Safety profile of Helicobacter pylori eradication treatments: literature review and updated data of the European Registry on Helicobacter pylori management (Hp-EuReg).

INTRODUCTION: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), the most prevalent chronic infection globally, is the major cause of relevant diseases such as gastric cancer, leading to high morbidity and mortality worldwide. Several studies have focused on optimize H. pylori eradication treatment through combination therapies and antibiotic resistance. However, the adverse events profile and its impact, as a primary outcome, remains underexplored.The aim of this review was to summarize the available data on the safety of the most common regimens for H. pylori eradication and its impact on the compliance. AREAS COVERED: This review encompassed the published evidence from the years 2008 to 2023 regarding both the safety and compliance for most common H. pylori eradication regimens. The main sources for this review comprised MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane electronic databases. Furthermore, it included a safety analysis of unpublished data from the European Registry on H. pylori management (Hp-EuReg). EXPERT OPINION: Poor compliance is correlated with significantly lower cure rates, and this is a unique modifiable source of H. pylori treatment failure. Eradication treatments have become complex, involving multiple drugs and dosing intervals. Thus, patient education is crucial; doctors must explain to the patient about potential temporary and most often harmless side effects.

Role of compliance in Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment: Results of the European Registry on H. pylori management.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication treatment is a cornerstone for achieving adequate treatment efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To determine which factors influence compliance with treatment. METHODS: A systematic prospective non-interventional registry (Hp-EuReg) of the clinical practice of European gastroenterologists. Compliance was considered adequate if ≥90% drug intake. Data were collected until September 2021 using the AEG-REDCap e-CRF and were subjected to quality control. Modified intention-to-treat analyses were performed. Multivariate analysis carried out the factors associated with the effectiveness of treatment and compliance. RESULTS: Compliance was inadequate in 646 (1.7%) of 38,698 patients. The non-compliance rate was higher in patients prescribed longer regimens (10-, 14-days) and rescue treatments, patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia/functional dyspepsia, and patients reporting adverse effects. Prevalence of non-adherence was lower for first-line treatment than for rescue treatment (1.5% vs. 2.2%; p < 0.001). Differences in non-adherence in the three most frequent first-line treatments were shown: 1.1% with proton pump inhibitor + clarithromycin + amoxicillin; 2.3% with proton pump inhibitor clarithromycin amoxicillin metronidazole; and 1.8% with bismuth quadruple therapy. These treatments were significantly more effective in compliant than in non-compliant patients: 86% versus 44%, 90% versus 71%, and 93% versus 64%, respectively (p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, the variable most significantly associated with higher effectiveness was adequate compliance (odds ratio, 6.3 [95%CI, 5.2-7.7]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment is very good. Factors associated with poor compliance include uninvestigated/functional dyspepsia, rescue-treatment, prolonged treatment regimens, the presence of adverse events, and the use of non-bismuth sequential and concomitant treatment. Adequate treatment compliance was the variable most closely associated with successful eradication.

Poor prognostic factors of pharmacokinetic origin predict outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor-α.

Introduction: We evaluated baseline Clearance of anti-tumor necrosis factors and human leukocyte antigen variant (HLA DQA1*05) in combination as poor prognostic factors (PPF) of pharmacokinetic (PK) origin impacting immune response (formation of antidrug antibodies) and disease control of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients treated with infliximab or adalimumab. Methods: Baseline Clearance was estimated in IBD patients before starting treatment using weight and serum albumin concentrations. HLA DQA1*05 carrier status (rs2097432 A/G or G/G variant) was measured using real time polymerase chain reaction. The outcomes consisted of immune response, clinical and biochemical remission (C-reactive protein<3 mg/L in the absence of symptoms), and endoscopic remission (SES-CD<3). Statistical analysis consisted of logistic regression and nonlinear mixed effect models. Results and discussion: In 415 patients enrolled from 4 different cohorts (median age 27 [IQR: 15-43] years, 46% females), Clearance>0.326 L/day and HLA DQA1*05 carrier status were 2-fold more likely to have antidrug antibodies (OR=2.3, 95%CI: 1.7-3.4; p<0.001, and OR=1.9, 95%CI: 1.4-2.8; p<0.001, respectively). Overall, each incremental PPF of PK origin resulted in a 2-fold (OR=2.16, 95%CI: 1.7-2.7; p<0.11) [corrected] higher likelihood of antidrug antibody formation. The presence of both PPF of PK origin resulted in higher rates of antidrug antibodies (p<0.01) and lower clinical and biochemical remission (p<0.01). Each incremental increase in PPF of PK origin associated with lower likelihood of endoscopic remission (OR=0.4, 95%CI: 0.2-0.7; p<0.001). Prior biologic experience heightened the negative impact of PPF of PK origin on clinical and biochemical remission (p<0.01). Implementation of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring reduced it, particularly during maintenance and in the presence of higher drug concentrations (p<0.001). We conclude that PPF of PK origin, including both higher Clearance and carriage of HLA DQA1*05, impact outcomes in patients with IBD.

