Initial management of intraabdominal abscesses and preventive strategies for abscess recurrence in penetrating Crohn's disease: a national multicenter study based on ENEIDA registry.

INTRODUCTION: Intra-abdominal abscesses complicating Crohn's disease (CD) are a challenging situation. Their management, during the hospitalization and after resolution, is still unclear. METHODS: Adult patients with CD complicated with intraabdominal abscess who required hospitalization were included from the prospectively maintained ENEIDA registry from GETECCU. Initial strategy effectiveness and safety to resolve abscess was assessed. Survival analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence risk. Predictive factors associated with resolution were evaluated by multivariate regression and predictive factors associated with recurrence were assessed by Cox regression. RESULTS: 520 patients from 37 Spanish hospitals were included; 322 (63%) were initially treated with antibiotics alone, 128 (26%) with percutaneous drainage, and 54 (17%) with surgical drainage. The size of the abscess was critical to the effectiveness of each treatment. In abscesses < 30mm, the antibiotic was as effective as percutaneous or surgical drainage. However, in larger abscesses, percutaneous or surgical drainage was superior. In abscesses > 50mm, surgery was superior to percutaneous drainage, although it was associated with a higher complication rate. After abscess resolution, luminal resection was associated with a lower 1-year abscess recurrence risk (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.76). However, those patients who initiated anti-TNF therapy had a similar recurrence risk whether luminal resection had been performed. CONCLUSIONS: Small abscesses (<30mm) can be managed with antibiotics alone, while larger ones require drainage. Percutaneous drainage will be effective and safer than surgery in many cases. After discharge, anti-TNF therapy reduces abscess recurrence risk in a similar way to bowel resection.

Biological treatment interruption in inflammatory bowel disease: Motivation and predictive factors / Interrupción del tratamiento biológico en la enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal: causas y factores predictores

Background: Loss-of-response and adverse events (AE) to biologics have been linked to HLA-DQA1*05 allele. However, the clinical factors or biologic used may influence treatment duration. Our objective was to evaluate the influence of clinical and therapeutic factors, along with HLA, in biological treatment discontinuation. Methods: A retrospective study of consecutive IBD patients treated with biologics between 2007 and 2011 was performed. Main outcome was treatment discontinuation due to primary non-response (PNR), secondary loss of response (SLR) or AE. HLA-DQA1 genotyping was done in all patients. Regression analyses were used to assess risk factors of treatment discontinuation. Results: One hundred fifty patients (61% male) with 312 biologic treatments were included. 147 (47%) were discontinued with a cumulative probability of 30%, 41% and 56% at 1, 2 and 5 years. The use of infliximab (p=0.006) and articular manifestations (p<0.05) were associated with treatment discontinuation. Considering cause of withdrawal, Ulcerative Colitis (UC) had a higher proportion of PNR (HR=4.99; 95% CI=1.71–14.63; p=0.003), SLR was higher if biologics had been indicated due to disease flare (HR=2.32; 95% CI=1.05–5.09; p=0.037) while AE were greater with infliximab (HR=2.46; 95% CI=1.48–4.08; p<0.001) or spondylitis (HR=2.46; 95% CI=1.78–6.89; p<0.001). According to the biological drug, HLA-DQA1*05 with adalimumab showed more SLR in cases with Crohn's disease (HR=3.49; 95% CI=1.39–8,78; p=0.008) or without concomitant immunomodulator (HR=2.8; 95% CI=1.1–6.93; p=0.026). Conclusions: HLA-DQ A1*05 was relevant in SLR of IBD patients treated with adalimumab without immunosupression. In patients treated with other biologics, clinical factors were more important for treatment interruption, mainly extensive UC or extraintestinal manifestations and having indicated the biologic for flare. (AU)

