An Update on Anti-TNF Biosimilar Switching-Real-World Clinical Effectiveness and Safety.

Background: Biological medications for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) account for a significant burden on provincial budgets. In an effort to curb these rising costs, nationwide switching to biosimilars is expected to be complete in Canada before the end of 2023. Biosimilar products do not require the same rigor for licensing as the originator and therefore there has been appropriate scepticism as to how biosimilars will perform in real-world practice. Methods: We have performed a systematic review including real-world observational studies of adult patients with IBD. The primary outcome was clinical effectiveness and/or safety in patients who had switched from originator to biosimilar anti-TNF. Secondary outcomes included loss of response (LOR), treatment persistence or cessation and immunogenicity. Results: We included 43 studies (7,462 patients [70 percent Crohn's disease: 30 percent ulcerative colitis]; 32 infliximab studies, and 11 adalimumab studies). For infliximab, 75 percent patients were in clinical remission at the time of switch and 75 percent maintained clinical remission beyond 12 months, compared to 78 percent of patients who continued originator. For adalimumab, 86 percent patients were in remission at the time of switch with 82 percent maintaining remission at 6 months follow-up. Injection site pain was higher in patients who switched to a citrate containing adalimumab biosimilar, compared with those who continued originator. All other outcomes (LOR, treatment cessation or persistence and serious adverse events) were similar to patients who continued originator (in comparator cohorts or the available literature). Conclusion: Whilst ongoing vigilance is required, these data are reassuring to both patients and clinicians and will significantly help to reduce health-care costs across Canada.

The Fundamentals of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Management in Pregnancy: A Practical Review for the Gastroenterologist.

This narrative review explores the management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) during pregnancy, emphasizing its unique challenges to maternal and fetal health, particularly within the Canadian Gastroenterology setting. Seven key principles are highlighted: 1) Preconception counselling, aiming for steroid-free remission confirmed by objective markers, should be routine for female IBD patients. 2) Medication safety, with an eye to future pregnancies, should be addressed upon initiation. Methotrexate and small molecules are contraindicated during pregnancy, while most 5-ASA therapies, biologics, and thiopurines can be continued throughout pregnancy and breastfeeding. Steroids, though not without risks, can be utilized if necessary. 3) Routine monitoring during remission should include serum biomarkers and fecal calprotectin each trimester. 4) Routine endoscopy and imaging are not required, but if indicated, lower GI endoscopy, ultrasound, and unenhanced MRI can be used. Computed tomography and gadolinium enhanced MRI should be avoided. 5) Caesarean section is advised for patients with previous ileal pouch surgeries or active perianal disease, but other patients should follow obstetric indications for delivery. 6) Postpartum period may see more active disease, requiring continued monitoring. Breastfeeding is encouraged, and routine childhood vaccinations are advised, but live vaccinations in the first 6 months warrant detailed review. 7) Complex IBD patients may benefit from a multidisciplinary approach with robust communication between gastroenterologists and obstetricians.

Gut microbiome-associated predictors as biomarkers of response to advanced therapies in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review.

Loss of response to therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has led to a surge in research focusing on precision medicine. Three systematic reviews have been published investigating the associations between gut microbiota and disease activity or IBD therapy. We performed a systematic review to investigate the microbiome predictors of response to advanced therapy in IBD. Unlike previous studies, our review focused on predictors of response to therapy; so the included studies assessed microbiome predictors before the proposed time of response or remission. We also provide an update of the available data on mycobiomes and viromes. We highlight key themes in the literature that may serve as future biomarkers of treatment response: the abundance of fecal SCFA-producing bacteria and opportunistic bacteria, metabolic pathways related to butyrate synthesis, and non-butyrate metabolomic predictors, including bile acids (BAs), amino acids, and lipids, as well as mycobiome predictors of response.

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.

Positioning intestinal ultrasound in a UK tertiary centre: significant estimated clinical role and cost savings.

