Real-World Effectiveness of Ustekinumab in Ulcerative Colitis in a United States Multicenter Cohort Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Pivotal trials have shown that ustekinumab is effective in ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the population included in these trials do not represent the cohort of patients treated in the real world. In this study, we aimed to describe the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in a clinical cohort of patients with UC. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study and included patients with active UC starting ustekinumab. Variables collected included demographics, clinical data, and disease activity (measured using partial Mayo score [PMS] and endoscopic Mayo score) at follow-up. The primary outcomes were cumulative rates of steroid-free clinical and biochemical remission (SFCBR), defined as a PMS <2 while off steroids and a normal C-reactive protein and/or fecal calprotectin. RESULTS: A total of 245 patients met inclusion criteria. The median time of follow-up was 33 (interquartile range, 17-53) weeks, and 214 (87.3%) had previous exposure to a biologic and/or tofacitinib. Rates of SFCBR, clinical remission, and endoscopic remission at 6 and 12 months were 12.0% (n = 16 of 139), 29.0% (n = 71 of 175), and 18.0% (n = 7 of 39), and 23.8% (n = 15 of 63), 54.3% (n = 57 of 105), and 31.0% (n = 9 of 29), respectively. Non-Hispanic White race, higher baseline PMS, and the use of concomitant corticosteroids were independently associated with failure to achieve SFCBR. Of the 73 that were dose escalated, 28.4% did not respond, 49.3% experienced a benefit, and 21.6% achieved remission. CONCLUSIONS: In a population enriched with refractory UC, ustekinumab was well tolerated and induced remission in a significant number of patients. Larger studies with a longer follow-up are warranted.

Ustekinumab was shown to be efficacious and safe in a population of patients with refractory ulcerative colitis. Those patients with exposure to multiple drug classes and higher disease burden at baseline are less likely to respond.

Idiopathic myointimal hyperplasia of the mesenteric veins: A systematic review and individual patient data regression analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Idiopathic myointimal hyperplasia of the mesenteric veins (IMHMV) is an uncommon cause of colonic ischemia for which surgical treatment is typically curative. We describe clinical, radiologic, and endoscopic findings in IMHMV patients to provide clinicians with a framework for pre-surgical identification of this rare disease. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of seven databases for IMHMV cases and identified additional cases from Yale New Haven Hospital records. To identify features specifically associated with colonic ischemia due to IMHMV, we performed multivariate logistic regression analysis incorporating data from a large cohort of patients with biopsy-proven ischemic colitis. RESULTS: A total of 124 patients with IMHMV were identified (80% male, mean age 53 years, 56% Caucasian). Presenting symptoms were most commonly abdominal pain (86%) and diarrhea (68%). The most affected areas were the sigmoid colon (91%) and rectum (61%). Complications associated with diagnostic delay occurred in 29% of patients. Radiologic vascular abnormalities including non-opacification of the inferior mesenteric vein were observed in 35% of patients. Of the patients, 97% underwent curative surgical resection. Compared with non-IMHMV colonic ischemia, IMHMV was significantly associated with younger age, male sex, absence of rectal bleeding on presentation, rectal involvement, and mucosal ulcerations on endoscopy. CONCLUSION: IMHMV is a rare, underreported cause of colonic ischemia that predominantly involves the rectosigmoid. Our findings suggest younger age, rectal involvement, and absence of rectal bleeding as clinical features to help identify select patients presenting with colonic ischemia as having higher likelihood of IMHMV and therefore consideration of upfront surgical management.

Rare, Overlooked, or Underappreciated Causes of Recurrent Abdominal Pain: A Primer for Gastroenterologists.

Recurrent abdominal pain is a common reason for repeated visits to outpatient clinics and emergency departments, reflecting a substantial unmet need for timely and accurate diagnosis. A lack of awareness of some of the rarer causes of recurrent abdominal pain may impede diagnosis and delay effective management. This article identifies some of the key rare but diagnosable causes that are frequently missed by gastroenterologists and provides expert recommendations to support recognition, diagnosis, and management with the ultimate aim of improving patient outcomes.

Systematic Review With Meta-analysis: Safety and Effectiveness of Combining Biologics and Small Molecules in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Background: Combining biologics and small molecules could potentially overcome the plateau of drug efficacy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and effectiveness of dual biologic therapy (DBT), or small molecule combined with a biologic therapy (SBT) in IBD patients. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Clinical trials.gov until November 3, 2020, including studies with 2 or more IBD patients on DBT or SBT. Main outcome was safety assessed as pooled rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) for each combination. Effectiveness was reported as pooled rates of clinical, endoscopic, and/or radiographic response and remission. The certainty of evidence was rated according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Results: Of the 3688 publications identified, 13 studies (1 clinical trial, 12 observational studies) involving 266 patients on 7 different combinations were included. Median number of prior biologics ranged from 0 to 4, and median duration of follow-up was 16-68 weeks. Most common DBT and SBT were vedolizumab (VDZ) with anti-tumor necrosis factor (aTNF, n = 56) or tofacitinib (Tofa, n = 57), respectively. Pooled rates of SAE for these were 9.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-21.4) for VDZ-aTNF and 1.0% (95% CI, 0.0-7.6) for Tofa-VDZ. The overall certainty of evidence was very low due to the observational nature of the studies, and very serious imprecision and inconsistency. Conclusions: DBT or SBT appears to be generally safe and may be effective in IBD patients, but the evidence is very uncertain.

Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Tofacitinib in Crohn's Disease and IBD-U: A Multicenter Study From the TROPIC Consortium.

The safety and efficacy of tofacitinib in Crohn's disease (CD) has been studied in 2 phase II trials in patients with moderate-to-severe CD with no new safety signals observed, but no significant difference from placebo in the primary efficacy endpoint of clinical response.1-3 However, post hoc analyses and smaller studies have observed clinical and biologic response to tofacitinib in patients with CD.2,4,5 There is a paucity of real-world effectiveness and safety data for tofacitinib in non-Food and Drug Administration label usage in patients with CD and patients with inflammatory bowel disease-unclassified (IBD-U).

Safety of Tofacitinib in a Real-World Cohort of Patients With Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Adverse events (AEs) including reactivation of herpes zoster (HZ) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) have been reported from clinical trials of tofacitinib in ulcerative colitis (UC). We investigated the incidence rates of AEs in a real-world study of UC patients given tofacitinib. METHODS: We collected data from 260 patients with UC in the Tofacitinib Real-world Outcomes in Patients with ulceratIve colitis and Crohn's disease consortium study, performed at 6 medical centers in the United States. Patients were followed up for a median of 6 months (interquartile range, 2.7-11.5 mo). AEs were captured using a standardized data collection instrument before study initiation and at weeks 8, 16, 26, 39, and 52. Serious AEs were defined as life-threatening or resulting in a hospitalization, disability, or discontinuation of therapy. Logistic regression was performed to examine risk factors for AEs. RESULTS: AEs occurred in 41 patients (15.7%); most were infections (N = 13; 5.0%). The incidence rate of any AE was 27.2 (95% CI, 24.4-30.7 per 100 patient-years of follow-up evaluation). Fifteen were serious AEs (36.6% of AEs), and tofacitinib was discontinued for 12 patients (4.6% of cohort). The incidence rates of serious AEs was 10.0 (95% CI, 8.9-11.2 per 100 patient-years of follow-up evaluation). Five patients developed HZ infection and 2 developed VTE (all receiving 10 mg tofacitinib, twice per day). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world safety signals for tofacitinib are similar to those for clinical trials, with AEs reported from almost 16% of patients. HZ infection and VTE occurred in patients receiving 10 mg tofacitinib twice per day. These results support dose de-escalation after induction therapy, to reduce the risk of AEs.

Home vs Hospital Infusion of Biologic Agents for Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapy often requires biologic medications delivered by intravenous infusion.1-4 Historically, intravenous infusions of infliximab and vedolizumab in patients with IBD were delivered under direct supervision of clinicians in infusion centers at hospitals or clinics. Recently, intravenous infusions have transitioned into patient homes. Professional societies have differed on their recommendations for biologic home infusions (HI),5,6 yet limited data exist on the safety and efficacy of HI programs.7,8 Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to compare adverse outcomes (AOs), as defined as a composite of stopping therapy, IBD-related emergency-room (ER) visit, or IBD-related hospitalization, in patients with IBD receiving biologics as HI or at a hospital-based infusion center.

Older patients are significantly more likely to have colon ischaemia-associated conditions that are chronic and complex.

BACKGROUND: Colon ischaemia is a common disease which has been associated with various medications and comorbidities. AIM: To test the hypothesis that there are differences in the frequencies of these associations in older compared with younger patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of patients hospitalized with colon ischaemia at two major medical centres from 2005-2017. Clinical, colonoscopic and pathologic criteria were used to identify patients admitted with colon ischaemia; patients with other types of colitis were excluded. Demographic and medical data were extracted. Two cohorts were created: patients aged 18-64 years and patients > 65 years. These were compared using SAS 14.3. RESULTS: A total of 788 patients were included, of which 271 (34.4%) were of ages 18-64 years, and 517 (66.6%) were 65 years old or older. In the older cohort, constipation-inducing medications (83.8% vs 64.1%; P = <0.0001), diuretics (38.1% vs 25.1%; P = <0.001) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (58% vs 41.5%; P = <0.0001) were more common than in the younger cohort. Antipsychotic medication use was more common in the younger cohort (10.4% vs 5.4%; P = 0.01). There was a higher percentage of younger patients with a history of hypercoaguable state (1.9% vs 0.2%; P = 0.03) and dialysis dependence (22.9% vs 8.7%; P = <0.01), while a higher percentage of patients in the older cohort had a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (12% vs 6.3%; P = 0.01) or atrial fibrillation (18.9% vs 10.3%; P = <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that older patients are more likely to have colon ischaemia-associated conditions that are chronic and complex, while younger patients are more likely to have acute colon ischaemia-associated conditions.