Infliximab for maintenance of medically-induced remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and neutralises tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) which is present in high levels in the blood serum, mucosa and stool of patients with Crohn's disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of infliximab for maintaining remission in patients with Crohn's disease. SEARCH METHODS: On 31 August, 2021 and 23 June, 2023, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which infliximab was compared to placebo or another active comparator for maintenance, remission, or response in patients with Crohn's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcome was clinical relapse. Secondary outcomes were loss of clinical response, endoscopic relapse, and withdrawal due to serious and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs with 1257 participants were included. They were conducted between 1999 and 2022; seven RCTs included biologically-naive patients, and the remaining two included a mix of naive/not naive patients. Three studies included patients in clinical remission, five included patients with a mix of activity scores, and one study included biologic responders with active disease at baseline. All studies allowed some form of concomitant medication during their duration. One study exclusively included patients with fistulating disease. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 69 years old. All but one single-centre RCT were multicentre RCTs. Four studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies, two had a mix of commercial and public funding, and two had public funding. Infliximab is probably superior to placebo in preventing clinical relapse in patients who have mixed levels of clinical disease activity at baseline, and are not naive to biologics (56% vs 75%, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.84, NNTB = 5, moderate-certainty evidence). We cannot draw any conclusions on loss of clinical response (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.96), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.19), or serious adverse events (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.00) because the evidence is very low certainty. Infliximab combined with purine analogues is probably superior to purine analogues for clinical relapse (12% vs 59%, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.42, NNTB = 2, moderate-certainty evidence), for patients in remission, and who are not naive to biologics. We cannot draw any conclusions on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.49), and serious adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.64) because the evidence is very low certainty. We cannot draw any conclusions about the effects of infliximab on serious adverse events compared to purine analogues (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.68) for a population in remission at baseline because the evidence is very low certainty. There was no evidence available for the outcomes of clinical relapse, loss of clinical response, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Infliximab may be equivalent to biosimilar for clinical relapse (47% vs 40% RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.69), and it may be slightly less effective in averting loss of clinical response (49% vs 32%, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.23, low-certainty evidence), for a population with mixed/low disease activity at baseline. Infliximab may be less effective than biosimilar in averting withdrawals due to adverse events (27% vs 0%, RR 20.73, 95% CI 2.86 to 150.33, low-certainty evidence). Infliximab may be equivalent to biosimilar for serious adverse events (10% vs 10%, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.50, low-certainty evidence). We cannot draw any conclusions on the effects of subcutaneous biosimilar compared with intravenous biosimilar on clinical relapse (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.57), loss of clinical response (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25), and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.97) for an active disease population with clinical response at baseline because the evidence is of very low certainty. We cannot draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab compared to adalimumab on loss of clinical response (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.59), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.72), serious adverse events (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.54) for an active disease population with clinical response at baseline because the evidence is of very low certainty. There was no evidence available for the outcome of clinical relapse. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab is probably more effective in preventing clinical relapse than placebo (moderate-certainty evidence). Infliximab in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective in preventing clinical and endoscopic relapse than purine analogues alone (moderate-certainty evidence). No conclusions can be drawn regarding prevention of loss of clinical response, occurrence of withdrawals due to adverse events, or total adverse events due to very low-certainty evidence for both of these comparisons. There may be little or no difference in prevention of clinical relapse, withdrawal due to adverse events or total adverse events between infliximab and a biosimilar (low-certainty evidence). Infliximab may lead to more loss of clinical response than a biosimilar (low-certainty evidence). We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions about other comparisons and outcomes related to missing data or very low-certainty evidence due to serious concerns about imprecision and risk of bias. Further research should focus on comparisons with other active therapies for maintaining remission, as well as ensuring adequate power calculations and reporting of methods.

