Rates of Adverse Events in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis Undergoing Colectomy During Treatment With Tofacitinib vs Biologics: A Multicenter Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) receiving immunosuppressive drugs are at substantial risk of colectomy. We aimed to assess the risk of postoperative complications of tofacitinib exposure before colectomy in comparison with biologics. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective, observational study was conducted in patients with UC who underwent total colectomy for medically refractory disease, exposed to tofacitinib or a biologic before surgery. Primary outcome was the occurrence of any complication within 30 (early) and 90 (late) days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of infections, sepsis, surgical site complications, venous thromboembolic events (VTE), hospital readmissions, and redo surgery within the same timepoints. RESULTS: Three hundred one patients (64 tofacitinib, 162 anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents, 54 vedolizumab, and 21 ustekinumab) were included. No significant differences were reported in any outcome, except for a higher rate of early VTE with anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents ( P = 0.047) and of late VTE with vedolizumab ( P = 0.03). In the multivariate analysis, drug class was not associated with a higher risk of any early and late complications. Urgent colectomy increased the risk of any early (odds ratio [OR] 1.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-3.48) complications, early hospital readmission (OR 4.79, 95% CI 1.12-20.58), and early redo surgery (OR 7.49, 95% CI 1.17-47.85). A high steroid dose increased the risk of any early complications (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.08-3.57), early surgical site complications (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.01-4.09), and early redo surgery (OR 7.52, 95% CI 1.42-39.82). Laparoscopic surgery decreased the risk of any early complications (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-1.00), early infections (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.85), and late hospital readmissions (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12-1.00). DISCUSSION: Preoperative tofacitinib treatment demonstrated a postoperative safety profile comparable with biologics in patients with UC undergoing colectomy.

Unraveling the fatigue puzzle: insights into the pathogenesis and management of IBD-related fatigue including the role of the gut-brain axis.

A significant percentage of patients with an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) encounter fatigue which can profoundly diminish patients' quality of life, particularly during periods of disease remission when gastrointestinal symptoms have receded. Various contributing risk factors have been identified including active inflammation, anemia, psychological, lifestyle and drug-related factors. While addressing these risk factors has been suggested as the initial approach to managing fatigue, a considerable number of patients still experience persisting symptoms, the primary causes of which remain incompletely understood. Recent insights suggest that dysfunction of the gut-brain axis may play a pathogenic role. This review provides an overview of established risk factors for fatigue, alongside emerging perspectives on the role of the gut-brain axis, and potential treatment strategies.

Safety and Effectiveness of Vedolizumab and Ustekinumab in Elderly Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Real-Life Multicentric Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Data on ustekinumab and vedolizumab in the elderly inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) population are limited. The aim of the current study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of both in an elderly real-life population. METHODS: A multicentric retrospective study was performed on IBD patients who started vedolizumab or ustekinumab between 2010 and 2020. Clinical and endoscopic remission rates and (serious) adverse events (AE) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 911 IBD patients were included, with 171 (19%) aged above 60 (111 VDZ, 60 UST). Elderly patients treated with vedolizumab or ustekinumab had an increased risk for non-IBD hospitalization (10.5% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.021) and malignancy (2.3% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.045) compared to the younger population. Corticosteroid-free clinical (50% vs. 44%; p = 0.201) and endoscopic remission rates (47.9% vs. 31%, p = 0.07) at 1 year were similar. Comparing vedolizumab to ustekinumab in the elderly population, corticosteroid-free (47.9% vs. 31%, p = 0.061) and endoscopic remission rates (66.7% vs. 64.4%, p = 0.981) were similar. Vedolizumab- and ustekinumab-treated patients had comparable infection rates (13.5% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.504), IBD flare-ups (4.5% vs. 5%, p = 1.000), the occurrence of new EIMs (13.5% vs. 10%, p = 0.504), a risk of intestinal surgery (5.4% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.742), malignancy (1.8% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.613), hospitalization (9.9% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.721), and mortality (0.9% vs. 1.7%, p = 1.000). AE risk was associated only with corticosteroid use. CONCLUSIONS: Ustekinumab and vedolizumab show comparable effectiveness and safety in the elderly IBD population. Elderly IBD patients have an increased risk for non-IBD hospitalizations and malignancy compared to the younger IBD population, with corticosteroid use as the main risk factor.

Prophylactic Versus Endoscopy-driven Treatment of Crohn's Postoperative Recurrence: A Retrospective, Multicentric, European Study [PORCSE Study].

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: No consensus exists on optimal strategy to prevent postoperative recurrence [POR] after ileocaecal resection [ICR] for Crohn's disease [CD]. We compared early medical prophylaxis versus expectant management with treatment driven by findings at elective endoscopy 6-12 months after ICR. METHODS: A retrospective, multicentric, observational study was performed. CD patients undergoing first ICR were assigned to Cohort 1 if a biologic or immunomodulator was [re]started prophylactically after ICR, or to Cohort 2 if no postoperative prophylaxis was given and treatment was started as reaction to elective endoscopic findings. Primary endpoint was rate of endoscopic POR [Rutgeerts >i1]. Secondary endpoints were severe endoscopic POR [Rutgeerts i3/i4], clinical POR, surgical POR, and treatment burden during follow-up. RESULTS: Of 346 included patients, 47.4% received prophylactic postoperative treatment [proactive/Cohort 1] and 52.6% did not [reactive/Cohort 2]. Endoscopic POR [Rutgeerts >i1] rate was significantly higher in Cohort 2 [41.5% vs 53.8%, OR 1.81, p = 0.039] at endoscopy 6-12 months after surgery. No significant difference in severe endoscopic POR was found [OR 1.29, p = 0.517]. Cohort 2 had significantly higher clinical POR rates [17.7% vs 35.7%, OR 3.05, p = 0.002] and numerically higher surgical recurrence rates [6.7% vs 13.2%, OR 2.59, p = 0.051]. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis showed no significant difference in time to surgical POR of proactive versus expectant/reactive approach [HR 2.50, p = 0.057]. Quasi-Poisson regression revealed a significantly lower treatment burden for immunomodulator use in Cohort 2 [mean ratio 0.53, p = 0.002], but no difference in burden of biologics or combination treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The PORCSE study showed lower rates of endoscopic POR with early postoperative medical treatment compared with expectant management after first ileocaecal resection for Crohn's disease.