AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Role of Biomarkers for the Management of Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Biomarkers are used frequently for noninvasive monitoring and treatment decision making in the management of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). This American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about the use of biomarkers for the management of UC. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of content experts and guideline methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to prioritize clinical questions, identify patient-centered outcomes, and conduct an evidence synthesis on the clinical performance of serum C-reactive protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin, and fecal lactoferrin as biomarkers of disease activity in patients with established UC in symptomatic remission or with active symptoms. The guideline panel used the Evidence-to-Decision framework to develop recommendations for the use of biomarkers for monitoring and management of UC and provided implementation considerations for clinical practice. RESULTS: The guideline panel made 7 conditional recommendations. In patients with UC in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests the use of a biomarker- and symptom-based monitoring strategy over a symptom-based monitoring strategy. For patients in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests using fecal calprotectin <150 µg/g, normal fecal lactoferrin, and/or normal CRP to rule out active inflammation and avoid routine endoscopic assessment of disease. In patients with UC with moderate to severe symptoms, the panel suggests using fecal calprotectin >150 µg/g, elevated fecal lactoferrin, or elevated CRP to inform treatment decisions and avoid routine endoscopic assessment of disease. However, in patients in symptomatic remission but elevated biomarkers, and in patients with moderate to severe symptoms with normal biomarkers, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment of disease to inform treatment decisions. In patients with UC with mild symptoms, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment of disease activity to inform treatment decisions. The panel identified the use of a biomarker-based monitoring strategy over an endoscopy-based monitoring strategy as a knowledge gap. The panel also proposed key implementation considerations for optimal use of biomarkers, and identified areas for future research. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with UC, noninvasive biomarkers, including fecal calprotectin, fecal lactoferrin, and serum CRP can inform disease monitoring and management.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Role of Biomarkers for the Management of Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Biomarkers are used frequently for evaluation and monitoring of patients with Crohn's disease (CD). This American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about the use of biomarkers for the management of CD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of content experts and guideline methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to formulate patient-centered clinical questions and review evidence on the performance of fecal calprotectin, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), and Endoscopic Healing Index in patients with established CD who were asymptomatic, had symptoms of varying severity, or were in surgically induced remission. Biomarker performance was assessed against the gold standard of endoscopic activity, defined as a Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease ≥3. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence-to-Decision framework to develop recommendations for use of biomarkers in various settings. Implementation considerations were formulated for each recommendation to inform clinical practice. RESULTS: The guideline panel made 11 conditional recommendations. In patients with CD in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests use of a biomarker- and symptom-based monitoring strategy over symptoms alone. In patients in symptomatic remission, a fecal calprotectin <150 µg/g and normal CRP rules out active inflammation, avoiding endoscopic evaluation for assessment of disease activity. However, elevated biomarkers in this setting merit confirmation with endoscopy before treatment adjustment. In patients with CD with mild symptoms, neither normal nor elevated biomarkers alone are sufficiently accurate to determine endoscopic activity. In patients with CD with moderate to severe symptoms, elevated fecal calprotectin or serum CRP suggests endoscopic activity, precluding routine endoscopic assessment for disease activity. In patients with CD in surgically induced remission in low-risk patients on pharmacologic prophylaxis, a normal fecal calprotectin reliably rules out endoscopic recurrence. In other postoperative settings, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment for establishing postoperative recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CD, fecal calprotectin and serum CRP can inform disease management in both asymptomatic and symptomatic disease. Discordance between symptom assessment and biomarker value may merit endoscopic evaluation for confirmation of status of disease activity.

Randomized Trial of Patient Outreach Approaches to De-implement Outdated Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guidelines now recommend patients with low-risk adenomas receive colonoscopy surveillance in 7-10 years and those with the previously recommended 5-year interval be re-evaluated. We tested 3 outreach approaches for transitioning patients to the 10-year interval recommendation. METHODS: This was a 3-arm pragmatic randomized trial comparing telephone, secure messaging, and mailed letter outreach. The setting was Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large integrated healthcare system. Participants were patients 54-70 years of age with 1-2 small (<10 mm) tubular adenomas at baseline colonoscopy, due for 5-year surveillance in 2022, without high-risk conditions, and with access to all 3 outreach modalities. Patients were randomly assigned to the outreach arm (telephone [n = 200], secure message [n = 203], and mailed letter [n = 201]) stratified by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Outreach in each arm was performed by trained medical assistants (unblinded) communicating in English with 1 reminder attempt at 2-4 weeks. Participants could change their assigned interval to 10 years or continue their planned 5-year interval. RESULTS: Sixty-day response rates were higher for telephone (64.5%) and secure messaging outreach (51.7%) vs mailed letter (31.3%). Also, more patients adopted the 10-year surveillance interval in the telephone (37.0%) and secure messaging arms (32.0%) compared with mailed letter (18.9%) and rate differences were significant for telephone (18.1%; 97.5% confidence interval: 8.3%-27.9%) and secure message outreach (13.1%; 97.5% confidence interval: 3.5%-22.7%) vs mailed letter outreach. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone and secure messaging were more effective than mailed letter outreach for de-implementing outdated colonoscopy surveillance recommendations among individuals with a history of low-risk adenomas in an integrated healthcare setting. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT05389397).