Comparative maintenance performance of all biologic agents and small molecules in ulcerative colitis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Βiologic agents and small molecules have expanded the therapeutic armamentarium of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). However, their comparative efficacy and safety performance as maintenance treatments have not been sufficiently explored. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NWM) to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of all approved and emerging treatments for maintenance in moderate to severe UC. METHODS: We searched Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant RCTs through April 2023. The primary endpoint was clinical remission at the end of the maintenance therapy. Data were analyzed by means of a Bayesian NWM. The ranking probability concerning efficacy and safety was evaluated by means of surfaces under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values. RESULTS: There were 20 eligible RCTs with 7660 patients randomized to 20 treatments. RCTs were grouped into two study designs, that is, re-randomization of patients after an induction period and treat-through patients. Concerning efficacy, in re-randomized patients, upadacitinib 30 mg/day was ranked first (SUCRA 94.9%) whereas in treat-through patients etrasimod 2 mg/day was ranked first (SUCRA 91.1%). The integrated efficacy-safety hierarchical analysis, showed that tofacitinib 10 mg had the best efficacy-safety therapeutic profile in re-randomized patients, whereas in treat-through patients infliximab 3.5 mg/Kg Q8W showed the best efficacy-safety profile. CONCLUSION: For maintenance treatment, in moderate to severe UC, this NWM showed that upadacitinib 30 mg/day and etrasimod 2 mg/day were ranked best for efficacy in re-randomized and treat-through patients respectively. Tofacitinib 10 mg/day and infliximab 3.5 mg/Kg Q8W showed the best efficacy-safety therapeutic profile in re-randomized and treat-through patients respectively.

Effectiveness and safety of a third-line rescue treatment for acute severe ulcerative colitis refractory to infliximab or ciclosporin (REASUC study).

BACKGROUND: The advent of new therapeutic agents and the improvement of supporting care might change the management of acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) and avoid colectomy. AIMS: To evaluate the colectomy-free survival and safety of a third-line treatment in patients with ASUC refractory to intravenous steroids and who failed either infliximab or ciclosporin. METHODS: Multicentre retrospective cohort study of patients with ASUC refractory to intravenous steroids who had failed infliximab or ciclosporin and received a third-line treatment during the same hospitalisation. Patients who stopped second-line treatment due to disease activity or adverse events (AEs) were eligible. We assessed short-term colectomy-free survival by logistic regression analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models were used for long-term assessment. RESULTS: Among 78 patients, 32 received infliximab and 46 ciclosporin as second-line rescue treatment. Third-line treatment was infliximab in 45 (58%), ciclosporin in 17 (22%), tofacitinib in 13 (17%) and ustekinumab in 3 (3.8%). Colectomy was performed in 29 patients (37%) during follow-up (median 21 weeks). Of the 78 patients, 32 and 18 were in clinical remission at, respectively, 12 and 52 weeks. At the last visit, 25 patients were still on third-line rescue treatment, while 12 had stopped it due to clinical remission. AEs were reported in 26 (33%) patients. Two patients died (2.6%), including one following colectomy. CONCLUSION: Third-line rescue treatment avoided colectomy in over half of the patients with ASUC and may be considered a therapeutic strategy.

Corrigendum: Poor prognostic factors of pharmacokinetic origin predict outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor-α.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1342477.].

Genetic biomarkers of methotrexate response and safety in Crohn's disease: Data from the Spanish ENEIDA registry.

