunomodulator use with vedolizumab and ustekinumab were estimated. Rates of combination therapy were additionally stratified by time from drug approval. RESULTS: Four thousand thirty-nine adults with IBD were identified, of whom 18.8% were treated with vedolizumab and 13.0% were treated with ustekinumab. Combination therapy with vedolizumab and ustekinumab exceeded 30% (30.7% and 36.2%, respectively) and was more likely in those with perianal disease or previous biologic exposure. Age and presence of extraintestinal manifestations did not consistently predict the use of an immunomodulator. Combination therapy decreased in the years after drug approval. DISCUSSION: Combination therapy with vedolizumab or ustekinumab was common and was associated with perianal disease and greater exposure to other biologics, although the practice is decreasing with time. Further data are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of combination therapy in patients initiating vedolizumab or ustekinumab for IBD.

Objective disease activity assessment and therapeutic drug monitoring prior to biologic therapy changes in routine inflammatory bowel disease clinical practice: TARGET-IBD.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment paradigms recommend objective disease activity assessment and reactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) prior to changes in biologic therapy. We aimed to describe objective marker and TDM assessment in routine clinical practice prior to biologic therapeutic changes in adult IBD patients. METHODS: TARGET-IBD is a prospective longitudinal cohort of over 2100 IBD patients receiving usual care at 34 US academic or community centers enrolled between June 2017 and October 2019 who received biologic therapy and had a dose change or biologic discontinuation for lack of efficacy. Objective markers of disease activity within 12 weeks prior included fecal calprotectin, C-reactive protein (CRP), endoscopy, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). TDM data for infliximab or adalimumab was obtained. RESULTS: 525 patients (71.4% Crohn's disease [CD], 28.6% ulcerative colitis [UC]) receiving biologic therapy underwent dose change (55.6%) or discontinuation (44.4%) for lack of efficacy. The majority were Caucasian (85.7%), 18-39 years old (52.2%), privately insured (81.5%), and at academic centers (73.7%). For dose changes, 67.5% had at least one objective disease activity assessment or TDM in the 12 weeks prior (CD 67.9%, UC 66.2%; P = 0.79). The most common objective marker was CRP in both CD (39.1%) and UC (54.5%). CRP and calprotectin were used significantly more in UC (P = 0.02 and P = 0.03). TDM was obtained in 30.7% (28.8% UC, 31.4% CD; P = 0.72) prior to dose change. For biologic discontinuation, 79.4% patients underwent objective assessment or TDM prior. In CD, CRP (46.3%) was most common, and CT (P = 0.03) and MRI (P < 0.001) were significantly more frequent than in UC. TDM was performed in 40.1% of patients (43.5% UC, 38.0% CD, P = 0.49) prior to discontinuation. Among all participants with dose change or discontinuation, endoscopy was performed in 29.3% with CD and 31.3% with UC. Academic care setting was associated with objective assessment before therapy change (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01-2.50). CONCLUSION: Nearly one-third of patients undergoing a biologic dose change or discontinuation do not undergo objective disease activity assessment or TDM. Assessment choice differs by disease. Future studies assessing the impact of such practices on long-term outcomes are needed.

Older Adult Patients Use More Aminosalicylate Monotherapy Compared With Younger Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: TARGET-IBD.

GOAL: The goal of this study was to describe medication utilization patterns in older inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. BACKGROUND: Despite a growing population of older patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), questions remain regarding medication utilization patterns in comparison to younger populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected data from the 34 sites in TARGET-IBD, a multicenter, observational cohort. The primary outcome in this study was the IBD-specific therapy utilized among older patients with IBD compared with younger age groups. Therapy use was analyzed using pairwise comparisons and then the odds of IBD-specific therapy use among patients older than age 65 were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: We identified 2980 patients with IBD (61% CD). In multivariable analysis, younger patients with UC were significantly less likely to utilize aminosalicylate monotherapy when compared with patients above 65 years [age 18 to 29: adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.78]. In patients with CD, younger patients were significantly less likely to use aminosalicylate monotherapy when compared with patients above 65 (greatest difference age 18 to 29: aOR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.18-0.52). Younger patients with CD and UC were significantly more likely to use anti-tumor necrosis factor monotherapy than patients above 65 years (age 18 to 29: aOR=3.87, 95% CI: 2.47-6.06 and aOR=2.68, 95% CI: 1.29-5.58, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with IBD demonstrate significant differences in medication utilization, including more aminosalicylate monotherapy and less anti-tumor necrosis factor monotherapy compared with younger age groups. Given the aging population in the United States, these utilization patterns may have long-term implications for disease control.

Prevalence and Factors Associated With Statin Use Among Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in the TARGET-NASH Study.

Patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Hydoxy-3-methyglutaryl-coenzyme reductase inhibitors, statins, reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.1 Studies have shown that statins are safe among patients with liver disease, including those with compensated cirrhosis,2 and their use is associated with lower mortality, hepatic decompensation, and possibly hepatocellular carcinoma.3,4 Despite these data, statins are under prescribed among patients with liver disease due to concerns about hepatotoxicity.5 This study aimed to assess prevalence and patient factors associated with indicated statin use in patients with NAFLD in a real-world cohort.

Methodology and Initial Results From a Real-World Observational Cohort of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: TARGET-IBD.

Background: Data on care patterns for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from large-scale, diverse clinical cohorts in real-world practice are sparse. We developed a real-world cohort of patients receiving care at academic and community sites, for comparative study of therapies and natural history of IBD. Methods: We describe novel methodology of central abstraction of clinical data into a real-world IBD registry with patient reported outcomes (PROs). Baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, healthcare utilization, and disease metrics were assessed. Bivariate statistics were used to compare demographic and clinical data by Crohn disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) and site of care (academic, community). Results: In 1 year, 1343 IBD patients (60.1% CD, 38.9% UC) were recruited from 27 academic (49.5%) and community (50.5%) sites, exceeding expectations (110% enrolled). Most participants also consented to provide PROs (59.5%) or biosamples (85.7%). Overall, 48.7% of the cohort provided a baseline PRO, and 62.6% provided a biosample. Compared to UC, CD subjects had higher prior (34.1% CD vs 7.7% UC; P < 0.001) and current (72.1% vs 47.9%; P < 0.001) biologic utilization. CD participants from academic sites had more complicated disease than those from community sites (62.5% vs 46.8% stricturing/penetrating; 33.5% vs 27% perianal; 36.8% vs 14.5% prior biologic, respectively). Nearly all (90.4%) participants had endoscopic data of whom 37.7% were in remission. One-year retention was 98.4%. Conclusions: Centralized data abstraction and electronic PRO capture provided efficient recruitment into a large real-world observational cohort. This novel platform provides a resource for clinical outcomes and comparative effectiveness research in IBD.