Introducción: Estudios previos han observado una asociación entre el HLA-DQA1*05 y la pérdida de respuesta a biológicos y el desarrollo de efectos adversos (EA). Hay factores clínicos y biológicos que podrían influir en la duración del tratamiento. El objetivo del estudio fue evaluar la influencia del HLA, de factores clínicos y terapéuticos en la interrupción del tratamiento biológico. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo de pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII) tratados con biológicos entre 2007 y 2011. Los principales eventos analizados fueron la suspensión del tratamiento por fallo de respuesta primaria (PRP), secundaria (PRS) o EA. Se realizó un tipaje del HLA-DQA1*05 y se evaluaron los factores de riesgo de interrupción del tratamiento mediante un análisis de regresión logística. Resultados: Se incluyeron 150 pacientes y 312 tratamientos, de los cuales se suspendieron 147 (47%) en el seguimiento. El infliximab (p=0,006) y las manifestaciones articulares (p<0,05) se relacionaron con la interrupción del tratamiento. La colitis ulcerosa (CU) presentó mayor PRP (HR: 4,99; IC 95%: 1,71-14,63; p=0,003), el brote como indicación de tratamiento se asoció a más PRS (HR: 2,32; IC 95%: 1,05-5,09; p=0,037); el uso de infliximab (HR: 2,46; IC 95%: 1,48-4,08; p<0,001) y la espondilitis (HR: 2,46; IC 95%: 1,78-6,89; p<0,001) a la suspensión por EA. El HLA-DQA1*05 fue un factor de riesgo de PRS en los pacientes tratados con adalimumab (ADA) con enfermedad de Crohn (HR: 3,49; IC 95%: 1,39-8,78; p=0,008) o con EII sin inmunosupresor asociado (HR: 2,8; IC 95%: 1,1-6,93; p=0,026). Conclusiones: El HLA-DQA1*05 se asoció al cese del tratamiento con ADA por PRS en los pacientes con EII sin inmunosupresor asociado. Respecto a otros biológicos, la suspensión se debió más a factores como la CU, las manifestaciones articulares y la indicación para remisión de brote intestinal. (AU)

Endoscopic removal of lumen-apposing metal stents - risk factors for stent embedment, complex removals, and adverse events: analysis from a multicenter prospective case series.

BACKGROUND: Removing lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) may be difficult and even harmful, but these features have seldom been analyzed. We aimed to generate a comprehensive assessment of the feasibility and safety of LAMS retrieval procedures. METHODS: A prospective multicenter case series including all technically successfully deployed LAMSs between January 2019 and January 2020 that underwent endoscopic stent removal. All retrieval-related data were prospectively recorded using standardized telephone questionnaires as part of centralized follow-up that ended after stent removal had been performed. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the potential risk factors for complex removal. RESULTS: For the 407 LAMSs included, removal was attempted in 158 (38.8 %) after an indwell time of 46.5 days (interquartile range [IQR] 31-70). The median (IQR) removal time was 2 (1-4) minutes. Removal was labelled as complex in 13 procedures (8.2 %), although advanced endoscopic maneuvers were required in only two (1.3 %). Complex removal risk factors were stent embedment (relative risk [RR] 5.84, 95 %CI 2.14-15.89; P = 0.001), over-the-wire deployment (RR 4.66, 95 %CI 1.60-13.56; P = 0.01), and longer indwell times (RR 1.14, 95 %CI 1.03-1.27; P = 0.01). Partial and complete embedment were observed in 14 (8.9 %) and five cases (3.2 %), respectively. The embedment rate during the first 6 weeks was 3.1 % (2/65), reaching 15.9 % (10/63) during the following 6 weeks (P = 0.02). The adverse event rate was 5.1 %, including seven gastrointestinal bleeds (5 mild, 2 moderate). CONCLUSIONS: LAMS removal is a safe procedure, mostly requiring basic endoscopic techniques attainable in conventional endoscopy rooms. Referral to advanced endoscopy units should be considered for stents with known embedment or long indwell times, which may require more technically demanding procedures.

Biological treatment interruption in inflammatory bowel disease: Motivation and predictive factors.

BACKGROUND: Loss-of-response and adverse events (AE) to biologics have been linked to HLA-DQA1*05 allele. However, the clinical factors or biologic used may influence treatment duration. Our objective was to evaluate the influence of clinical and therapeutic factors, along with HLA, in biological treatment discontinuation. METHODS: A retrospective study of consecutive IBD patients treated with biologics between 2007 and 2011 was performed. Main outcome was treatment discontinuation due to primary non-response (PNR), secondary loss of response (SLR) or AE. HLA-DQA1 genotyping was done in all patients. Regression analyses were used to assess risk factors of treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients (61% male) with 312 biologic treatments were included. 147 (47%) were discontinued with a cumulative probability of 30%, 41% and 56% at 1, 2 and 5 years. The use of infliximab (p=0.006) and articular manifestations (p<0.05) were associated with treatment discontinuation. Considering cause of withdrawal, Ulcerative Colitis (UC) had a higher proportion of PNR (HR=4.99; 95% CI=1.71-14.63; p=0.003), SLR was higher if biologics had been indicated due to disease flare (HR=2.32; 95% CI=1.05-5.09; p=0.037) while AE were greater with infliximab (HR=2.46; 95% CI=1.48-4.08; p<0.001) or spondylitis (HR=2.46; 95% CI=1.78-6.89; p<0.001). According to the biological drug, HLA-DQA1*05 with adalimumab showed more SLR in cases with Crohn's disease (HR=3.49; 95% CI=1.39-8,78; p=0.008) or without concomitant immunomodulator (HR=2.8; 95% CI=1.1-6.93; p=0.026). CONCLUSIONS: HLA-DQ A1*05 was relevant in SLR of IBD patients treated with adalimumab without immunosupression. In patients treated with other biologics, clinical factors were more important for treatment interruption, mainly extensive UC or extraintestinal manifestations and having indicated the biologic for flare.