AIMS: Methotrexate (MTX) is used to induce and maintain remission in patients with steroid-dependent Crohn's disease (CD). Despite its proven efficacy, its use is limited due to associated adverse events. Polymorphisms involving folate pathway genes might influence MTX efficacy and toxicity. We aimed to assess the impact of certain polymorphisms on the therapeutic outcomes of MTX in CD. METHODS: Patients with CD who exclusively followed MTX monotherapy and fulfilled inclusion criteria were identified from the GETECCU ENEIDA registry. Variants of ATIC, DHFR, MTHFR, SLC19A1, ABCB1 and ABCC3 genes were analysed and their association with efficacy and toxicity was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients were included in the analysis. MTX was used at a median weekly dose of 25 mg (interquartile range, 15-25 mg) and a median time of 14 months (interquartile range, 4-52 months). Thirty-seven percent of the patients achieved disease remission with MTX monotherapy, while 34% were nonresponders (MTX failure). MTX-related toxicity occurred in 40 patients (30%), leading to MTX discontinuation in 19%. DHFR rs408626 (odds ratio [OR] 3.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-7.69; P = .017) and MTHFR rs1801133 (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.23-6.68; P = .015) variants, and smoking (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.12-6.05; P = .026) were associated with a higher risk of MTX failure. Additionally, the MTHFR rs1801131 variant was associated with a higher risk of MTX-related adverse effects (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.26-6.13, P = .011). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that variants of MTHFR and DHFR genes may be associated with MTX efficacy and adverse events in patients with CD.

Comparison between tofacitinib and ustekinumab as a third-line therapy in refractory ulcerative colitis: A multicenter international study.

BACKGROUND: Ustekinumab and tofacitinib have recently been approved for the management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). However, there is no evidence on how they should be positioned in the therapeutic algorithm. The aim of this study was to compare tofacitinib and ustekinumab as third-line therapies in UC patients in whom anti-TNF and vedolizumab had failed. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective observational study. The primary outcome was disease progression, defined as the need for steroids, therapy escalation, UC-related hospitalization and/or surgery. Secondary outcomes were clinical remission, normalization of C-reactive protein, endoscopic remission, treatment withdrawal, and adverse events. RESULTS: One-hundred seventeen UC patients were included in the study and followed for a median time of 11.6 months (q1 -q3, 5.5-18.7). Overall, 65% of patients were treated with tofacitinib and 35% with ustekinumab. In the entire study cohort, 63 patients (54%) had disease progression during the follow-up period. Treatment with ustekinumab predicted increased risk of disease progression compared to treatment with tofacitinib in Cox regression analysis (HR: 1.93 [95% CI: 1.06-3.50] p = 0.030). Twenty-eight (68%) patients in the ustekinumab group and 35 (46%) in the tofacitinib group had disease progression over the follow-up period (log-rank test, p < 0.054). No significant differences were observed for the secondary outcomes. Six and 22 adverse events occurred in the ustekinumab and tofacitinib groups, respectively (15% vs. 31%, p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib was more efficacious in reducing disease progression than ustekinumab in this cohort of refractory UC patients. However, prospective head-to-head clinical trials are needed as to confirm these data.

Sequential versus Standard Triple Therapy for First-Line Helicobacter pylori Eradication: An Update.

BACKGROUND: non-bismuth sequential therapy (SEQ) was suggested as a first-line anti-Helicobacter pylori treatment alternative to standard triple therapy (STT). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of 10-day SEQ vs. STT (of at least 7 days) using bibliographical searches up to July 2021, including treatment-naïve adult or children. The intention-to-treat (ITT) eradication rate and the risk difference (RD) were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 69 RCTs were evaluated, including 19,657 patients (9486 in SEQ; 10,171 in STT). Overall, SEQ was significantly more effective than STT (82% vs. 75%; RD 0.08; p < 0.001). The results were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 68%), and 38 studies did not demonstrate differences between therapies. Subgroup analyses suggested that patients with clarithromycin resistance only and all geographical areas but South America could benefit more from SEQ. Both therapies have evolved over the years, showing similar results when STT lasted 14 days; however, a tendency toward lower SEQ efficacy was noted from 2010 onwards. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to 2010, SEQ was significantly more effective than STT, notably when 7-day STT was prescribed. A tendency toward lower differences between SEQ and STT has been noted, especially when using 10-day STT. None of the therapies achieved an optimal efficacy and therefore cannot be recommended as a valid first-line H. pylori treatment.

