JAK inhibitors for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: results of an international survey of perceptions, attitudes, and clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are small molecule drugs with demonstrated efficacy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, widespread utilisation may be hindered by safety concerns. AIMS: This is the first study assessing risk-benefit perceptions and clinical practices of those using JAKi for IBD. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted using a 23-item survey distributed to IBD healthcare providers worldwide. RESULTS: Of 385 respondents from 48 countries, 72% were tertiary-centre based and 50% were gastroenterologists with ≥10 years experience. JAKi were commonly used outside market authorisation (31%), though many (17%) were unconfident discussing JAKi risk-benefit profile and 7% had never prescribed JAKi. If venous thromboembolism risks were present, 15% preferentially referred for surgery than initiate JAKi; 21% would do this even if the patient was already anticoagulated. For patients relapsing on dose reduction, 8% would switch treatment rather than dose escalate. Conversely, 45% felt that cardiovascular safety concerns from post-marketing studies were irrelevant to IBD. Despite the lack of detailed, long-term safety data, safety profiles of JAK1-selective drugs were perceived to be favourable to tofacitinib by most (62%). CONCLUSION: The study indicates that while clinical practice appears to be in keeping with international guidance, a significant minority remain deterred by safety concerns.

How achievable are STRIDE-II treatment targets in real-world practice and do they predict long-term treatment outcomes?

Objective: The second iteration of the Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE-II) initiative recommends use of the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's disease (SES-CD) as a treatment target for patients with CD. We aimed to assess whether the STRIDE-II endoscopic endpoints are achievable and whether the degree of mucosal healing (MH) affects long-term outcomes. Design/method: We performed a retrospective observational study between 2015 and 2022. Patients with CD who had baseline and follow-up SES-CD scores after biological therapy initiation were included. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for: (1) change of biological therapy for active disease (2) corticosteroid use (3) CD-related hospitalisation or (4) surgery. We compared rates of treatment failure with the degree of MH achieved. Patients were followed up until treatment failure or study end (August 2022). Results: 50 patients were included and followed up for median 39.9 (34.6-48.6) months. Baseline characteristics: 62% male, median age 36.4 (27.8-43.9) years, disease distribution (L1: 4, L2: 11, L3: 35, perianal: 18). The proportion of patients achieving STRIDE-II end-points were: SES-CD≤2-25 (50%) and >50% reduction in SES-CD-35 (70%). Failure to achieve SES-CD≤2 (HR 11.62; 95% CI 3.33 to 40.56, p=0.003) or >50% improvement in SES-CD (HR 30.30; 95% CI 6.93 to 132.40, p<0.0001) predicted treatment failure. Conclusion: Use of SES-CD is feasible in real-world clinical practice. Achieving an SES-CD≤2 or a greater than 50% reduction, as set out by STRIDE-II, is associated with reduced rates of overall treatment failure including CD-related surgery.

Comparative effectiveness of a second-line biologic in patients with ulcerative colitis: vedolizumab followed by an anti-TNF versus anti-TNF followed by vedolizumab.

Background: Sequential drug treatment with biological agents in ulcerative colitis (UC) is becoming increasingly complex. There are few studies comparing head-to-head outcomes in second-line treatments. The study assesses whether using anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF)-α therapy following the α4ß7 integrin blocker vedolizumab (VDZ) or VDZ after an anti-TNF has more favourable clinical outcomes in UC in a real-world outpatient setting. Methods: Patients with UC who were exposed to first-line anti-TNF (adalimumab or infliximab) or VDZ who subsequently switched to the alternate class between May 2013 and August 2020 were identified by reviewing patient databases at 10 hospitals. Data were collected retrospectively using patient records. Baseline demographics, disease activity indices, biochemical markers, endoscopic Mayo score, colectomy rates, treatment persistence and urgent hospital utilisation composite endpoint (UHUC) rates were examined over a 52-week period. Results: Second-line week 52 treatment persistence was higher in the VDZ group (71/81, 89%) versus the anti-TNF group (15/34, 44%; p=0.0001), as were week 52 colectomy-free survival (VDZ: 77/80, 96%, vs anti-TNF: 26/32, 81%; p=0.009), week 52 UHUC survival (VDZ: 68/84, 81%, vs anti-TNF: 20/34, 59%; p=0.002) and week 52 corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CFCR) rates (VDZ: 22/34, 65%, vs anti-TNF: 4/20, 20%; p=0.001). Conclusion: Compared with second-line anti TNF usage, the VDZ second-line cohort had significantly higher 52-week treatment persistence, UHUC survival, higher colectomy-free survival rates and higher week 52 CFCR. These data suggest that VDZ is an effective biologic in UC as a second-line therapy after anti-TNF exposure. It highlights the effect of biological order on clinically important outcomes.