Common Instances of Low-value Care in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.

Value-based care focuses on improving the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of health care while controlling costs. Low-value care implies services or interventions that provide little or no benefit to patients, have the potential to cause harm, incur unnecessary cost to patients, or waste limited health care resources. In this review, we discuss common instances of low-value care along the spectrum of management in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). These include low value care in: (1) diagnosis and monitoring of IBD: utilization of serological markers to screen and diagnose IBD, over-reliance on symptoms for monitoring disease, failure to employ treat-to-target strategies in symptomatic patients with IBD, and annual surveillance colonoscopies in patients at low risk of developing dysplasia; (2) treatment of IBD: use of 5-aminosalicylates in Crohn's disease, continuation of 5-aminosalicylates after escalation to immunosuppressive therapy, chronic corticosteroid use without steroid-sparing strategies, step therapy for Crohn's disease, failure to optimize tumor necrosis factor antagonists in patients with active disease and subsequently de-intensification of therapies in those who have achieved stable remission; and (3) management of hospitalized patients with IBD: routine cross-sectional imaging for patients with IBD presenting to the emergency department, withholding pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in patients hospitalized with IBD flare, and prolonged use of high-dose intravenous corticosteroids in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis. This review is meant to bring attention to value-based care in IBD and provide guidance to treating practitioners. Future studies on systematic evaluation of high- and low-value care in patients with IBD are warranted.

The Contemporary Probability of Occult Colorectal Cancer in Patients With Colitis-Related Dysplasia Undergoing Colectomy.

Occult colorectal cancer (CRC) has historically driven recommendations for colectomy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease with dysplasia . We defined the contemporary risk of occult CRC at colectomy among 93 patients with inflammatory bowel disease with dysplasia based on endoscopic appearance, resection, and concordance between site of cancer at colectomy and dysplasia at colonoscopy. Contrary to our hypothesis, we found that occult CRC at colectomy remains elevated in high-grade polypoid and invisible dysplasia. It was infrequent in other visible lesions. When present, occult cancer occurred in the same segment as dysplasia, suggesting the historic concern of missing a remote cancer is low.

Increased Risk of Hospitalization, Surgery, and Venous Thromboembolism Among Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Malnutrition in a Large, Community-Based Health Care System.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) constitute a high-risk population for malnutrition. Routine screening with standardized tools is recommended but can be challenging. Outcome data specific to IBD are sparse. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study (2009-2019) and electronically screened a large community-based population with IBD for malnutrition risk by extracting height and longitudinal weight, data elements used in the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST). We used Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate whether an electronic medical record-derived modified MUST malnutrition risk score was associated with IBD-related hospitalization, surgery, and venous thromboembolism. RESULTS: Malnutrition risk was categorized as low in 10,844 patients with IBD (86.5%), medium in 1,135 patients (9.1%), and high in 551 patients (4.4%). In the 1-year follow-up period, medium and high malnutrition risks, compared with low risk, were associated with IBD-related hospitalization (medium-risk adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-2.42; high-risk aHR 1.90, 95% CI 1.30-2.78) and IBD-related surgery (medium risk aHR 2.28, 95% CI 1.60-3.26; high risk aHR 2.38, 95% CI 1.52-3.73). Only high malnutrition risk was associated with venous thromboembolism (aHR 2.79, 95% CI 1.33-5.87). DISCUSSION: Malnutrition risk is significantly associated with IBD-related hospitalization, surgery, and venous thromboembolism. Application of the MUST score to the electronic medical record can efficiently identify patients at risk for malnutrition and adverse outcomes, permitting concentration of nutritional and nonnutritional resources to those at greatest risk.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Surveillance and Management of Colorectal Dysplasia in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Expert Review.

Improvements in disease management, as well as endoscopic technology and quality, have dramatically changed the way in which we conceptualize and manage inflammatory bowel disease-related dysplasia over the past 20 years. Based on evolving literature, we propose a conceptual model and best practice advice statements for the prevention, detection, and management of colorectal dysplasia in people with inflammatory bowel disease. This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the American Gastroenterological Association Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the American Gastroenterological Association membership. It underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology.