Objective: Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) is an inexpensive, non-invasive method of diagnosing and monitoring inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to establish the proportion of lower gastrointestinal endoscopies (LGIEs) and magnetic resonance enterographies (MREs) that could have been performed as IUS, the potential pathology miss-rates if IUS was used and the associated cost savings. Methods: All MREs and LGIEs performed for either assessment of IBD activity or investigation of possible IBD, performed at a single UK tertiary centre in January 2018, were retrospectively reviewed against predetermined criteria for IUS suitability. Case outcomes were recorded and cost of investigation if IUS was performed instead was calculated. Results: 73 of 260 LGIEs (28.1%) and 58 of 105 MREs (55.2%) met the criteria for IUS suitability. Among potential IUS-suitable endoscopy patients, one case each of a <5 mm adenoma and sessile serrated lesion were found; no other significant pathology that would be expected to be missed with IUS was encountered. Among IUS-suitable MRE patients, no cases of isolated upper gastrointestinal inflammation likely to be missed by IUS were found, and extraintestinal findings not expected to be seen on IUS were of limited clinical significance. The predicted cost saving over 1 month if IUS was used instead was £8642, £25 866 and £5437 for MRE, colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy patients, respectively. Conclusion: There is a significant role for IUS, with annual projected cost savings of up to almost £500 000 at our centre. Non-inflammatory or non-gastrointestinal pathology predicted to be missed in this cohort was of limited clinical significance.

ECCO Topical Review: Roadmap to Optimal Peri-Operative Care in IBD.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite the advances in medical therapies, a significant proportion of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD] require surgical intervention. This Topical Review aims to offer expert consensus practice recommendations for peri-operative care to optimize outcomes of IBD patients who undergo surgery. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of IBD healthcare providers systematically reviewed aspects relevant to peri-operative care in IBD. Consensus statements were developed using Delphi methodology. RESULTS: A total of 20 current practice positions were developed following systematic review of the current literature covering use of medication in the peri-operative period, nutritional assessment and intervention, physical and psychological rehabilitation and prehabilitation, and immediate postoperative care. CONCLUSION: Peri-operative planning and optimization of the patient are imperative to ensure favourable outcomes and reduced morbidity. This Topical Review provides practice recommendations applicable in the peri-operative period in IBD patients undergoing surgery.

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.

Depression, anxiety, and stress among inflammatory bowel disease patients during COVID-19: A UK cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Patients with chronic diseases are believed to be at increased risk of mental health conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to assess the incidence of psychological morbidity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, explore for association with risk of severe COVID-19 and other factors, and establish patients' interest in psychological support. METHODS: A survey including the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, General Anxiety Disorder-7, and Perceived Stress Scale tools for depression, anxiety, and stress was administered to IBD patients from a tertiary center in London, United Kingdom, in June 2020. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-four patients responded to the survey (57% response rate), with 271 (99%) completing it. Moderate-severe depression was observed in 61 (22.5%), while 49 (18%) had moderate-severe anxiety; 39 (14%) had both diagnoses. Mean (SD) stress score was 16.2 (7.4). There was no association between degree of severe COVID-19 risk and psychological morbidity. Flare symptoms and fatigue were associated with worse psychological morbidity, while accessibility of information regarding COVID-19 risk and reducing that risk was protective for depression (odds ratio [OR] 0.56 [0.33-0.94], P = 0.03), anxiety (OR 0.62 [0.4-0.96], P = 0.03), and stress (standardized ß-coefficient -0.15 [-0.28 to -0.03], P = 0.02). Seventy-nine (30%) respondents were interested in receiving psychological support during the pandemic, while 200 (76%) expressed interest beyond the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Although depression, anxiety, and stress among IBD patients during the pandemic were common, their frequency was similar to pre-pandemic rates and recent general population levels. Ensuring easy access to personalized risk information with targeted psychological support may mitigate psychological burden as patients reintegrate into society and deal with future COVID-19 waves.

Anogenital Crohn's Disease and Granulomatosis: A Systematic Review of Epidemiology, Clinical Manifestations, and Treatment.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Metastatic Crohn's disease is an extraintestinal cutaneous manifestation characterised by non-specific inflammatory lesions anatomically separate from the gut; genital involvement is rare. We conducted a systematic review of anogenital Crohn's disease and granulomatosis, to provide a synthesis of epidemiology, clinical features, and treatment outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted via MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database from inception to December 1, 2020. Two investigators extracted and analysed study data. Response and remission were defined as partial improvement or complete resolution of symptoms and examination findings, respectively. RESULTS: Of 9381 screened studies, 185 articles, [410 cases: 273 female, 137 male] were included. The predominant clinical features were oedema, ulcers, fissures, and hypertrophic lesions. Adults and children present similarly. Luminal Crohn's disease was diagnosed in nearly 80% of cases including 45-80% patients without gastrointestinal symptoms (time to inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] from anogenital Crohn's disease diagnosis [range] -43 to 11 years). Antibiotics, corticosteroids, thiopurines, and anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF] therapy were the most frequently prescribed agents. At final follow-up, non-response, response, and remission rates were 37/304 [12%], 267/304 [88%], and 114/304 [38%], respectively. Oedema was associated with a poor response to topical therapy. Greater response rates to anti-TNF therapy were seen in patients prescribed concomitant immunomodulation [24/25, 96% vs 67/90, 74%, p = 0.02]. CONCLUSIONS: We provide an illustrative summary of the clinical presentation and treatment effectiveness of this rare, under-recognised condition, and a proposed algorithm for approach and management. Prospective studies with longer follow-up are required to define optimal treatment strategies.

