Biologic Therapy for Budesonide-refractory, -dependent or -intolerant Microscopic Colitis: a Multicentre Cohort Study from the GETAID.

BACKGROUND: Budesonide remains the backbone therapy for microscopic colitis [MC]; however, relapses are frequent, and some patients are intolerant or dependent. Anti-TNF therapy is increasingly used to treat these patients, but available evidence is still limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anti-TNF therapy in MC patients failing budesonide. METHODS: In a multicentre retrospective cohort study, budesonide-refractory, -dependent, or -intolerant MC patients treated with anti-TNF agents were included. Clinical remission was defined as fewer than three bowel movements per day, and clinical response was defined as an improvement in stool frequency of at least 50%. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were included. Median age was 58.5 years, median disease duration was 25 months, and median follow-up was 29.5 months. Seven patients were treated with infliximab [IFX], and seven with adalimumab. Clinical remission without steroids at 12 weeks was reached in 5/14 [35.7%] patients; all of these received IFX. Clinical response at 12 and 52 weeks, was obtained in 9/14 [64.3%] and 7/14 [50%] patients, respectively. Five patients switched to another anti-TNF agent. When considering both first- and second-line anti-TNF therapies, 7 [50%] patients were in clinical remission at Week 52. Mild to moderate adverse events were reported in six ptients. Two patients were treated with vedolizumab, of whom one had clinical response; one patient treated with ustekinumab had no response. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first multicentre cohort study showing that half of patients treated with anti-TNF therapy for MC achieved clinical remission in case of budesonide failure.

Prevalence of anti-TNF contraindications in Crohn's disease: A cross-sectional survey from the GETAID.

BACKGROUND: The exact rate of contraindications to anti-TNF therapy and physician perspectives on treatment choices facing to anti-TNF contraindication, are poorly reported. METHODS: A two-week cross-sectional study was conducted in 31 centres. Physicians completed a questionnaire for a total of 1,314 consecutive outpatients with Crohn's disease, assessing each patient's potential contraindications to anti-TNF therapy, the choice of alternative therapy to anti-TNFs, and their preference in an unrestricted reimbursement setting. RESULTS: Among the 1,293 responses to the first item, 148 (11.5%) reported 32 absolute contraindications (2.5%) and 116 relative contraindications (9.0%) to anti-TNF therapy. When asked about their preference of alternative therapies in those cases with contraindications to anti-TNF, physicians chose ustekinumab and vedolizumab, 75.6% and 23.9%, respectively. In multivariable analysis, the choice of vedolizumab was the preferred choice for patients aged > 60 years with the L2 phenotype and the absence of perianal lesions. In a hypothetical setting of unrestricted reimbursement, anti-TNFs remained physicians' preferred first-line biological therapy choice for 78.2%. CONCLUSION: Anti-TNF contraindications occurred in up to 11.5% of patients with Crohn's disease. Physicians' choices for alternative therapy to anti-TNF relied on ustekinumab in 75.6% and vedolizumab in 23.9% of these cases. This choice was driven mainly by phenotypical criteria and age.

Impact of Gastric Electrical Stimulation on Economic Burden of Refractory Vomiting: A French Nationwide Multicentre Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Medico-economic data of patients suffering from chronic nausea and vomiting are lacking. In these patients, gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is an effective, but costly treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety and medico-economic impact of Enterra therapy in patients with chronic medically refractory nausea and vomiting. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from patients with medically refractory nausea and/or vomiting, implanted with an Enterra device and followed for two years. Gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI) score, vomiting frequency, nutritional status and safety were evaluated. Direct and indirect expenditure data were prospectively collected in diaries. RESULTS: Complete clinical data were available for142 patients (60 diabetic, 82 non-diabetic) and medico-economic data were available for 96 patients (36 diabetic, 60 non-diabetic), 24 months after implantation. GIQLI score increased by 12.1 ± 25.0 points (p < .001), with a more significant improvement in non-diabetic than in diabetic patients (+15.8 ± 25.0 points, p < .001 versus 7.3 ± 24.5 points, p = .027, respectively). The proportion of patients vomiting less than once per month increased by 25.5% (p < .001). Hospitalisations, time off work and transport were the main sources of costs. Enterra therapy decreased mean overall healthcare costs from 8873 US$ to 5525 US$ /patient/year (p = .001), representing a saving of 3348 US$ per patient and per year. Savings were greater for diabetic patients (4096 US$ /patient/year) than for non-diabetic patients (2900 US$ /patient/year). CONCLUSIONS: Enterra therapy is an effective, safe and cost-effective option for patients with refractory nausea and vomiting. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT00903799.