Infliximab for medical induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and neutralises tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), which is present in high levels in the blood serum, mucosa and stool of people with Crohn's disease. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of infliximab alone or in combination with another agent for induction of remission in Crohn's disease compared to placebo or active medical therapies. SEARCH METHODS: On 31 August 2021 and 4 March 2023, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization ICTRP. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing infliximab alone or in combination with another agent to placebo or another active comparator in adults with active Crohn's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were clinical remission, clinical response and withdrawals due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were endoscopic remission, histological remission, endoscopic response, and serious and total adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 10 RCTs with 1101 participants. They were conducted between 1999 and 2019, and 7/10 RCTs included biologically naive participants. All but one RCT, which did not provide information, were multicentre and funded by pharmaceutical companies, and their authors declared conflicts. The age of the participants ranged from 26 to 65 years. Results were based on one study unless otherwise stated. Infliximab 5 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg may be more effective than placebo at week four for clinical remission (30/55 versus 3/25; RR 4.55, 95% CI 1.53 to 13.50; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3) and response (36/55 versus 4/25; RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.63 to 10.25, NNTB 3). The evidence was low certainty. The study did not report withdrawals due to adverse events. We could not draw conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg compared to placebo for fistulating participants for clinical remission (29/63 versus 4/31; RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.38 to 9.25; NNTB 4), response (48/106 versus 15/75; RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.41; NNTB 6; 2 studies) or withdrawals due to adverse events (2/63 versus 0/31; RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.12 to 50.54). The evidence was very low certainty. Infliximab used in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective than purine analogues alone for clinical remission at weeks 24 to 26 (182/301 versus 95/302; RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.32, NNTB 4; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and clinical response at week 26 (107/177 versus 66/178; RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.05; NNTB 5; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events at week 26 (62/302 versus 53/301; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.21; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Infliximab alone may be more effective than purine analogues alone at week 26 for clinical remission (85/177 versus 57/178; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.95; NNTB 7; 2 studies) and response (94/177 versus 66/178; RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.82; NNTB 7; 2 studies). There may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (30/177 versus 43/178; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.06; 4 studies). The evidence was low certainty. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 10 mg/kg for clinical remission (19/27 versus 11/28; RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.02) and response (22/27 versus 24/28; RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.46). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 10 mg/kg in an exclusively fistulating population for clinical remission (17/31 versus 12/32; RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.53), response (21/31 versus 18/32; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.78), or withdrawals due to adverse events (1/31 versus 1/32; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.79). The evidence was very low certainty. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 20 mg/kg for clinical remission (19/27 versus 11/28; RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.02) or response (22/27 versus 18/28; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.76). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 10 mg/kg compared to 20 mg/kg for clinical remission (11/28 versus 11/28; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.92) or response (14/28 versus 18/28; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.23). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. There may be little or no difference between infliximab and a CT-P13 biosimilar at week six for clinical remission (47/109 versus 49/111; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.32), response (67/109 versus 70/111; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20) and withdrawals due to adverse events (21/109 versus 17/111; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.25). The evidence was low certainty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective than purine analogues alone in inducing clinical remission and clinical response. Infliximab alone may be more effective in inducing clinical remission and response than purine analogues alone or placebo. Infliximab may be similar in efficacy to a CT-P13 biosimilar and there may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions as to whether infliximab alone is effective when used for exclusively fistulating populations. There was evidence that there may be little or no difference in withdrawal due to adverse events between infliximab plus purines compared with purines alone, as well as infliximab alone compared with purines alone. Meaningful conclusions cannot be drawn on all other outcomes related to adverse events due to very low certainty evidence.