A retrospective cohort study: pre-operative oral enteral nutritional optimisation for Crohn's disease in a UK tertiary IBD centre.

BACKGROUND: Low-quality evidence suggests that pre-operative exclusive enteral nutrition (E/EN) can improve postoperative outcomes in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). It is not standard practice in most centres. AIMS: To test the hypothesis that pre-operative EN in patients undergoing ileal/ileocolonic surgery for CD is associated with improved postoperative outcome. METHODS: We performed a single centre retrospective observational study comparing surgical outcomes in patients receiving pre-operative EN (≥600 kcal/day for ≥2 weeks) with those who received no nutritional optimisation. Consecutive adult patients undergoing ileal/ileocolonic resection from 2008 to 2020 were included. The primary outcome was postoperative complications <30 days. Secondary outcomes included EN tolerance, specific surgical complications, unplanned stoma formation, length of stay, length of bowel resected, readmission and biochemical/anthropometric changes. RESULTS: 300 surgeries were included comprising 96 without nutritional optimisation and 204 optimised cases: oral EN n = 173, additional PN n = 31 (4 of whom had received nasogastric/nasojejunal EN). 142/204 (69.6%) tolerated EN. 125/204 (61.3%) initiated EN in clinic. Patients in the optimised cohort were younger at operation and diagnosis, with an increased frequency of penetrating disease and exposure to antibiotics or biologics, and were more likely to undergo laparoscopic surgery. The optimised cohort had favourable outcomes on multivariate analysis: all complications [OR 0.29; 0.15-0.57, p < 0.001], surgical complications [OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.20-0.87, p = 0.02], non-surgical complications [OR 0.24 95% CI 0.11-0.52, p < 0.001], infective complications [OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.16-0.66, p = 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Oral EN was reasonably well tolerated and associated with a reduction in 30-day postoperative complications. Randomised controlled trials are required to confirm these findings.

Thromboprophylaxis Use in Paediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An International RAND Appropriateness Panel.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Thromboprophylaxis use in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is inconsistent. Current guidelines only support treating children with acute severe colitis with risk factors. We convened an international RAND panel to explore thromboprophylaxis in paediatric IBD inpatients in the context of new evidence. METHODS: We convened a geographically diverse 14-person panel of paediatric gastroenterologists alongside supporting experts. An online survey was sent before an online meeting. Panellists were asked to rate the appropriateness of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised paediatric IBD patients via 27 scenarios of varying ages, gender, and phenotype, with and without thrombotic risk factors. Anonymised results were presented at the meeting. A second modified survey was distributed to all panellists present at the meeting. Results from the second survey constitute the RAND panel results. The validated RAND disagreement index defined disagreement when ≥ 1. RESULTS: The combined outcome of thromboprophylaxis being considered appropriate until discharge and inappropriate to withhold was seen in 20 of 27 scenarios, including: all patients with new-onset acute severe colitis; all flares of known ulcerative colitis, irrespective of risk factors except in pre-pubescent patients with limited disease and no risk factors; and all Crohn's patients with risk factors. Disagreement was seen in five scenarios regarding Crohn's without risk factors, where outcomes were already uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: RAND panels are an established method to assess expert opinion in areas of limited evidence. This work therefore constitutes neither a guideline nor a consensus; however, the findings suggest a need to re-evaluate the role of thromboprophylaxis in future guidelines.