Ustekinumab is more effective than azathioprine to prevent endoscopic postoperative recurrence in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Preventing postoperative recurrence (POR) is a major concern in Crohn's disease (CD). While azathioprine is an option, no data is available on ustekinumab efficacy in this situation. AIMS: We compared the effectiveness of ustekinumab versus azathioprine in preventing endoscopic POR in CD. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from all consecutive CD patients treated with ustekinumab after intestinal resection in 9 centers. The control group (azathioprine alone) was composed of patients who participated in a randomized controlled trial conducted in the same centers comparing azathioprine alone or in combination with curcumin. Propensity score analyses (inversed probability of treatment weighting = IPTW) were applied to compare the two groups. The primary endpoint was endoscopic POR (Rutgeerts' index ≥ i2) at 6 months. RESULTS: Overall, 32 patients were included in the ustekinumab group and 31 in the azathioprine group. The propensity score analysis was adjusted on the main risk factors (smoking, fistulizing phenotype, prior bowel resection, resection length >30 cm and ≥2 biologics before surgery) and thiopurines or ustekinumab exposure prior to surgery making the two arms comparable (∣d∣ < 0.2). After IPTW, the rate of endoscopic POR at 6 months was lower in patients treated with ustekinumab compared to azathioprine (28.0% vs. 54.5%, p = 0.029). After IPTW, the rates of i2b-endoscopic POR (Rutgeerts' index ≥ i2b) and severe endoscopic POR (Rutgeerts' index ≥ i3) were 20.8% versus 42.5% (p = 0.066) and 16.9% versus 27.9% (p = 0.24), in the ustekinumab and azathioprine groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Ustekinumab seemed to be more effective than azathioprine in preventing POR in this cohort of CD patients.

Gastric Electrical Stimulation Reduces Refractory Vomiting in a Randomized Crossover Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There have been conflicting results from trials of gastric electrical stimulation (GES) for treatment of refractory vomiting, associated or not with gastroparesis. We performed a large, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial with crossover to study the efficacy of GES in patients with refractory vomiting, with or without gastroparesis. METHODS: For 4 months, we assessed symptoms in 172 patients (66% women; mean age ± standard deviation, 45 ± 12 years; 133 with gastroparesis) with chronic (>12 months) of refractory vomiting (idiopathic, associated with a type 1 or 2 diabetes, or postsurgical). A GES device was implanted and left unactivated until patients were randomly assigned, in a double-blind manner, to groups that received 4 months of stimulation parameters (14 Hz, 5 mA, pulses of 330 µs) or no stimulation (control); 149 patients then crossed over to the other group for 4 months. Patients were examined at the end of each 4-month period (at 5 and 9 months after implantation). Primary endpoints were vomiting score, ranging from 0 (daily vomiting) to 4 (no vomiting), and the quality of life, assessed by the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index scoring system. Secondary endpoints were changes in other digestive symptoms, nutritional status, gastric emptying, and control of diabetes. RESULTS: During both phases of the crossover study, vomiting scores were higher in the group with the device on (median score, 2) than the control group (median score, 1; P < .001), in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Vomiting scores increased significantly when the device was ON in patients with delayed (P < .01) or normal gastric emptying (P = .05). Gastric emptying was not accelerated during the ON period compared with the OFF period. Having the GES turned on was not associated with increased quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized crossover study, we found that GES reduced the frequency of refractory vomiting in patients with and without diabetes, although it did not accelerate gastric emptying or increase of quality of life. Clinicaltrials.gov, Number: NCT00903799.