Pragmatic trial design to compare real-world effectiveness of different treatments for inflammatory bowel diseases: the PRACTICE-IBD European consensus.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pragmatic studies designed to test interventions in everyday clinical settings can successfully complement the evidence from registration and explanatory clinical trials. The European consensus project PRACTICE-IBD was developed to identify essential criteria and address key methodological issues needed to design valid comparative pragmatic studies in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). METHODS: Statements were issued by a panel of 11 European experts in IBD management and trial methodology on four main topics: (I) study design; (II) eligibility, recruitment and organization, flexibility; (III) outcomes; (IV) analysis. The consensus process followed a modified Delphi approach, involving two rounds of assessment and rating of the level of agreement (1 to 9; cut-off ≥7 for approval) with the statements by 18 additional European experts in IBD. RESULTS: At the first voting round, 25 out of the 26 statements reached a mean score ≥7. Following the discussion that preceded the second round of voting, it was decided to eliminate two statements and to split one into two. At the second voting round, 25 final statements were approved: 7 for study design, 6 for eligibility, recruitment and organization, flexibility, 8 for outcomes, and 4 for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Pragmatic randomized clinical trials can address important questions in IBD clinical practice, and may provide complementary high-level evidence, as long as they follow a methodologically rigorous approach. These 25 statements intend to offer practical guidance in the design of high-quality pragmatic clinical trials that can aid decision making in choosing a management strategy for IBDs.

Helicobacter pylori Eradication Treatment in Older Patients.

Helicobacter pylori is the main etiopathogenetic factor of chronic gastritis, peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer. The world's population is shifting towards older people, who have the highest prevalence of H. pylori. Aging-related peculiarities could have an impact on the treatment of H. pylori and there is still a lack of research data in the older population. The aim of this review was to summarize the findings of the most recent information, publications and studies on the issues relating to H. pylori infection in older patients. H. pylori eradication offers gastrointestinal and extra gastrointestinal benefits in older patients. Based on the main guidelines, H. pylori should be eradicated independent of the patient's age, only reconsidering cases with terminal illness and low life expectancy. Proton pump inhibitors are generally safe and well tolerated. Some antibiotics require dose adjustment only in advanced renal insufficiency and the risk of hepatotoxicity is very low. Special precautions should be taken in patients with polypharmacy and those taking aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In older patients, H. pylori eradication treatment frequently causes only mild and short-term adverse events; however, treatment compliance is usually still very good. H. pylori treatment in older patients does not increase the risk of Clostridium difficile infection. Optimal eradication effectiveness (> 90%) is mostly achieved with bismuth- and non-bismuth-based quadruple therapies. Susceptibility-guided treatment of H. pylori can contribute to increasing the effectiveness of eradication regimens in older adults. To achieve optimal H. pylori eradication effectiveness in older patients, the same guidelines, which are applied to adults, also apply to this population: avoiding repetitive treatment prescriptions, choosing quadruple therapies, prescribing longer treatment duration and administering high-dose proton pump inhibitors twice daily.

Clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with two consecutive anti-TNF agents: data from the ENEIDA registry.

