Infliximab for medical induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and neutralises tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), which is present in high levels in the blood serum, mucosa and stool of people with Crohn's disease. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of infliximab alone or in combination with another agent for induction of remission in Crohn's disease compared to placebo or active medical therapies. SEARCH METHODS: On 31 August 2021 and 4 March 2023, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization ICTRP. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing infliximab alone or in combination with another agent to placebo or another active comparator in adults with active Crohn's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were clinical remission, clinical response and withdrawals due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were endoscopic remission, histological remission, endoscopic response, and serious and total adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 10 RCTs with 1101 participants. They were conducted between 1999 and 2019, and 7/10 RCTs included biologically naive participants. All but one RCT, which did not provide information, were multicentre and funded by pharmaceutical companies, and their authors declared conflicts. The age of the participants ranged from 26 to 65 years. Results were based on one study unless otherwise stated. Infliximab 5 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg may be more effective than placebo at week four for clinical remission (30/55 versus 3/25; RR 4.55, 95% CI 1.53 to 13.50; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3) and response (36/55 versus 4/25; RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.63 to 10.25, NNTB 3). The evidence was low certainty. The study did not report withdrawals due to adverse events. We could not draw conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg compared to placebo for fistulating participants for clinical remission (29/63 versus 4/31; RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.38 to 9.25; NNTB 4), response (48/106 versus 15/75; RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.41; NNTB 6; 2 studies) or withdrawals due to adverse events (2/63 versus 0/31; RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.12 to 50.54). The evidence was very low certainty. Infliximab used in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective than purine analogues alone for clinical remission at weeks 24 to 26 (182/301 versus 95/302; RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.32, NNTB 4; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and clinical response at week 26 (107/177 versus 66/178; RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.05; NNTB 5; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events at week 26 (62/302 versus 53/301; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.21; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Infliximab alone may be more effective than purine analogues alone at week 26 for clinical remission (85/177 versus 57/178; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.95; NNTB 7; 2 studies) and response (94/177 versus 66/178; RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.82; NNTB 7; 2 studies). There may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (30/177 versus 43/178; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.06; 4 studies). The evidence was low certainty. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 10 mg/kg for clinical remission (19/27 versus 11/28; RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.02) and response (22/27 versus 24/28; RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.46). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 10 mg/kg in an exclusively fistulating population for clinical remission (17/31 versus 12/32; RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.53), response (21/31 versus 18/32; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.78), or withdrawals due to adverse events (1/31 versus 1/32; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.79). The evidence was very low certainty. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 20 mg/kg for clinical remission (19/27 versus 11/28; RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.02) or response (22/27 versus 18/28; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.76). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 10 mg/kg compared to 20 mg/kg for clinical remission (11/28 versus 11/28; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.92) or response (14/28 versus 18/28; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.23). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. There may be little or no difference between infliximab and a CT-P13 biosimilar at week six for clinical remission (47/109 versus 49/111; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.32), response (67/109 versus 70/111; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20) and withdrawals due to adverse events (21/109 versus 17/111; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.25). The evidence was low certainty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective than purine analogues alone in inducing clinical remission and clinical response. Infliximab alone may be more effective in inducing clinical remission and response than purine analogues alone or placebo. Infliximab may be similar in efficacy to a CT-P13 biosimilar and there may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions as to whether infliximab alone is effective when used for exclusively fistulating populations. There was evidence that there may be little or no difference in withdrawal due to adverse events between infliximab plus purines compared with purines alone, as well as infliximab alone compared with purines alone. Meaningful conclusions cannot be drawn on all other outcomes related to adverse events due to very low certainty evidence.

BSG 2024 IBD guidelines protocol (standard operating procedures).

INTRODUCTION: In the past 5 years, there have been several advances in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aim for a new guideline to update the most recent guideline published in 2019. We present the prospective operating procedure and technical summary protocol in the manuscript. METHODS: 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) will be followed in the development of the guideline, approach as laid out in the GRADE handbook, supported by the WHO. The guideline development group is formed by a variety of disciplines, across both primary and secondary care that took part in an online Delphi process and split into key areas. A final consensus list of thematic questions within a 'patient, intervention, comparison, outcome' format has been produced and agreed in the final phase of the Delphi process.There will be a detailed technical evidence review with source data including systematic reviews appraised with AMSATAR 2 tool (Assessment of multiple systematic reviews), randomised controlled trial data that will be judged for risk of bias with the Cochrane tool and observational studies for safety concerns assessed through the Robins-I tool. Based on the available evidence, some of the recommendations will be based on GRADE while others will be best practice statements.A full Delphi process will be used to make recommendations using online response systems.This set of procedures has been approved by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee, the British Society of Gastroenterology executive board and aligned with IBD UK standards.

EXTRADIGESTIVE MANIFESTATIONS OF GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE: DEMOGRAPHIC, CLINICAL, BIOLOGICAL AND ENDOSCOPIC FEATURES.

UNLABELLED: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with extradigestive manifestations is a disorder increasingly recognized both by gastroenterologists, pneumologists, otolaryngologists and cardiologists. AIM: To evaluate the demographical, clinical, biological and endoscopic features of the patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and extradigestive manifestations (chronic laryngitis, asthma, pseudoangina). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective case-control study, including 137 patients selected from patients referred to the Iasi Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology between July 2014-September 2015. In the presence of typical GERD symptoms (heartburn or regurgitation), the patients were assessed by upper digestive endoscopy for the detection or exclusion of esophagitis. Despite the absence of esophageal lesions, the patients were further assessed by impedance-pHmetry. RESULTS: Depending on the dominant extradigestive manifestation, the patients were assigned into 3 groups: 94 chronic laryngitis patients, 24 asthma patients and 19 pseudoangina patients. Females were more frequent among pseudoangina patients (68.4%). Mean age of the male patients with dysphonia or asthma was lower (p=0.002), the majority (78.1%) living in urban areas. Obesity was predominant in pseudoangina group (52.6%), as compared to dysphonia group (16%) the differences being statistically significant (p=0.002). A share of 57.9% of pseudoangina patients were dyslipidemic, in contrast to dysphonia (24.5%) or asthma group (37.5%) (p=0.013). Esophagitis was also more frequent at pseudoangina group (84.2%), but with no significant statistical difference between the study groups (79.8% and 75%, respectively) (p=0.115). It seems that Helicobacterpylori infection tends to be protective in patients with GERD and pseudoangina (RR=0.61), but it can not be extrapolated to the general population (p=0.459). CONCLUSION: GERD with extradigestive manifestations is a prevalent and heterogeneous disease. There are demographic, clinical, biological and endoscopic differences between patiens with extradigestive GERD.