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.

RAND appropriateness panel to determine the applicability of UK guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template. METHODS: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again. RESULTS: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease. CONCLUSION: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines.

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A RAND Appropriateness Panel Approach.

BACKGROUND: Current practice in cardiogenic shock is guided by expert opinion in guidelines and scientific statements from professional societies with limited high quality randomized trial data to inform optimal patient management. An international panel conducted a modified Delphi process with the intent of identifying aspects of cardiogenic shock care where there was uncertainty regarding optimal patient management. METHODS: An 18-person multidisciplinary panel comprising international experts was convened. A modified RAND/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness methodology was used. A survey comprising 70 statements was completed. Participants anonymously rated the appropriateness of each statement on a scale of 1 to 9: 1 to 3 inappropriate, 4 to 6 uncertain, and 7 to 9 appropriate. A summary of the results was discussed as a group, and the survey was iterated and completed again before final analysis. RESULTS: There was broad alignment with current international guidelines and consensus statements. Overall, 44 statements were rated as appropriate, 19 as uncertain, and 7 as inappropriate. There was no disagreement with a disagreement index <1 for all statements. Routine fluid administration was deemed to be inappropriate. Areas of uncertainty focused panel on pre-PCI interventions, the use of right heart catheterization to guide management, routine use of left ventricular unloading strategies, and markers of futility when considering escalation to mechanical circulatory support. CONCLUSIONS: While there was broad alignment with current guidance, an expert panel found several aspects of care where there was clinical equipoise, further highlighting the need for randomized controlled trials to better guide patient management and decision making in cardiogenic shock.

An observational study of switching infliximab biosimilar: no adverse impact on inflammatory bowel disease control or drug levels with first or second switch.

BACKGROUND: Biologics account for a significant cost in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management; however, switching from infliximab originator to its biosimilars has enabled cost saving without compromising disease control. The effects on IBD activity and infliximab trough levels of a second switch to another biosimilar are, however, uncertain. AIMS: To assess the effects on disease activity and infliximab trough levels associated with switching from infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 to another biosimilar SB2 and compare outcomes in those switching for the first and second time. METHODS: IBD patients on CT-P13, including some previously switched from originator, were prospectively followed during a switch to SB2. C-reactive protein (CRP), trough infliximab level and clinical disease activity indices were collected at baseline, Infusion 3 or 4 ('early' after switch), and 1 year. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-six patients (n = 99 second switch) on stable infliximab dosing underwent switching. Compared with baseline, there was no significant change in CRP, clinical disease activity scores or median trough infliximab level at the early time point among first-switch (baseline vs early: 5.7 vs 6.6 µg/mL, P = 0.05) and second-switch (4.3 vs 4.9 µg/mL, P = 0.07) patients nor at 1 year (median infliximab trough levels, baseline vs 1 year, in first-switch [5.7 vs 5.7 µg/mL, P = 0.37] and second-switch [4.3 vs 4.7 µg/mL, P = 0.06] patients). The proportion of patients in clinical remission did not significantly change at the early (92% vs 91% at baseline, P = 0.75) or 1 year (95% vs 91% at baseline, P = 0.16) time points. There was no significant difference in time to loss of response between patients switching for the first or second time (P = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Switching from one infliximab biosimilar to another had no adverse impact on infliximab trough levels, and clinical and biochemical disease activity, regardless of whether switching for the first or second time.

Adaptations to the current ECCO/ESPGHAN guidelines on the management of paediatric acute severe colitis in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a RAND appropriateness panel.