Tacrolimus (FK506) for induction of remission in corticosteroid-refractory ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: There are a limited number of treatment options for people with corticosteroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. Animal models of inflammatory bowel disease and uncontrolled studies in humans suggest that tacrolimus may be an effective treatment for ulcerative colitis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus for induction of remission in people with corticosteroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gut group specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP from inception to October 2021 to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCT). SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant studies to determine eligibility based on the prespecified criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed them using Review Manager Web. The primary outcomes were induction of remission and clinical improvement, as defined by the studies and expressed as a percentage of the participants randomised (intention-to-treat analysis). MAIN RESULTS: This review included five RCTs with 347 participants who had active ulcerative colitis or ulcerative proctitis. The duration of intervention varied between two weeks and eight weeks. Tacrolimus versus placebo Tacrolimus (oral and rectal) may be superior in achieving clinical remission compared to placebo (oral and rectal) (14/87 participants with tacrolimus versus 1/61 participants with placebo; risk ratio (RR) 3.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 13.73; 3 studies). These results are of low certainty due to imprecision and risk of bias. Tacrolimus (oral and rectal) may be superior for clinical improvement compared to placebo (oral and rectal) (45/87 participants with tacrolimus versus 7/61 participants with placebo; RR 4.47, 95% CI 2.15 to 9.29; 3 studies). These results are of low certainty due to imprecision and risk of bias. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of tacrolimus (oral and rectal) on serious adverse events compared to placebo (oral and rectal) (2/87 participants with tacrolimus versus 0/61 participants with placebo; RR 2.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 48.77; 3 studies). These results are of very low certainty due to high imprecision and risk of bias. Tacrolimus versus ciclosporin One study compared oral tacrolimus to intravenous ciclosporin, with an intervention lasting two weeks and 113 randomised participants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tacrolimus on achievement of clinical remission compared to ciclosporin (15/33 participants with tacrolimus versus 24/80 participants with ciclosporin; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.50). The results are of very low certainty due to risk of bias and high imprecision. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tacrolimus on clinical improvement compared to intravenous ciclosporin (23/33 participants with tacrolimus versus 62/80 participants with ciclosporin; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.16). The results are of very low certainty due to risk of bias and imprecision. Tacrolimus versus beclometasone One study compared tacrolimus suppositories with beclometasone suppositories in an intervention lasting four weeks with 88 randomised participants. There may be little to no difference in achievement of clinical remission (16/44 participants with tacrolimus versus 15/44 participants with beclometasone; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.88). The results are of low certainty due to high imprecision. There may be little to no difference in clinical improvement when comparing tacrolimus suppositories to beclometasone suppositories (22/44 participants with tacrolimus versus 22/44 with beclometasone; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52). The results are of low certainty due to high imprecision. There may be little to no difference in serious adverse events when comparing tacrolimus suppositories to beclometasone suppositories (1/44 participants with tacrolimus versus 0/44 with beclometasone; RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 71.70). These results are of low certainty due to high imprecision. There may be little to no difference in total adverse events when comparing tacrolimus suppositories to beclometasone suppositories (21/44 participants with tacrolimus versus 14/44 participants with beclometasone; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.55). These results are of low certainty due to high imprecision. No secondary outcomes were reported for people requiring rescue medication or to undergo surgery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that tacrolimus may be superior to placebo for achievement of clinical remission and clinical improvement in corticosteroid-refractory colitis or corticosteroid-refractory proctitis. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tacrolimus compared to ciclosporin for achievement of clinical remission or clinical improvement. There may be no difference between tacrolimus and beclometasone for inducing clinical remission or clinical improvement. The cohorts studied to date were small, with missing data sets, offered short follow-up and the clinical endpoints used were not in line with those suggested by regulatory bodies. Therefore, no clinical practice conclusions can be made. This review highlights the need for further research that targets the relevant clinical questions, uses appropriate trial methodology and reports key findings in a systematic manner that facilitates future integration of findings with current evidence to better inform clinicians and patients. Future studies need to be adequately powered and of pertinent duration so as to capture the efficacy and effectiveness of tacrolimus in the medium to long term. Well-structured efficacy studies need to be followed up by long-term phase 4 extensions to provide key outputs and inform in a real-world setting.

Prepublication abstract-only reports compared with full-text manuscripts for randomised controlled trials in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of key therapies in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are often presented and available as abstracts for significant periods of time prior to full publication, often being employed to make strategic and clinical prescribing decisions. We compared the concordance of prepublication abstract-only reports and their respective full-text manuscripts. METHODS: Pairs of full-text manuscripts and their respective prepublication abstract-only reports for the same RCT outcomes, at the same time point of analysis were included. The RCTs were on treatments for IBD with full-text manuscripts published between 2010 and 2023. RESULTS: We found 77 pairs of full-text manuscripts and their prepublication abstract-only reports. There were significant mismatches in the reporting of stated planned outcomes (65/77 matched, p<0.001) and primary outcomes reported in their results sections (67/77, p<0.001); trial registrations (34/65, p<0.001); the number of randomised participants (49/77, p=0.18); participants reaching end of study (21/71, p<0.001) and primary outcome data (40/73, p<0.001). Authors conclusions matched (75/77, p=0.157). Authors did not provide explicit or implied justifications for the absence or non-concordance for any of the above items. CONCLUSIONS: Abstract-only reports have consistent issues with both limited reporting of key information and significant differences in data when compared with their later full-text publications. These are not related to further recruitment of patients or word count limitations and are never explained. As abstracts are often used in guidelines, reviews and stakeholder decision-making on prescribing, caution in their use is strongly suggested. Further work is needed to enhance minimum reporting standards in abstract-only works and ensure consistency with final published papers.