Iron deficiency anaemia: pathophysiology, assessment, practical management.

The WHO has recognised iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) as the most common nutritional deficiency in the world, with 30% of the population being affected with this condition. Although the most common causes of IDA are gastrointestinal bleeding and menstruation in women, decreased dietary iron and decreased iron absorption are also culpable causes. Patients with IDA should be treated with the aim of replenishing iron stores and returning the haemoglobin to a normal level. This has shown to improve quality of life, morbidity, prognosis in chronic disease and outcomes in pregnancy. Iron deficiency occurs in many chronic inflammatory conditions, including congestive cardiac failure, chronic kidney disease and inflammatory bowel disease. This article will provide an updated overview on diagnosis and management of IDA in patients with chronic conditions, preoperative and in pregnancy. We will discuss the benefits and limitations of oral versus intravenous iron replacement in each cohort, with an overview on cost analysis between the different iron formulations currently on the market.

Effectiveness and Safety of Ustekinumab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Ustekinumab, an interleukin-12 and interleukin-23 antagonist, is licensed for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) after the phase III trial programs demonstrated efficacy over placebo. However, these findings may not be directly transferable to the real-world due to the stringent inclusion criteria of clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and effectiveness of ustekinumab in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). A systematic literature search was conducted via Medline and Embase from inception to April 21, 2020. Observational studies assessing ustekinumab's safety and effectiveness by reporting response, remission and/or adverse events (AE) in either CD or UC were included. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and extracted study data. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool rates of clinical response, remission, and safety data. RESULTS: Following deduplication, 2147 records were identified of which 41 studies (38 CD, 3 UC) comprising 4400 patients were included for quantitative analysis. Pooled clinical remission rates for CD were 34% (95% CI, 26%-42%) following induction and 31% (95% CI, 25%-38%) at one year. For UC, post-induction clinical remission rates were 39% (95% CI, 23%-56%). Serious AEs were reported in 5.6% of patients. Pregnancy outcomes were similar to the general population. One-third of patients with active baseline perianal disease responded or had fistula healing with ustekinumab. CONCLUSIONS: In the most comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to date, and the first to include UC, ustekinumab was shown to be effective and safe in the real-world treatment of IBD.

An expert consensus to standardise clinical, endoscopic and histologic items and inclusion and outcome criteria for evaluation of pouchitis disease activity in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Pouchitis is a condition with large unmet medical needs and no approved therapies. Lack of validated instruments to measure disease activity and treatment response is a major barrier to drug development. AIM: To conduct a modified RAND/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness process to produce a standardised assessment of pouchitis disease activity in clinical trials. METHODS: A list of 164 items generated upon a systematic review and expert opinion were rated based on a 9-point scale (appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate), by a panel including 16 gastroenterologists, surgeons and histopathologists. RESULTS: Items rated as appropriate to evaluate in pouchitis clinical trials were: (a) clinical: stool frequency and faecal urgency; (b) endoscopic: primary assessment in the pouch body according to the percentage of affected area (<50%, 50%-75% and >75%), evaluation of the presence of ulcers/erosions according to size (erosions <5 mm, ulcers ≥5 mm to 2 cm and large ulcers >2 cm) and ulcerated area (<10%, 10%-30% and >30%); (c) histologic: two biopsies from each segment, from the ulcer's edge when present, or endoscopically normal areas, assessment of lamina propria chronic inflammation, epithelial and lamina propria neutrophils, epithelial damage, erosions and ulcers; and (d) clinical trial inclusion/outcome criteria: minimum histologic disease activity for inclusion, a primary endpoint based on stool frequency and assessment of clinical, endoscopic and histologic response and remission. The overall majority of items surveyed (100/164) were rated 'uncertain'. CONCLUSION: We conducted a RAND/UCLA appropriateness process to help inform measurement of pouchitis disease activity within clinical trials and foster the development of novel therapies.