Prior Immunosuppressive Therapy and Severe Illness Among Patients Diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2: a Community-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 10 million people in the USA are immunocompromised, a risk factor for severe COVID-19. Data informing whether immune-mediated medications lead to more severe infection are sparse. OBJECTIVE: Determine whether outpatient immunosuppressive therapies that treat autoimmune inflammatory disease or prevent solid organ transplant rejection are associated with severe illness after diagnosis with SARS-CoV-2 DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: Adults with a positive PCR nasal swab for SARS-CoV-2 from February 25 to September 9, 2020, cared for within a large integrated health care organization MAIN MEASURES: Exposure was defined as an outpatient fill of prednisone, immunomodulator, small-molecule, or biologic therapy in the 105 days prior to a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. The main outcome was either hospitalization, ICU admission, or death within 45 days after diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Multivariable logistic regression models were adjusted for age, race, gender, body mass index, comorbidities, and autoimmune disease. KEY RESULTS: A total of 39,686 adults had a positive PCR test. In the primary analysis, prior prednisone use was associated with severe illness after diagnosis with SARS-CoV-2 (odds ratio (OR) 1.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.60); however, immunomodulator (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.57-1.34) and biologic/small-molecule therapy (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.79-2.00) were not. Secondary analyses showed variable risk among therapies: Janus-kinase inhibitors had an increased odds of severe illness (OR 3.35; 95% CI 1.16-9.67), thiopurines/conventionaldisease-modifying antirheumatic drugs had a reduced odds (OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.32-0.88), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors were not associated (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.18-1.08). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Outpatient use of prednisone is associated with severe illness after diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Immunomodulator and biologic/small-molecule therapy were not associated, but different risk subgroups were identified. Our findings can inform risk-benefit discussions in the clinic and risk-based recommendations for patients on these therapies.

Appropriate Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Biologic Agents for Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is widely available for biologic therapies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We reviewed current data and provided expert opinion regarding the clinical utility of TDM for biologic therapies in IBD. METHODS: We used a modified Delphi method to establish consensus. A comprehensive literature review was performed regarding the use of TDM of biologic therapy in IBD and presented to international IBD specialists. Subsequently, 28 statements on the application of TDM in clinical practice were rated on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree) by each of the panellists. Statements were accepted if 80% or more of the participants agreed with a score ≥7. The remaining statements were discussed and revised based on the available evidence followed by a second round of voting. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 24 (86%) statements. For anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies, proactive TDM was found to be appropriate after induction and at least once during maintenance therapy, but this was not the case for the other biologics. Reactive TDM was appropriate for all agents both for primary non-response and secondary loss of response. The panellists also agreed on several statements regarding TDM and appropriate drug and anti-drug antibody (ADA) concentration thresholds for biologics in specific clinical scenarios. CONCLUSION: Consensus was achieved towards the utility of TDM of biologics in IBD, particularly anti-TNF therapies. More data are needed especially on non-anti-TNF biologics to further define optimal drug concentration and ADA thresholds as these can vary depending on the therapeutic outcomes assessed.

Appropriateness of Combination Therapy for Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: One Size Still Does Not Fit All.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that therapies targeting tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and α4ß7 integrin are effective when given as monotherapy in inducing and/or maintaining remission in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD), but data from RCTs are less clear on whether concomitant immunomodulator (IM) therapy confers additional benefit. In CD, RCT data are mixed,1,2 as are results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, showing no benefit overall,3 minimal benefit with individual agents,4 and comparative benefit over some monotherapies but not others.5 For example, concomitant azathioprine with infliximab is more effective than either drug alone in patients with CD naive to both drugs,2 but whether combination therapy is more effective than monotherapy with infliximab in nonnaive patients, or with other approved biologic drugs in any population, remains unknown. In UC, RCTs have shown that the benefit may be limited to specific populations,6 whereas systematic reviews suggest no benefit at all.7.

Appropriateness of Testing for Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Agent and Antibody Concentrations, and Interpretation of Results.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The availability of tests for blood concentrations of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents and antibodies against these drugs could improve dose selection for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, there is little consensus on when to test and how to interpret test results. We used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to determine when these tests are appropriate and how to clinically interpret their results. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in November 2013 to identify observational or experimental studies of the measurement of anti-TNF drug and antibody concentrations in patients with IBD and interpretation of their results. We developed 35 scenarios that assessed the appropriateness of testing and 143 scenarios that addressed clinical strategies in response to test results, and presented the findings to an expert panel. The appropriateness of each scenario was rated before and after an in-person meeting with the panel. Panelists rated the appropriateness of various clinical management options including changing therapy within class, switching out of class, adjusting drug dose or interval, adding or adjusting concomitant immune modulators, and doing nothing for each of 6 permutations of high versus low drug concentrations and high, low, or undetectable antibody concentrations. Disagreement was assessed using a validated index. RESULTS: Assessment of anti-TNF drug and antibody concentrations was rated appropriate at the end of induction therapy in primary nonresponders, in secondary nonresponders, at least once during the first year of maintenance therapy, and following a drug holiday. Routine assessment in responders at the end of induction was rated uncertain. In nearly all scenarios, escalation of drug dosing was rated appropriate when drug concentration was low in the absence of antibodies, and switching within class was rated appropriate when antibodies were present. Other recommendations depended on the specific clinical scenario for which the test was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method of analysis, an expert panel recommends testing for drug and antibody concentrations in many clinical scenarios. The appropriate timing and best way to respond to anti-TNF drug and antibody testing for IBD depends on the specific clinical scenario. These recommendations can help guide clinicians to best optimize anti-TNF therapy.