ECCO Guidelines on Therapeutics in Crohn's Disease: Surgical Treatment.

This article is the second in a series of two publications on the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] evidence-based consensus on the management of Crohn's disease. The first article covers medical management; the present article addresses surgical management, including preoperative aspects and drug management before surgery. It also provides technical advice for a variety of common clinical situations. Both articles together represent the evidence-based recommendations of the ECCO for Crohn's disease and an update of prior ECCO Guidelines.

The relationship between Central Nervous System morphometry changes and key symptoms in Crohn's disease.

Alterations in grey matter volume (GMV) and cortical thickness (CT) in Crohn's disease (CD) patients has been previously documented. However, the findings are inconsistent, and not a true representation of CD burden, as only CD patients in remission have been studied thus far. We investigate alterations in brain morphometry in patients with active CD and those in remission, and study relationships between brain structure and key symptoms of fatigue, abdominal pain, and extraintestinal manifestations (EIM). Magnetic Resonance Imaging brain scans were collected in 89 participants; 34 CD participants with active disease, 13 CD participants in remission and 42 healthy controls (HCs); Voxel based morphometry (VBM) assessed GMV and white matter volume (WMV), and surface-based analysis assessed cortical thickness (CT). We show a significant reduction in global cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) volume in CD participants compared with HCs, as well as, a reduction in regional GMV, WMV and CT in the left precentral gyrus (motor cortex), and an increase in GMV in the frontal brain regions in CD compared with HCs. Atrophy of the supplementary motor area (SMA) was associated with greater fatigue in CD. We also show alterations in brain structure in multiple regions in CD associated with abdominal pain and extraintestinal inflammations (EIMs). These brain structural alterations likely reflect neuroplasticity to a chronic systemic inflammatory response, abdominal pain, EIMs and fatigue. These findings will aid our understanding of the cross-linking between chronic inflammation, brain structural changes and key unexplained CD symptomatology like fatigue.

An examination of resting-state functional connectivity in patients with active Crohn's disease.

Background: Alterations in resting state functional connectivity (rs-FC) in Crohn's Disease (CD) have been documented in default mode network (DMN) and frontal parietal network (FPN) areas, visual, cerebellar, salience and attention resting-state-networks (RSNs), constituting a CD specific neural phenotype. To date, most studies are in patients in remission, with limited studies in active disease. Methods: Twenty five active CD cases and 25 age-, BMI- and gender-matched healthy controls (HC) were recruited to a resting-state-functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (rs-fMRI) study. Active disease was defined as C-reactive protein>5 mg/dL, faecal calprotectin>250 µg/g, or through ileocolonoscopy or MRE. rs-fMRI data were analysed using independent component analysis (ICA) and dual regression. Differences in RSNs between HCs and active CD were assessed, and rs-FC was associated with disease duration and abdominal pain. Results: Increased connectivity in the FPN (fusiform gyrus, thalamus, caudate, posterior cingulate cortex, postcentral gyrus) and visual RSN (orbital frontal cortex) were observed in CD versus HC. Decreased activity was observed in the salience network (cerebellum, postcentral gyrus), DMN (parahippocampal gyrus, cerebellum), and cerebellar network (occipital fusiform gyrus, cerebellum) in CD versus HCs. Greater abdominal pain scores were associated with lower connectivity in the precuneus (visual network) and parietal operculum (salience network), and higher connectivity in the cerebellum (frontal network). Greater disease duration was associated with greater connectivity in the middle temporal gyrus and planum temporale (visual network). Conclusion: Alterations in rs-FC in active CD in RSNs implicated in cognition, attention, emotion, and pain may represent neural correlates of chronic systemic inflammation, abdominal pain, disease duration, and severity.