Management of patients with Intestinal Bowel Disease and COVID-19: A review of current evidence and future perspectives / Manejo de pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal y COVID-19: revisión de la evidencia actual y perspectivas futuras

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge for countries and health professionals worldwide. Viral entry by ACE-2 receptor and an excessive activation of the immune system are key to understand both incidence and severity of disease. Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) represents a special condition associated with an inordinate response of the immune system to external agents. IBD treatments have been associated to an increased risk of bacterial and viral infections. This has raised the question of possible higher incidence and severity of COVID-19 infection in IBD patients. Several papers have been published during this year of pandemic to answer that question. Moreover, COVID-19 vaccination offers great promise in controlling infection in patients with IBD. Based on current evidence, patients with IBD do not have a higher incidence of COVID-19 than the general population, and they do not have worse disease evolution. Advanced age and presence of a greater number of comorbidities have been associated with worse outcomes, similar to the general population. Corticosteroids are associated to an increased risk of COVID-19 infection, higher hospitalization rate and higher risk of severe COVID-19. 5-ASA/Sulfasalazine and Thiopurines have a possible increased risk of severe COVID-19, although studies are lacking. On the other hand, Anti-TNF may have a possible protective effect. It is recommended to maintain the treatment. Anti-IL-12/23, anti-integrins and tofacitinib have results comparable to anti-TNF. Based on the efficacy, expert recommendations, and the absence of other evidence, it is recommended that patients with IBD be vaccinated.(AU)

La pandemia por COVID-19ha supuesto un reto para los países y sus profesionales sanitarios. La entrada viral en el hospedador a través del receptor ACE-2 y una activación excesiva del sistema inmunológico son claves para comprender tanto la incidencia como la gravedad de la enfermedad. La enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII) representa una condición especial asociada con una respuesta descontrolada del sistema inmunológico a agentes externos. Los tratamientos para la EII se han asociado con un mayor riesgo de infecciones bacterianas y virales, lo que ha planteado la cuestión de una posible mayor incidencia y gravedad de la infección por COVID-19 en pacientes con EII. A lo largo del año 2021 se han publicado varios artículos que tratan de responder esta cuestión. La vacunación contra la COVID-19 ofrece una gran promesa para controlar la infección en pacientes con EII. Según la evidencia actual, los pacientes con EII no tienen mayor incidencia de COVID-19 ni peor evolución de la enfermedad en comparación con la población general. La edad avanzada y la presencia de un mayor número de comorbilidades se han asociado con peores resultados. Los corticosteroides están asociados con un mayor riesgo de infección por COVID-19, una mayor tasa de hospitalizaciones y un mayor riesgo de enfermedad grave. La mesalazina/sulfasalazina y las tiopurinas presentan un posible aumento del riesgo de COVID-19 grave, aunque se requieren más estudios para demostrar esta asociación. Dentro de los fármacos biológicos, los anti-TNF pueden tener un posible efecto protector. Los anti-IL-12/23, anti-integrinas y tofacitinib presentan resultados comparables con anti-TNF. Se recomienda mantener el tratamiento con agentes biológicos. Con base en la eficacia, las recomendaciones de los expertos y la ausencia de otra evidencia, se recomienda la vacunación de pacientes con EII.(AU)

Management of patients with Intestinal Bowel Disease and COVID-19: A review of current evidence and future perspectives.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge for countries and health professionals worldwide. Viral entry by ACE-2 receptor and an excessive activation of the immune system are key to understand both incidence and severity of disease. Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) represents a special condition associated with an inordinate response of the immune system to external agents. IBD treatments have been associated to an increased risk of bacterial and viral infections. This has raised the question of possible higher incidence and severity of COVID-19 infection in IBD patients. Several papers have been published during this year of pandemic to answer that question. Moreover, COVID-19 vaccination offers great promise in controlling infection in patients with IBD. Based on current evidence, patients with IBD do not have a higher incidence of COVID-19 than the general population, and they do not have worse disease evolution. Advanced age and presence of a greater number of comorbidities have been associated with worse outcomes, similar to the general population. Corticosteroids are associated to an increased risk of COVID-19 infection, higher hospitalization rate and higher risk of severe COVID-19. 5-ASA/Sulfasalazine and Thiopurines have a possible increased risk of severe COVID-19, although studies are lacking. On the other hand, Anti-TNF may have a possible protective effect. It is recommended to maintain the treatment. Anti-IL-12/23, anti-integrins and tofacitinib have results comparable to anti-TNF. Based on the efficacy, expert recommendations, and the absence of other evidence, it is recommended that patients with IBD be vaccinated.