Comparative Safety of Biologic Agents in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease With Active or Recent Malignancy: A Multi-Center Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Safety of biologic agents is a key consideration in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and active or recent cancer. We compared the safety of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonists vs non-TNF biologics in patients with IBD with active or recent cancer. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients with IBD and either active cancer (cohort A) or recent prior cancer (within ≤5 years; cohort B) who were treated with TNFα antagonists or non-TNF biologics after their cancer diagnosis. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (cohort A) or recurrence-free survival (cohort B). Safety was compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting with propensity scores. RESULTS: In cohort A, of 125 patients (483.8 person-years of follow-up evaluation) with active cancer (age, 54 ± 15 y, 75% solid-organ malignancy), 10 of 55 (incidence rate [IR] per 100 py, 4.4) and 9 of 40 (IR, 10.4) patients treated with TNFα antagonists and non-TNF biologics had cancer progression, respectively. There was no difference in the risk of progression-free survival between TNFα antagonists vs non-TNF biologics (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.25-2.30). In cohort B, of 170 patients (513 person-years of follow-up evaluation) with recent prior cancer (age, 53 ± 15 y, 84% solid-organ malignancy; duration of remission, 19 ± 19 mo), 8 of 78 (IR, 3.4) and 5 of 66 (IR 3.7) patients treated with TNFα antagonists and non-TNF biologics had cancer recurrence, respectively. The risk of recurrence-free survival was similar between both groups (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.24-3.77). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with IBD with active or recent cancer, TNFα antagonists and non-TNF biologics have comparable safety. The choice of biologic should be dictated by IBD disease severity in collaboration with an oncologist.

Ustekinumab and Vedolizumab Are Not Associated With Subsequent Cancer in IBD Patients with Prior Malignancy.

BACKGROUND: There is little data regarding the risk of new or recurrent cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and a prior history of cancer who are exposed to ustekinumab or vedolizumab. We assessed the risk of subsequent cancer in patients exposed to these agents. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with IBD and a history of cancer at an academic medical center between January 2013 and December 2020. We collected data on demographics, IBD and cancer disease characteristics, and drug exposures. The primary exposure was immunosuppressive therapy after diagnosis of cancer. The primary outcome was interval development of new or recurrent cancer. RESULTS: Of 390 patients with IBD and a previous history of cancer, 37 were exposed to vedolizumab, 14 ustekinumab, 41 antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF), and 31 immunomodulator; and 267 were not exposed to immunosuppression following cancer diagnosis. During a total median follow-up time of 52 months, 81 (20%) patients developed subsequent cancer: 6 (16%) were exposed to vedolizumab, 2 (14%) to ustekinumab, 3 (10%) to immunomodulators, 12 (29%) to anti-TNF, and 56 (21%) with no immunosuppression (P = .41). In a multivariable Cox model adjusting for age, IBD subtype, smoking, cancer recurrence risk, and cancer stage, there was no increase in subsequent cancer with vedolizumab (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.27-7.01) or ustekinumab (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.17-5.41). Patients with more than 1 biologic exposure also did not have an increased risk of subsequent cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to ustekinumab or vedolizumab in patients with IBD and a prior history of cancer does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of subsequent new or recurrent cancer.

A validated, real-time prediction model for favorable outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged front-line clinical decision-making, leading to numerous published prognostic tools. However, few models have been prospectively validated and none report implementation in practice. Here, we use 3345 retrospective and 474 prospective hospitalizations to develop and validate a parsimonious model to identify patients with favorable outcomes within 96 h of a prediction, based on real-time lab values, vital signs, and oxygen support variables. In retrospective and prospective validation, the model achieves high average precision (88.6% 95% CI: [88.4-88.7] and 90.8% [90.8-90.8]) and discrimination (95.1% [95.1-95.2] and 86.8% [86.8-86.9]) respectively. We implemented and integrated the model into the EHR, achieving a positive predictive value of 93.3% with 41% sensitivity. Preliminary results suggest clinicians are adopting these scores into their clinical workflows.