The Gut-Brain Axis and Its Role in Controlling Eating Behavior in Intestinal Inflammation.

Malnutrition represents a major problem in the clinical management of the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Presently, our understanding of the cross-link between eating behavior and intestinal inflammation is still in its infancy. Crohn's disease patients with active disease exhibit strong hedonic desires for food and emotional eating patterns possibly to ameliorate feelings of low mood, anxiety, and depression. Impulsivity traits seen in IBD patients may predispose them to palatable food intake as an immediate reward rather than concerns for future health. The upregulation of enteroendocrine cells (EEC) peptide response to food intake has been described in ileal inflammation, which may lead to alterations in gut-brain signaling with implications for appetite and eating behavior. In summary, a complex interplay of gut peptides, psychological, cognitive factors, disease-related symptoms, and inflammatory burden may ultimately govern eating behavior in intestinal inflammation.

Combination immunomodulator and antibiotic treatment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and clostridium difficile infection.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Management of Clostridium difficile infection in patients with flaring inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has not been optimized. We investigated the effects of combination therapy with antibiotics and immunomodulators in patients with IBD and C difficile infection. METHODS: We analyzed data from 155 patients (59% with ulcerative colitis [UC]) from a retrospective, European Crohn's and Colitis organization, multi-center study comparing outcome of hospitalized IBD patients with C difficile infection who were treated with antibiotics (n = 51) or antibiotics and immunomodulators (n = 104). The primary composite outcome was death or colectomy within 3 months of admission, in-hospital megacolon, bowel perforation, hemodynamic shock, or respiratory failure. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 12% of patients given the combination treatment vs none of the patients given antibiotics alone (P = .01). UC, abdominal tenderness, or severe bloody diarrhea was more common among patients that received the combined therapy. However, multivariate analysis revealed that only the combination therapy maintained a trend for an independent association with the primary outcome (likelihood ratio = 11.9; CI, 0.9-157; P = .06). Treatment with 2 or 3 immunomodulators was correlated with the primary outcome, independent of disease severity at presentation (odds ratio [OR] = 17; CI, 3.2-91; P < .01). Acid-suppressing medications increased the risk of C difficile relapse (OR = 3.8; CI, 1.1-12.9; P = .03), whereas recent hospitalization correlated with increased rate of C difficile persistence (OR = 8; CI, 2.1-29; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IBD that also have C difficile infection are frequently treated with a combination of antibiotics and immunomodulators. However, this combination tends to associate with a worse outcome than antibiotic therapy alone. Prospective controlled trials are urgently needed to optimize the management of these challenging patients.

Profile of Tofacitinib in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis: An Evidence-Based Review of Recent Data.

Recent advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of ulcerative colitis (UC) have led to the expansion of our therapeutic arsenal. Conventional treatment options, including aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, thiopurines, and calcineurin inhibitors, fail to control the disease in a significant proportion of patients. Approximately 25-50% of the patients treated with tumor necrosis factor antibodies (anti-TNFα) are primary and secondary non-responders to therapy. Tofacitinib is a novel orally administered small synthetic molecule that inhibits a homologous family of enzymes, termed Janus kinases that modulate multiple key cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of UC. Phase II and III trials showed promising results in UC, leading the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to approve its administration for the induction and maintenance of remission in moderate-to-severe UC. Herein, we review tofacitinib for the management of UC, its mechanism of action pharmacokinetic properties, efficacy, and safety.

Does fecal calprotectin equally and accurately measure disease activity in small bowel and large bowel Crohn's disease?: a systematic review.