Background: Infliximab seems to be the most efficacious of the three available anti-TNF agents for ulcerative colitis (UC) but little is known when it is used as the second anti-TNF. Objectives: To compare the clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in UC patients. Design: Retrospective observational study. Methods: Patients from the ENEIDA registry treated consecutively with infliximab and a subcutaneous anti-TNF (or vice versa), naïve to other biological agents, were identified and grouped according to the administration route of the first anti-TNF into IVi (intravenous initially) or SCi (subcutaneous initially). Results: Overall, 473 UC patients were included (330 IVi and 143 SCi). Clinical response at week 14 was 42.7% and 48.3% in the IVi and SCi groups (non-statistically significant), respectively. Clinical remission rates at week 52 were 32.8% and 31.4% in the IVi and SCi groups (nonsignificant differences), respectively. A propensity-matched score analysis showed a higher clinical response rate at week 14 in the SCi group and higher treatment persistence in the IVi group. Regarding long-term outcomes, dose escalation and discontinuation due to the primary failure of the first anti-TNF and more severe disease activity at the beginning of the second anti-TNF were inversely associated with clinical remission. Conclusion: The use of a second anti-TNF for UC seems to be reasonable in terms of efficacy, although it is particularly reduced in the case of the primary failure of the first anti-TNF. Whether the second anti-TNF is infliximab or subcutaneous does not seem to affect efficacy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in UC patients. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. METHODS: Patients from the ENEIDA registry treated consecutively with infliximab and a subcutaneous anti-TNF (or vice versa), naïve to other biological agents, were identified and grouped according to the administration route of the first anti-TNF into IVi (intravenous initially) or SCi (subcutaneous initially). RESULTS: Overall, 473 UC patients were included (330 IVi, 143 SCi). Clinical response at week 14 was 42.7% and 48.3% in the IVi and SCi groups (non-statistically significant), respectively. Clinical remission rates at week 52 were 32.8% and 31.4%, in the IVi and SCi groups (nonsignificant differences), respectively. A propensity-matched score analysis showed a higher clinical response rate at week 14 in the SCi group and higher treatment persistence in the IVi group. Regarding long-term outcomes, dose escalation and discontinuation due to the primary failure of the first anti-TNF and more severe disease activity at the beginning of the second anti-TNF were inversely associated with clinical remission. CONCLUSION: The use of a second anti-TNF for UC seems to be reasonable in terms of efficacy, although it is particularly reduced in the case of the primary failure of the first anti-TNF. Whether the second anti-TNF is infliximab or subcutaneous does not seem to affect efficacy.

Clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with two consecutive anti-TNF agents. Data from the ENEIDA registry Background: Infliximab seems to be the most efficacious of the three available anti-TNF agents for ulcerative colitis (UC), but little is known when it is used as the second anti-TNF.

IMPACT OF MESALAZINE ON THE RESPONSE TO COVID-19 VACCINATION IN PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE. RESULTS OF A PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTRE STUDY OF GETECCU (VACOVEII STUDY). / IMPACTO DE LA MESALAZINA EN LA RESPUESTA A LA VACUNACIÓN CONTRA EL COVID-19 EN PACIENTES CON ENFERMEDAD INFLAMATORIA INTESTINAL. RESULTADOS DE UN ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVO MULTICÉNTRICO DE GETECCU (VACOVEII).

OBJECTIVE: the recommendations of the Spanish Ministry of Health on vaccination in risk groups include mesalazine among the treatments with a possible negative effect on its effectiveness. However, this is not the recommendation of most experts. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of mesalazine on the humoral response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: VACOVEII is a Spanish, prospective, multicenter study promoted by GETECCU, which evaluates the effectiveness of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with IBD. This study includes IBD patients who have recieved the full vaccination schedule and without previous COVID-19 infection. Seroconversion was set at 260 BAU/mL (centralized determination) and was assessed 6 months after full vaccination. In this subanalysis of the study, we compare the effectivenes of the vaccine between patients treated with mesalazine and patients without treatment. RESULTS: A total of 124 patients without immunosuppressive therapy were included, of which 32 did not receive any treatment and 92 received only mesalazine. Six months after full vaccination, no significant differences are observed in the mean concentrations of IgG anti-S between both groups. In the multivariate analysis, antibody titers were independently associated with the use of mRNA vaccines and with SARS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSION: Mesalazine does not have a negative effect on the response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in IBD patients.

Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Safety of Ustekinumab for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate ustekinumab efficacy, effectiveness, and safety as a treatment for ulcerative colitis in adult patients. METHODS: A systematic review of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of ustekinumab in ulcerative colitis was carried out. The search was conducted via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of studies and extracted study data. RESULTS: Of the 892 studies identified, 17 were included: 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT), 3 long-term extensions, and 13 observational studies. In the randomized clinical trial evaluating efficacy at week 8, clinical remission was achieved in 16% of patients, whereas clinical response was achieved in 51% and 62% of patients who received intravenous ustekinumab at a dose of 130 mg and 6 mg/kg, respectively. At 3 years' follow-up, symptomatic remission was achieved in 68% of patients. On the other hand, the effectiveness of ustekinumab was evaluated in 13 observational studies. In these studies, clinical remission at induction was achieved in 24% to 61% of cases, whereas clinical response at induction was achieved in 47% to 77% of cases. Moreover, clinical remission was achieved in 33% to 79% of cases at 52 weeks of follow-up. The adverse events ranged from 2.6% to 77% of all the studies that reported safety data. Adverse events leading to discontinuation ranged from 2.6% to 8.1%, and serious adverse events were uncommon and ranged from 3.7% to 6.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Ustekinumab has demonstrated efficacy (in RCTs), effectiveness (in real clinical practice), and safety for the treatment of ulcerative colitis.