OBJECTIVE: Paediatric acute severe colitis (ASC) management during the novel SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic is challenging due to reliance on immunosuppression and the potential for surgery. We aimed to provide COVID-19-specific guidance using the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation/European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition guidelines for comparison. DESIGN: We convened a RAND appropriateness panel comprising 14 paediatric gastroenterologists and paediatric experts in surgery, rheumatology, respiratory and infectious diseases. Panellists rated the appropriateness of interventions for ASC in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results were discussed at a moderated meeting prior to a second survey. RESULTS: Panellists recommended patients with ASC have a SARS-CoV-2 swab and expedited biological screening on admission and should be isolated. A positive swab should trigger discussion with a COVID-19 specialist. Sigmoidoscopy was recommended prior to escalation to second-line therapy or colectomy. Methylprednisolone was considered appropriate first-line management in all, including those with symptomatic COVID-19. Thromboprophylaxis was also recommended in all. In patients requiring second-line therapy, infliximab was considered appropriate irrespective of SARS-CoV-2 status. Delaying colectomy due to SARS-CoV-2 infection was considered inappropriate. Corticosteroid tapering over 8-10 weeks was deemed appropriate for all. After successful corticosteroid rescue, thiopurine maintenance was rated appropriate in patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 swab and asymptomatic patients with positive swab but uncertain in symptomatic COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Our COVID-19-specific adaptations to paediatric ASC guidelines using a RAND panel generally support existing recommendations, particularly the use of corticosteroids and escalation to infliximab, irrespective of SARS-CoV-2 status. Consideration of routine prophylactic anticoagulation was recommended.

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.

Adaptations to the British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the management of acute severe UC in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a RAND appropriateness panel.

OBJECTIVE: Management of acute severe UC (ASUC) during the novel COVID-19 pandemic presents significant dilemmas. We aimed to provide COVID-19-specific guidance using current British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines as a reference point. DESIGN: We convened a RAND appropriateness panel comprising 14 gastroenterologists and an IBD nurse consultant supplemented by surgical and COVID-19 experts. Panellists rated the appropriateness of interventions for ASUC in the context of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Median scores and disagreement index (DI) were calculated. Results were discussed at a moderated meeting prior to a second survey. RESULTS: Panellists recommended that patients with ASUC should be isolated throughout their hospital stay and should have a SARS-CoV-2 swab performed on admission. Patients with a positive swab should be discussed with COVID-19 specialists. As per BSG guidance, intravenous hydrocortisone was considered appropriate as initial management; only in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia was its use deemed uncertain. In patients requiring rescue therapy, infliximab with continuing steroids was recommended. Delaying colectomy because of COVID-19 was deemed inappropriate. Steroid tapering as per BSG guidance was deemed appropriate for all patients apart from those with COVID-19 pneumonia in whom a 4-6 week taper was preferred. Post-ASUC maintenance therapy was dependent on SARS-CoV-2 status but, in general, biologics were more likely to be deemed appropriate than azathioprine or tofacitinib. Panellists deemed prophylactic anticoagulation postdischarge to be appropriate in patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 swab. CONCLUSION: We have suggested COVID-19-specific adaptations to the BSG ASUC guideline using a RAND panel.

Introduction of 'Anaphylaxis Packs' to improve patient safety in a hospital setting.

Three reported episodes of anaphylaxis, where 1:1000 adrenaline was not immediately obtainable, triggered us to assess its availability on all adult wards. We found adrenaline was unavailable on 50% of audited wards. A questionnaire for doctors and nurses revealed lack of knowledge on both the management of anaphylaxis and location of emergency drugs. Given that anaphylaxis is a treatable but potentially fatal condition, we held a meeting to discuss the situation with senior pharmacists, resuscitation managers, and senior doctors. Our intervention was to advise the production of 'anaphylaxis packs' as part of the crash trolley kit. This was to be added to the laminated crash trolley check list and to include adrenaline, chlorphenamine, hydrocortisone, and the anaphylaxis algorithm. The aim was to improve ward stock, staff knowledge, and create a consistent location for emergency drugs, so minimising human error, and patient harm. With a PDSA approach we trialled the intervention on four pilot wards. The packs have now been dispersed trust-wide. Re-audit at four months showed 100% ward stock of anaphylaxis packs, more consistent drug location and improved staff knowledge. There were 17 coded incidents of anaphylaxis at this hospital in 2011, the actual figure likely being higher. We feel our project has greatly improved patient safety in this area.