Influence of familial forms of inflammatory bowel disease on the use of immunosuppressants, biological agents, and surgery in the era of biological therapies. Results from the ENEIDA project.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Familial inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) history is a controversial prognostic factor in IBD. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a familial history of IBD on the use of medical and surgical treatments in the biological era. METHODS: Patients included in the prospectively maintained ENEIDA database and diagnosed with IBD after 2005 were included. Familial forms were defined as those cases with at least one first-degree relative diagnosed with IBD. Disease phenotype, the use of biological agents, or surgical treatments were the main outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 5263 patients [2627 Crohn's disease (CD); 2636 ulcerative colitis (UC)] were included, with a median follow-up of 31 months. Of these, 507 (10%) corresponded to familial forms. No clinical differences were observed between familial and sporadic IBD forms except a lower age at IBD diagnosis and a higher rate of males in familial forms of UC. In CD, the proportions of patients treated with thiopurines (54.4% vs 46.7%; P = .015) and survival time free of thiopurines (P = .009) were lower in familial forms. No differences were found regarding the use of biological agents. Concerning surgery, a higher rate of intestinal resections was observed in sporadic CD (14.8% vs 9.9%, P = .027). No differences were observed in UC. CONCLUSIONS: In the era of biological therapies, familial and sporadic forms of IBD show similar phenotypes and are managed medically in a similar way; whether these is due to lack of phenotypical differences or an effect of biological therapies is uncertain. What is already known on this topic: IBD's etiopathogenesis points to an interaction between environmental and genetic factors, being familial history a controversial prognostic factor. Biological agents use and need for surgery regarding familial or sporadic forms of IBDs present conflicting results. What this study adds: Familial and sporadic forms of IBD have similar phenotypes and are managed medically and surgically in a similar way. How this study might affect research, practice or policy: Familial aggregation should not be considered a factor associated with more aggressive disease.

Predictive role of ITPA genetic variants in thiopurine-related myelotoxicity in Crohn's disease patients.

Thiopurines, an effective therapy for Crohn's disease (CD), often lead to adverse events (AEs). Gene polymorphisms affecting thiopurine metabolism may predict AEs. This retrospective study in CD patients (n = 114) with TPMT activity > 5 Units/Red Blood Cells analyzed TPMT (c.238 G > C, c.460 G > A, c.719 A > G), ITPA (c.94 C > A, IVS2 + 21 A > C), and NUDT15 (c.415 C > T) polymorphisms. All patients received azathioprine (median dose 2.2 mg/kg) with 41.2% experiencing AEs, mainly myelotoxicity (28.1%). No NUDT15 polymorphisms were found, 7% had TPMT, and 31.6% had ITPA polymorphisms. AEs led to therapy modifications in 41.2% of patients. Multivariate analysis identified advanced age (OR 1.046, p = 0.007) and ITPA IVS2 + 21 A > C (OR 3.622, p = 0.015) as independent predictors of AEs. IVS2 + 21 A > C was also associated with myelotoxicity (OR 2.863, p = 0.021). These findings suggest that ITPA IVS2 + 21 A > C polymorphism and advanced age predict AEs during thiopurine therapy for CD with intermediate-normal TPMT activity.

Trends in Targeted Therapy Usage in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: TRENDY Study of ENEIDA.

Markers that allow for the selection of tailored treatments for individual patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are yet to be identified. Our aim was to describe trends in real-life treatment usage. For this purpose, patients from the ENEIDA registry who received their first targeted IBD treatment (biologics or tofacitinib) between 2015 and 2021 were included. A subsequent analysis with Machine Learning models was performed. The study included 10,009 patients [71% with Crohn's disease (CD) and 29% with ulcerative colitis (UC)]. In CD, anti-TNF (predominantly adalimumab) were the main agents in the 1st line of treatment (LoT), although their use declined over time. In UC, anti-TNF (mainly infliximab) use was predominant in 1st LoT, remaining stable over time. Ustekinumab and vedolizumab were the most prescribed drugs in 2nd and 3rd LoT in CD and UC, respectively. Overall, the use of biosimilars increased over time. Machine Learning failed to identify a model capable of predicting treatment patterns. In conclusion, drug positioning is different in CD and UC. Anti-TNF were the most used drugs in IBD 1st LoT, being adalimumab predominant in CD and infliximab in UC. Ustekinumab and vedolizumab have gained importance in CD and UC, respectively. The approval of biosimilars had a significant impact on treatment.

Clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with two consecutive anti-TNF agents: data from the ENEIDA registry.