This systematic review concluded that for the treatment of ulcerative colitis, ustekinumab has not only demonstrated efficacy in randomized controlled trials (and their extension studies) but also effectiveness and safety in observational studies from real clinical practice.

Headache in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: Migraine prevalence according to the Migraine Screening-Questionnaire (MS-Q) and headache characteristics.

BACKGROUND: The gut-brain axis describes a complex bidirectional association between neurological and gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. In patients with migraine, GI comorbidities are common. We aimed to evaluate the presence of migraine among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) according to Migraine Screen-Questionnaire (MS-Q) and describe the headache characteristics compared to a control group. Additionally, we explored the relationship between migraine and IBD severities. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study through an online survey including patients from the IBD Unit at our tertiary hospital. Clinical and demographic variables were collected. MS-Q was used for migraine evaluation. Headache disability scale HIT-6, anxiety-depression scale HADS, sleep scale ISI, and activity scale Harvey-Bradshaw and Partial Mayo scores were also included. RESULTS: We evaluated 66 IBD patients and 47 controls. Among IBD patients, 28/66 (42%) were women, mean age 42 years and 23/66 (34.84%) had ulcerative colitis. MS-Q was positive in 13/49 (26.5%) of IBD patients and 4/31 (12.91%) controls (p=0.172). Among IBD patients, headache was unilateral in 5/13 (38%) and throbbing in 10/13 (77%). Migraine was associated with female sex (p=0.006), lower height (p=0.003) and weight (p=0.002), anti-TNF treatment (p=0.035). We did not find any association between HIT-6 and IBD activity scales scores. CONCLUSIONS: Migraine presence according to MS-Q could be higher in patients with IBD than controls. We recommend migraine screening in these patients, especially in female patients with lower height and weight and anti-TNF treatment.

Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of Vedolizumab Versus Ustekinumab After Anti-TNF Failure in Crohn's Disease (Versus-CD): Data from the ENEIDA Registry.

BACKGROUND: Both vedolizumab and ustekinumab are approved for the management of Crohn's disease [CD]. Data on which one would be the most beneficial option when anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] agents fail are limited. AIMS: To compare the durability, effectiveness, and safety of vedolizumab and ustekinumab after anti-TNF failure or intolerance in CD. METHODS: CD patients from the ENEIDA registry who received vedolizumab or ustekinumab after anti-TNF failure or intolerance were included. Durability and effectiveness were evaluated in both the short and the long term. Effectiveness was defined according to the Harvey-Bradshaw index [HBI]. The safety profile was compared between the two treatments. The propensity score was calculated by the inverse probability weighting method to balance confounder factors. RESULTS: A total of 835 patients from 30 centres were included, 207 treated with vedolizumab and 628 with ustekinumab. Dose intensification was performed in 295 patients. Vedolizumab [vs ustekinumab] was associated with a higher risk of treatment discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR] 2.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.02-3.21), adjusted by corticosteroids at baseline [HR 1.27; 95% CI: 1.00-1.62], moderate-severe activity in HBI [HR 1.79; 95% CI: 1.20-2.48], and high levels of C-reactive protein at baseline [HR 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02-1.10]. The inverse probability weighting method confirmed these results. Clinical response, remission, and corticosteroid-free clinical remission were higher with ustekinumab than with vedolizumab. Both drugs had a low risk of adverse events with no differences between them. CONCLUSION: In CD patients who have failed anti-TNF agents, ustekinumab seems to be superior to vedolizumab in terms of durability and effectiveness in clinical practice. The safety profile is good and similar for both treatments.