Ischaemic colitis: practical challenges and evidence-based recommendations for management.

Ischaemic colitis (IC) is a common condition with rising incidence, and in severe cases a high mortality rate. Its presentation, severity and disease behaviour can vary widely, and there exists significant heterogeneity in treatment strategies and resultant outcomes. In this article we explore practical challenges in the management of IC, and where available make evidence-based recommendations for its management based on a comprehensive review of available literature. An optimal approach to initial management requires early recognition of the diagnosis followed by prompt and appropriate investigation. Ideally, this should involve the input of both gastroenterology and surgery. CT with intravenous contrast is the imaging modality of choice. It can support clinical diagnosis, define the severity and distribution of ischaemia, and has prognostic value. In all but fulminant cases, this should be followed (within 48 hours) by lower gastrointestinal endoscopy to reach the distal-most extent of the disease, providing endoscopic (and histological) confirmation. The mainstay of medical management is conservative/supportive treatment, with bowel rest, fluid resuscitation and antibiotics. Specific laboratory, radiological and endoscopic features are recognised to correlate with more severe disease, higher rates of surgical intervention and ultimately worse outcomes. These factors should be carefully considered when deciding on the need for and timing of surgical intervention.

The effects of COVID-19 on IBD prescribing and service provision in a UK tertiary centre.

BACKGROUND: To quantify the effects of COVID-19 on our inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) unit, including service provision, prescribing practices and use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). METHODS: We performed a single centre retrospective observational cohort study. Data was extracted from our IBD database, electronic patient records and radiology/endoscopy reporting systems between 16/3/20-17/4/20 and the corresponding period in 2019. RESULTS: A similar number of patients commenced biologic therapy before COVID-19 (n = 37) and during the pandemic (n = 36). Patients in the pre-COVID-19 cohort were older (median 36 vs 29 years, P = 0.009) with a longer median disease duration (9.3 vs 5.2 years, P = 0.02). During COVID-19 there was a nonsignificant increase in prescribing of vedolizumab (8/37, 22% vs 14/36, 39%, P = 0.13) and a higher proportion of patients were anti-TNF-naïve (3/17, 18% vs 18/24, 74%, P = 0.0004). There was a reduction in use of concomitant immunomodulators (22/29, 76% vs 4/34, 12%, P < 0.0001) and increased biologic use in thiopurine-naïve patients (3/37, 8% vs 15/36, 42%, P = 0.001). Use of TDM fell by 75% (240 vs 59 tests). Outpatient appointments fell by 68% and were conducted via telemedicine. MRI scanning, endoscopy, luminal surgery and inpatient numbers fell by 87%, 85%, 100% and 82% respectively. IBD Clinical Nurse Specialist and Pharmacist helpline contacts increased by 76% and 228% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We observed prescribing differences during COVID-19, bypassing the initiation of immunomodulators and/or anti-TNF therapy in favour of vedolizumab with a reduction in immunomodulator prescribing. We also observed a rapid reorganisation of service provision, including a shift towards telemedicine and online solutions.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: effectiveness of anti-inflammatory therapy in immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced enterocolitis.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionised cancer treatment, but at the cost of off-target immune-mediated organ damage. This includes checkpoint inhibitor-induced enterocolitis which frequently requires hospitalisation and may be life-threatening. Empiric treatment typically includes corticosteroids and infliximab, although no large-scale studies have confirmed their effectiveness. AIM: To investigate the effectiveness of anti-inflammatory therapy in checkpoint inhibitor-induced enterocolitis METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting clinical outcomes of checkpoint inhibitor-induced enterocolitis in adult cancer patients treated with anti-inflammatory agents. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library through April and extracted the proportion of patients responding to anti-inflammatory therapy. Variation in effect size was studied using a random-effects meta-regression analysis, with checkpoint inhibitor agent and tumour type as the variables. RESULTS: Data were pooled from 1210 treated patients across 39 studies. Corticosteroids were effective in 59% (95% CI 54- 65) of patients, with response significantly more favourable in patients treated with anti-PD-1/L1 monotherapy, compared with anti-CTLA-4 containing regimens (78%, 95% CI 69-85 vs 56 %, 95% CI 49-63, P = 0.003), and more favourable in lung cancer patients compared with melanoma patients (88%, 95% CI 62-97 vs 55%, 95% CI 47-63, P = 0.04). Infliximab was effective in 81% (95% CI 73-87) of patients, and vedolizumab in 85% (95% CI 60-96). CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids, infliximab and vedolizumab, are effective in the treatment of checkpoint inhibitor-induced enterocolitis. Checkpoint inhibitor regimen and cancer type were significant moderators in response to corticosteroid therapy.