Background: Infliximab seems to be the most efficacious of the three available anti-TNF agents for ulcerative colitis (UC) but little is known when it is used as the second anti-TNF. Objectives: To compare the clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in UC patients. Design: Retrospective observational study. Methods: Patients from the ENEIDA registry treated consecutively with infliximab and a subcutaneous anti-TNF (or vice versa), naïve to other biological agents, were identified and grouped according to the administration route of the first anti-TNF into IVi (intravenous initially) or SCi (subcutaneous initially). Results: Overall, 473 UC patients were included (330 IVi and 143 SCi). Clinical response at week 14 was 42.7% and 48.3% in the IVi and SCi groups (non-statistically significant), respectively. Clinical remission rates at week 52 were 32.8% and 31.4% in the IVi and SCi groups (nonsignificant differences), respectively. A propensity-matched score analysis showed a higher clinical response rate at week 14 in the SCi group and higher treatment persistence in the IVi group. Regarding long-term outcomes, dose escalation and discontinuation due to the primary failure of the first anti-TNF and more severe disease activity at the beginning of the second anti-TNF were inversely associated with clinical remission. Conclusion: The use of a second anti-TNF for UC seems to be reasonable in terms of efficacy, although it is particularly reduced in the case of the primary failure of the first anti-TNF. Whether the second anti-TNF is infliximab or subcutaneous does not seem to affect efficacy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in UC patients. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. METHODS: Patients from the ENEIDA registry treated consecutively with infliximab and a subcutaneous anti-TNF (or vice versa), naïve to other biological agents, were identified and grouped according to the administration route of the first anti-TNF into IVi (intravenous initially) or SCi (subcutaneous initially). RESULTS: Overall, 473 UC patients were included (330 IVi, 143 SCi). Clinical response at week 14 was 42.7% and 48.3% in the IVi and SCi groups (non-statistically significant), respectively. Clinical remission rates at week 52 were 32.8% and 31.4%, in the IVi and SCi groups (nonsignificant differences), respectively. A propensity-matched score analysis showed a higher clinical response rate at week 14 in the SCi group and higher treatment persistence in the IVi group. Regarding long-term outcomes, dose escalation and discontinuation due to the primary failure of the first anti-TNF and more severe disease activity at the beginning of the second anti-TNF were inversely associated with clinical remission. CONCLUSION: The use of a second anti-TNF for UC seems to be reasonable in terms of efficacy, although it is particularly reduced in the case of the primary failure of the first anti-TNF. Whether the second anti-TNF is infliximab or subcutaneous does not seem to affect efficacy.

Clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with two consecutive anti-TNF agents. Data from the ENEIDA registry Background: Infliximab seems to be the most efficacious of the three available anti-TNF agents for ulcerative colitis (UC), but little is known when it is used as the second anti-TNF.

Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of Vedolizumab Versus Ustekinumab After Anti-TNF Failure in Crohn's Disease (Versus-CD): Data from the ENEIDA Registry.

BACKGROUND: Both vedolizumab and ustekinumab are approved for the management of Crohn's disease [CD]. Data on which one would be the most beneficial option when anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] agents fail are limited. AIMS: To compare the durability, effectiveness, and safety of vedolizumab and ustekinumab after anti-TNF failure or intolerance in CD. METHODS: CD patients from the ENEIDA registry who received vedolizumab or ustekinumab after anti-TNF failure or intolerance were included. Durability and effectiveness were evaluated in both the short and the long term. Effectiveness was defined according to the Harvey-Bradshaw index [HBI]. The safety profile was compared between the two treatments. The propensity score was calculated by the inverse probability weighting method to balance confounder factors. RESULTS: A total of 835 patients from 30 centres were included, 207 treated with vedolizumab and 628 with ustekinumab. Dose intensification was performed in 295 patients. Vedolizumab [vs ustekinumab] was associated with a higher risk of treatment discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR] 2.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.02-3.21), adjusted by corticosteroids at baseline [HR 1.27; 95% CI: 1.00-1.62], moderate-severe activity in HBI [HR 1.79; 95% CI: 1.20-2.48], and high levels of C-reactive protein at baseline [HR 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02-1.10]. The inverse probability weighting method confirmed these results. Clinical response, remission, and corticosteroid-free clinical remission were higher with ustekinumab than with vedolizumab. Both drugs had a low risk of adverse events with no differences between them. CONCLUSION: In CD patients who have failed anti-TNF agents, ustekinumab seems to be superior to vedolizumab in terms of durability and effectiveness in clinical practice. The safety profile is good and similar for both treatments.

