A Prediction Model for Successful Increase of Adalimumab Dose Intervals in Patients with Crohn's Disease: Secondary Analysis of the Pragmatic Open-Label Randomised Controlled Non-inferiority LADI Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the pragmatic open-label randomised controlled non-inferiority LADI trial we showed that increasing adalimumab (ADA) dose intervals was non-inferior to conventional dosing for persistent flares in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) in clinical and biochemical remission. AIMS: To develop a prediction model to identify patients who can successfully increase their ADA dose interval based on secondary analysis of trial data. METHODS: Patients in the intervention group of the LADI trial increased ADA intervals to 3 and then to 4 weeks. The dose interval increase was defined as successful when patients had no persistent flare (> 8 weeks), no intervention-related severe adverse events, no rescue medication use during the study, and were on an increased dose interval while in clinical and biochemical remission at week 48. Prediction models were based on logistic regression with relaxed LASSO. Models were internally validated using bootstrap optimism correction. RESULTS: We included 109 patients, of which 60.6% successfully increased their dose interval. Patients that were active smokers (odds ratio [OR] 0.90), had previous CD-related intra-abdominal surgeries (OR 0.85), proximal small bowel disease (OR 0.92), an increased Harvey-Bradshaw Index (OR 0.99) or increased faecal calprotectin (OR 0.997) were less likely to successfully increase their dose interval. The model had fair discriminative ability (AUC = 0.63) and net benefit analysis showed that the model could be used to select patients who could increase their dose interval. CONCLUSION: The final prediction model seems promising to select patients who could successfully increase their ADA dose interval. The model should be validated externally before it may be applied in clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03172377.

Implementation of Best Practices in Pancreatic Cancer Care in the Netherlands: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Implementation of new cancer treatment strategies as recommended by evidence-based guidelines is often slow and suboptimal. Objective: To improve the implementation of guideline-based best practices in the Netherlands in pancreatic cancer care and assess the impact on survival. Design, setting, and participants: This multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial compared enhanced implementation of best practices with usual care in consecutive patients with all stages of pancreatic cancer. It took place from May 22, 2018 through July 9, 2020. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2022, through February 1, 2023. It included all patients in the Netherlands with pathologically or clinically diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study reports 1-year follow-up (or shorter in case of deceased patients). Intervention: The 5 best practices included optimal use of perioperative chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), referral to a dietician, and use of metal stents in patients with biliary obstruction. A 6-week implementation period was completed, in a randomized order, in all 17 Dutch networks for pancreatic cancer care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included adherence to best practices and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] global health score). Results: Overall, 5887 patients with pancreatic cancer (median age, 72.0 [IQR, 64.0-79.0] years; 50% female) were enrolled, 2641 before and 2939 after implementation of best practices (307 during wash-in period). One-year survival was 24% vs 23% (hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). There was no difference in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (11% vs 11%), adjuvant chemotherapy (48% vs 51%), and referral to a dietician (59% vs 63%), while the use of palliative chemotherapy (24% vs 30%; odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74), PERT (34% vs 45%; OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.28-2.11), and metal biliary stents increased (74% vs 83%; OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.13-2.80). The EORTC global health score did not improve (area under the curve, 43.9 vs 42.8; median difference, -1.09, 95% CI, -3.05 to 0.94). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, implementation of 5 best practices in pancreatic cancer care did not improve 1-year survival and quality of life. The finding that most patients received no tumor-directed treatment paired with the poor survival highlights the need for more personalized treatment options. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03513705.

Prospective multicentre study of indications for surgery in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis following endoscopic ultrasonography (PICUS).

BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) is controversial. A randomized trial found cholecystectomy to reduce the recurrence rate of IAP but did not include preoperative endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). As EUS is effective in detecting gallstone disease, cholecystectomy may be indicated only in patients with gallstone disease. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic value of EUS in patients with IAP, and the rate of recurrent pancreatitis in patients in whom EUS could not determine the aetiology (EUS-negative IAP). METHODS: This prospective multicentre cohort study included patients with a first episode of IAP who underwent outpatient EUS. The primary outcome was detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcomes included adverse events after EUS, recurrence of pancreatitis, and quality of life during 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: After screening 957 consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis from 24 centres, 105 patients with IAP were included and underwent EUS. In 34 patients (32 per cent), EUS detected an aetiology: (micro)lithiasis and biliary sludge (23.8 per cent), chronic pancreatitis (6.7 per cent), and neoplasms (2.9 per cent); 2 of the latter patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy. During 1-year follow-up, the pancreatitis recurrence rate was 17 per cent (12 of 71) among patients with EUS-negative IAP versus 6 per cent (2 of 34) among those with positive EUS. Recurrent pancreatitis was associated with poorer quality of life. CONCLUSION: EUS detected an aetiology in a one-third of patients with a first episode of IAP, requiring mostly cholecystectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy. The role of cholecystectomy in patients with EUS-negative IAP remains uncertain and warrants further study.

