Combination of granulocyte-monocyte apheresis and ustekinumab: Multicentre and retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Granulocyte-monocyte apheresis (GMA) has shown to be safe and effective in ulcerative colitis (UC), also in combination with biologics, mainly with anti-TNF. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combining GMA after primary non-response (PNR) or loss of response (LOR) to ustekinumab (UST) in patients with UC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed in 12 IBD Units, including all patients with refractory UC or unclassified IBD (IBD-U) who received combined GMA plus UST. The number and frequency of GMA sessions, filtered blood volume and time of each session were registered. Efficacy was assessed 1 and 6 months after finishing GMA by partial Mayo score, C-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin (FC). Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were used in the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were included (15 UC, 2 IBD-U; median age 47 years [IQR, 35-61]; 59% male; 53% E3). Most patients (89%) had prior exposure to anti-TNF agents and 53% to vedolizumab; 65% were also receiving steroids at baseline. Median partial Mayo score at baseline was 6 (IQR, 5-7) and it significantly decreased after 1 and 6 months (p=0.042 and 0.007, respectively). Baseline FC significantly decreased after 6 months (p=0.028) while no differences were found in CRP. During follow-up, 18% patients started a new biologic therapy and 12% required surgery; 64% of patients under steroids were able to discontinue them. Adverse events were reported in one patient. CONCLUSION: GMA can recapture the response to UST in selected cases of UC after PNR or LOR to this drug.

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.

HLA-DQA1*05 Was Not Associated With Primary Nonresponse or Loss of Response to First Anti-TNF in Real-World Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients.

BACKGROUND: We lack predictors of response to biologics in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). A recent study has shown a significant association between HLA-DQA1*05 carriers and the development of loss of response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) mediated by immunogenicity. METHODS: Retrospective single-center cohort study including IBD patients who had received anti-TNF therapy as a first biologic and whose HLA-DQA1*05 had been determined. Primary nonresponse and secondary failure (assessed by survival analysis) have been evaluated as well as safety outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 199 IBD patients (161 [81%] with Crohn's disease and 38 [19%] with ulcerative colitis) were included. A total of 42.4% were HLA-DQA1*05 carriers and 60% received combination therapy at the start of anti-TNF treatment. Median follow-up was 24 (interquartile range, 11-66) months. No statistically significant differences were found in primary nonresponse to anti-TNF (89.3% vs 87.8%; P = .825), depending on HLA carriers and noncarriers. No differences in secondary loss of response according to HLA variant in any of the analyses performed (full cohort, according to IBD or anti-TNF type) were observed. Again, no differences were observed in patients treated with combination therapy. In terms of safety, no significant differences were found in the rate of infusion reactions or serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: In our real-life cohort of IBD patients treated for the first time with anti-TNF, being an HLA-DQA1*05 carrier did not act as a predictor of response failure, either primary or secondary. The safety of anti-TNF treatment has also not been influenced by the variant.

The HLA variant DQA1*05 has been identified as a risk factor for the development of antibodies to anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs. We observed that its presence has no impact on clinical outcomes, such as secondary loss of response. These data suggest that caution is required before making decisions based on this HLA variant.