Endoscopic treatment (endoscopic balloon dilation/self-expandable metal stent) vs surgical resection for the treatment of de novo stenosis in Crohn's disease (ENDOCIR study): an open-label, multicentre, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Stenosis is one of the most common complications in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). Endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) is the treatment of choice for a short stenosis adjacent to the anastomosis from previous surgery. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) may be a suitable treatment option for longer stenoses. To date, however, there is no scientific evidence as to whether endoscopic (EBD/SEMS) or surgical treatment is the best approach for de novo or primary stenoses that are less than 10 cm in length. METHODS/DESIGN: Exploratory study as "proof-of-concept", multicentre, open-label, randomized trial of the treatment of de novo stenosis in the CD; endoscopic treatment (EBD/SEMS) vs surgical resection (SR). The type of endoscopic treatment will initially be with EDB; if a therapeutic failure occurs, then a SEMS will be placed. We estimate 2 years of recruitment and 1 year of follow-up for the assessment of quality of life, costs, complications, and clinical recurrence. After the end of the study, patients will be followed up for 3 years to re-evaluate the variables over the long term. Forty patients with de novo stenosis in CD will be recruited from 15 hospitals in Spain and will be randomly assigned to the endoscopic or surgical treatment groups. The primary aim will be the evaluation of the patient quality of life at 1 year follow-up (% of patients with an increase of 30 points in the 32-item Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ-32). The secondary aim will be evaluation of the clinical recurrence rate, complications, and costs of both treatments at 1-year follow-up. DISCUSSION: The ENDOCIR trial has been designed to determine whether an endoscopic or surgical approach is therapeutically superior in the treatment of de novo stenosis in CD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04330846. Registered on 1 April 1 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home.

Real-World Evidence of Tofacinitib in Ulcerative Colitis: Short-Term and Long-Term Effectiveness and Safety.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to assess the durability, short-term and long-term effectiveness, and safety of tofacitinib in ulcerative colitis (UC) in clinical practice. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter study including patients with UC who had received the first tofacitinib dose at least 8 weeks before the inclusion. Clinical effectiveness was based on partial Mayo score. RESULTS: A total of 408 patients were included. Of them, 184 (45%) withdrew tofacitinib during follow-up (mean = 18 months). The probability of maintaining tofacitinib was 67% at 6 m, 58% at 12 m, and 49% at 24 m. The main reason for tofacitinib withdrawal was primary nonresponse (44%). Older age at the start of tofacitinib and a higher severity of clinical activity were associated with tofacitinib withdrawal. The proportion of patients in remission was 38% at week 4, 45% at week 8, and 47% at week 16. Having moderate-to-severe vs mild disease activity at baseline and older age at tofacitinib start were associated with a lower and higher likelihood of remission at week 8, respectively. Of 171 patients in remission at week 8, 83 (49%) relapsed. The probability of maintaining response was 66% at 6 m and 54% at 12 m. There were 93 adverse events related to tofacitinib treatment (including 2 pulmonary thromboembolisms [in patients with risk factors] and 2 peripheral vascular thrombosis), and 29 led to tofacitinib discontinuation. DISCUSSION: Tofacitinib is effective in both short-term and long-term in patients with UC. The safety profile is similar to that previously reported.

Risk Factors for COVID-19 in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A National, ENEIDA-Based Case-Control Study (COVID-19-EII).

(1) Scant information is available concerning the characteristics that may favour the acquisition of COVID-19 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess these differences between infected and noninfected patients with IBD. (2) This nationwide case−control study evaluated patients with inflammatory bowel disease with COVID-19 (cases) and without COVID-19 (controls) during the period March−July 2020 included in the ENEIDA of GETECCU. (3) A total of 496 cases and 964 controls from 73 Spanish centres were included. No differences were found in the basal characteristics between cases and controls. Cases had higher comorbidity Charlson scores (24% vs. 19%; p = 0.02) and occupational risk (28% vs. 10.5%; p < 0.0001) more frequently than did controls. Lockdown was the only protective measure against COVID-19 (50% vs. 70%; p < 0.0001). No differences were found in the use of systemic steroids, immunosuppressants or biologics between cases and controls. Cases were more often treated with 5-aminosalicylates (42% vs. 34%; p = 0.003). Having a moderate Charlson score (OR: 2.7; 95%CI: 1.3−5.9), occupational risk (OR: 2.9; 95%CI: 1.8−4.4) and the use of 5-aminosalicylates (OR: 1.7; 95%CI: 1.2−2.5) were factors for COVID-19. The strict lockdown was the only protective factor (OR: 0.1; 95%CI: 0.09−0.2). (4) Comorbidities and occupational exposure are the most relevant factors for COVID-19 in patients with IBD. The risk of COVID-19 seems not to be increased by immunosuppressants or biologics, with a potential effect of 5-aminosalicylates, which should be investigated further and interpreted with caution.