British Society of Gastroenterology endorsed guidance for the management of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced enterocolitis.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a novel class of cancer treatment that have improved outcomes for a subset of cancer patients. They work by antagonising inhibitory immune pathways, thereby augmenting immune-mediated antitumour responses. However, immune activation is not cancer-specific and often results in the activation of immune cells in non-cancer tissues, resulting in off-target immune-mediated injury and organ dysfunction. Diarrhoea and gastrointestinal tract inflammation are common and sometimes serious side-effects of this type of therapy. Prompt recognition of gastrointestinal toxicity and, in many cases, rapid institution of anti-inflammatory or biologic therapy (or both) is required to reverse these complications. Management of organ-specific complications benefits from multidisciplinary input, including engagement with gastroenterologists for optimal management of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced enterocolitis. In this British Society of Gastroenterology endorsed guidance document, we have developed a consensus framework for the investigation and management of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced enterocolitis.

Golimumab in the treatment of ulcerative colitis.

Golimumab was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis in 2013 and was the third antitumour-necrosis-factor therapy after adalimumab and infliximab licensed for this indication. However, given it is the most recent of these drugs to become available, evidence regarding its optimal use and its positioning in relation to other biological therapies is only now emerging. In this article, we review the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of golimumab both in the setting of clinical trials and in 'real world' observational studies. We also explore the limited data available regarding the possible role of therapeutic-drug monitoring and dose flexibility.

Current Practices in Ileal Pouch Surveillance for Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: A Multinational, Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are no universally accepted guidelines regarding surveillance of ulcerative colitis [UC] patients after restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [IPAA]. There also exists a lack of validated quality assurance standards for performing pouchoscopy. To better understand IPAA surveillance practices in the face of this clinical equipoise, we carried out a retrospective cohort study at five inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] referral centres. METHODS: Records of patients who underwent IPAA for UC or IBD unclassified [IBDU] were reviewed, and patients with <1-year follow-up after restoration of intestinal continuity were excluded. Criteria for determining the risk of pouch dysplasia formation were collected as well as the use of pouchoscopy, biopsies, and completeness of reports. RESULTS: We included 272 patients. Median duration of pouch follow-up was 10.5 [3.3-23.6] years; 95/272 [35%] had never undergone pouchoscopy for any indication; 191/272 [70%] had never undergone pouchoscopy with surveillance as the specific indication; and 3/26 [12%] high-risk patients had never undergone pouchoscopy. Two cases of adenocarcinoma were identified, occurring in the rectal cuff of low-risk patients. Patients under the care of surgeons appeared more likely to undergo surveillance, but rates of incomplete reporting were higher among surgeons [78%] than gastroenterologists [54%, p = 0.002]. CONCLUSIONS: We observed wide variation in surveillance of UC/IBDU-IPAA patients. In addition, the rate of neoplasia formation among 'low-risk' patients was higher than may have been expected. We therefore concur with previous recommendations that pouchoscopy be performed at 1 year postoperatively, to refine risk-stratification based on clinical factors alone. Reports should document findings in all regions of the pouch and biopsies should be taken.