Fecal calprotectin (FC) is a highly sensitive disease activity biomarker in inflammatory bowel disease. However, there are conflicting reports on whether the diagnostic accuracy in Crohn's disease is influenced by disease location. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review of the published literature. Relevant databases were searched from inception to November 8, 2016 for cohort and case control studies which had data on FC in patients with isolated small bowel (SB) and large bowel (LB) Crohn's disease. Reference standards for disease activity were endoscopy, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography or a combination of these. The QUADAS-2 research tool was used to assess the risk of bias. There were 5,619 records identified at initial search. The 2,098 duplicates were removed and 3,521 records screened. Sixty-one full text articles were assessed for eligibility and 16 studies were included in the final review with sensitivities and specificities per disease location available from 8 studies. Sensitivities of FC at SB and LB locations ranged from 42.9% to 100% and 66.7% to 100% respectively while corresponding specificities were 50% to 100% and 28.6% to 100% respectively. The sensitivities and specificities of FC to accurately measure disease activity in Crohn's disease at different disease locations are diverse and no firm conclusion can be made. Better studies need to be undertaken to categorically answer the effect of disease location on the diagnostic accuracy of FC.

Combination of corticosteroids and 5-aminosalicylates or corticosteroids alone for patients with moderate-severe active ulcerative colitis: A global survey of physicians' practice.

AIM: To examine treatment decisions of gastroenterologists regarding the choice of prescribing 5-aminosalycilates (5ASA) with corticosteroids (CS) versus corticosteroids alone for patients with active ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire exploring physicians' attitude toward 5ASA + CS combination therapy vs CS alone was developed and validated. The questionnaire was distributed to gastroenterology experts in twelve countries in five continents. Respondents' agreement with stated treatment choices were assessed by standardized Likert scale. Background professional characteristics of respondents were analyzed for correlation with responses. RESULTS: Six hundred and sixty-four questionnaires were distributed and 349 received (52.6% response rate). Of 340 eligible respondents, 221 (65%) would continue 5ASA in a patient hospitalized for intravenous CS treatment due to a moderate-severe UC flare, while 108 (32%) would stop the 5ASA (P < 0.001), and 11 (3%) are undecided. Similarly, 62% would continue 5ASA in an out-patient starting oral CS. However, only 140/340 (41%) would proactively start 5ASA in a hospitalized patient not receiving 5ASA before admission. Most (94%) physicians consider the safety profile of 5ASA as very good. Only 52% consider them inexpensive, 35% perceive them to be expensive and 12% are undecided. On multi-variable analysis, less years of practice and perception of a plausible additive mechanistic effect of 5ASA + CS were positively associated with the decision to continue 5ASA with CS. CONCLUSION: Despite the absence of data supporting its benefit, most gastroenterologists endorse combination of 5ASA + CS for patients with active moderate-to-severe UC. Randomized controlled trials are needed to assess if 5ASA confer any benefit for these patients.

Prevalence and clinical impact of endoscopic pseudomembranes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and Clostridium difficile infection.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Limited data suggests that pseudomembranes are uncommon in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and C. difficile associated disease (CDAD), but the reason for this is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the rate of pseudomembranes in this population, identify predictive factors for pseudomembranes' presence and assess its clinical impact. METHODS: This was a sub-study of a retrospective European Crohn's & Colitis Organization (ECCO) multi-center study on the outcome of hospitalized IBD patients with C. difficile. The present study included only patients who underwent lower endoscopy during hospitalization, and compared demographic and clinical parameters in the group of patients with discernable pseudomembranes versus those without. RESULTS: Out of 155 patients in the original cohort, 93 patients underwent lower endoscopy and constituted the study population. Endoscopic pseudomembranes were found in 12 (13%) of these patients. Patients with pseudomembranes presented more commonly with fever (p=0.02) compared to patients without pseudomembranes. No difference between the two groups was found with respect to the use of immunosuppressant drugs, background demographics or disease characteristics. Neither was there a difference between the group with or without pseudomembranes in the frequency of severe adverse clinical outcome or in the duration of hospitalization. On multi-variate analysis the presence of fever remained independently associated with the finding of pseudomembranes (OR 6, 95% CI 1.2-32, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: This study documents that hospitalized IBD patients with CDAD have low rate of endoscopic pseudomembranes, which is not accounted for by the use of immunosuppressant drugs. IBD patients with CDAD and discernable pseudomembranes more commonly present with fever, but their clinical outcome is similar to patients without pseudomembranes.