Rapidity of clinical response to adalimumab and improvement of quality of life in luminal Crohn's disease: RAPIDA study / Rapidez de la respuesta clínica a adalimumab y mejora de la calidad de vida en la enfermedad de Crohn luminal: estudio RAPIDA

Objective: No studies evaluating the rapidity of response to biological therapies are available for Crohn's disease (CD). The aim of this study was to evaluate rapidity of onset of clinical response and impact on quality of life (QoL) of adalimumab therapy in adult anti-TNF-naïve patients with moderately-to-severely active CD.Patients and methods: RAPIDA was an open-label, single-arm, prospective, multicenter clinical trial. Adult patients with moderately-to-severely active luminal CD, anti-TNF-naïve, and unresponsive to conventional therapy were treated with adalimumab. Clinical disease activity, QoL and inflammatory biomarkers were measured at day 4, and weeks 1, 2, 4, and 12 after treatment initiation. Results: Eighty-six patients were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. Clinical disease activity was reduced from a median of 9.0 points to 6.0 points at day 4. Clinical response (≥ 3-point reduction in the Harvey-Bradshaw Index, HBI) was achieved by 61.6% (d4) and 75.6% (w1) of patients in the ITT population (median 2.5 days) and with non-responder imputation (NRI), by 55.8% and 53.4%, respectively. The proportion of patients in clinical remission (HBI<5) at weeks 2 and 4 in the ITT population was 54.7% and 62.8%, respectively (median 7.0 days), and 38.4% and 45.3% in the NRI population. All QoL scores significantly improved and inflammatory biomarkers significantly decreased from day 4 onwards (p<0.0001).Conclusion: Rapid clinical response and remission, improvement in QoL and fatigue, and a reduction of inflammatory biomarkers were achieved with adalimumab as early as day 4 in adult anti-TNF-naïve patients with moderately-to-severely active CD. (AU)

Objetivo: No hay estudios que evalúen la rapidez de la respuesta a las terapias biológicas en la enfermedad de Crohn (EC). El objetivo fue evaluar la rapidez del inicio de la respuesta clínica y el impacto en la calidad de vida (CdV) de la terapia con adalimumab en pacientes adultos con EC moderada-grave. Pacientes y métodos: RAPIDA fue un ensayo clínico abierto, de un solo brazo, prospectivo y multicéntrico. Se trató con adalimumab a pacientes adultos con EC luminal activa moderada-grave, sin tratamiento previo con anti-TNF y sin respuesta a terapia convencional. Se midieron la actividad clínica de la enfermedad, la CdV y los biomarcadores inflamatorios el día 4 y las semanas 1, 2, 4 y 12 tras el tratamiento.Resultados: Se incluyeron 86 pacientes en los análisis por intención de tratar (IdT). La actividad clínica de la enfermedad se redujo de una mediana de 9,0 a 6,0 puntos en el día 4. La respuesta clínica (reducción ≥3 puntos en el Índice Harvey-Bradshaw, IHB) se dio en un 61,4% (d4) y un 75,6% (s1) de los pacientes IdT y en un 55,8% y un 53,4% con imputación de no respondedores (INR). La proporción de pacientes IdT en remisión clínica (IHB<5) en las s2 y s4 fue de 54,7% y 62,8%, respectivamente, y 38,4% y 45,3% en la población INR. Todas las puntuaciones de CdV mejoraron significativamente y los biomarcadores inflamatorios disminuyeron significativamente desde el día 4 (p<0,0001).Conclusiones: Se logró una rápida respuesta clínica y remisión, mejoría en la CdV y fatiga, y una reducción de los biomarcadores inflamatorios en los pacientes tratados con adalimumab ya en el día 4. (AU)

Nationwide COVID-19-EII Study: Incidence, Environmental Risk Factors and Long-Term Follow-Up of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease and COVID-19 of the ENEIDA Registry.

We aim to describe the incidence and source of contagion of COVID-19 in patients with IBD, as well as the risk factors for a severe course and long-term sequelae. This is a prospective observational study of IBD and COVID-19 included in the ENEIDA registry (53,682 from 73 centres) between March-July 2020 followed-up for 12 months. Results were compared with data of the general population (National Centre of Epidemiology and Catalonia). A total of 482 patients with COVID-19 were identified. Twenty-eight percent were infected in the work environment, and 48% were infected by intrafamilial transmission, despite having good adherence to lockdown. Thirty-five percent required hospitalization, 7.9% had severe COVID-19 and 3.7% died. Similar data were reported in the general population (hospitalisation 19.5%, ICU 2.1% and mortality 4.6%). Factors related to death and severe COVID-19 were being aged ≥ 60 years (OR 7.1, 95% CI: 1.8-27 and 4.5, 95% CI: 1.3-15.9), while having ≥2 comorbidities increased mortality (OR 3.9, 95% CI: 1.3-11.6). None of the drugs for IBD were related to severe COVID-19. Immunosuppression was definitively stopped in 1% of patients at 12 months. The prognosis of COVID-19 in IBD, even in immunosuppressed patients, is similar to that in the general population. Thus, there is no need for more strict protection measures in IBD.