Some patients develop acute inflammation of the pancreas without a clear cause. These patients have a high risk of developing more episodes of acute inflammation of the pancreas. Potentially, such inflammation could be caused by tiny gallstones that physicians are not able to detect. If this is true, these patients may also benefit from surgical removal of the gallbladder. However, this is still controversial. Endoscopic ultrasonography is a diagnostic procedure during which a physician looks at the gallbladder and bile ducts in detail via a small ultrasound probe inserted through the mouth. This endoscopic ultrasonography may be able to detect gallstones better than physicians were able to previously. This study tested the value of endoscopic ultrasonography, and the number of patients who developed more episodes of acute inflammation after endoscopic ultrasonography was recorded. Some 106 patients with acute inflammation of the pancreas for the first time without a clear cause participated and were offered endoscopic ultrasonography. The number of times endoscopic ultrasonography found a cause for the acute inflammation was recorded, as well as safety parameters, number of patients who developed more episodes of acute inflammation, and quality of life. After screening 957 patients, 105 ultimately underwent endoscopic ultrasonography. A cause was found in one-third of patients. This was mostly (tiny) gallstones, but chronic inflammation and even tumours were found. These patients were mostly treated surgically for their gallstones and tumours. In the first year after the first acute episode of inflammation, the inflammation came back at least once in almost one in six patients in whom endoscopic ultrasonography did not find a cause. This occurred less in patients in whom a cause was found; the inflammation came back in 1 in 16 of these patients. It was also found that having inflammation coming back negatively affected quality of life. In this study, endoscopic ultrasonography was able to detect a cause in one-third of patients with first-time acute inflammation of the pancreas. In one in four patients, this cause could be treated by a surgical procedure. Whether surgical removal of the gallbladder can be helpful in patients in whom endoscopic ultrasonography is not able to detect an aetiology should be investigated in further studies.

Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy in reducing psychological distress and improving sleep in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (MindIBD).

BACKGROUND: Many patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) suffer from psychological distress, fatigue and sleep disturbances, which are associated with reduced quality of life (QoL) and increased societal costs. Only limited psychosocial treatment options are available. As Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) has demonstrated to improve psychological distress, QoL and sleep in other populations, MBCT might also be effective in patients with IBD. METHODS: The MindIBD study is a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing MBCT plus Treatment As Usual (TAU) versus TAU alone in a targeted number of 136 IBD patients in remission, aged 16 years and older with at least mild psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) total score ≥ 11). Primary outcome is reduction of psychological distress post-intervention, measured by the HADS. In addition, the effect of MBCT on sleep quality (including actigraphy and electroencephalography recordings), fatigue, disease activity, perceived disease control, QoL and positive mental health will be examined. Assessments will be conducted at baseline and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up. Cost-effectiveness will be determined and a process evaluation will be conducted. DISCUSSION: This study will provide valuable insight into the clinical effect of MBCT on psychological distress, sleep quality, fatigue and QoL in IBD patients and into the cost-effectiveness. If effective, MBCT can be a valuable addition to the available psychosocial interventions for patients with IBD. Moreover, findings from this study may also be applicable in patients with other chronic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04646785, registered on 30/11/2020.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Increased Adalimumab Dose Intervals in Crohn's Disease Patients in Stable Remission: The Randomized Controlled LADI Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of increasing adalimumab dose intervals compared to the conventional dosing interval in patients with Crohn's disease [CD] in stable clinical and biochemical remission. DESIGN: We conducted a pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, comparing increased adalimumab intervals with the 2-weekly interval in adult CD patients in clinical remission. Quality of life was measured with the EQ-5D-5L. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Results are shown as differences and incremental net monetary benefit [iNMB] at relevant willingness to accept [WTA] levels. RESULTS: We randomized 174 patients to the intervention [n = 113] and control [n = 61] groups. No difference was found in utility (difference: -0.017, 95% confidence interval [-0.044; 0.004]) and total costs (-€943, [-€2226; €1367]) over the 48-week study period between the two groups. Medication costs per patient were lower (-€2545, [-€2780; -€2192]) in the intervention group, but non-medication healthcare (+€474, [+€149; +€952]) and patient costs (+€365 [+€92; €1058]) were higher. Cost-utility analysis showed that the iNMB was €594 [-€2099; €2050], €69 [-€2908; €1965] and -€455 [-€4,096; €1984] at WTA levels of €20 000, €50 000 and €80 000, respectively. Increasing adalimumab dose intervals was more likely to be cost-effective at WTA levels below €53 960 per quality-adjusted life year. Above €53 960 continuing the conventional dose interval was more likely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: When the loss of a quality-adjusted life year is valued at less than €53 960, increasing the adalimumab dose interval is a cost-effective strategy in CD patients in stable clinical and biochemical remission. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03172377.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Vedolizumab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients during Maintenance Treatment-TUMMY Study.

There are limited data on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients treated with vedolizumab (VDZ). Although an exposure-response relation has been demonstrated in the post-induction phase, this relationship is more uncertain in the maintenance phase of treatment. The aim of our study was to determine whether there is an association between VDZ trough concentration and clinical and biochemical remission in the maintenance phase. A prospective, observational multicenter study has been performed on patients with IBD on VDZ in the maintenance treatment (≥14 weeks). Patient demographics, biomarkers, and VDZ serum trough concentrations were collected. Clinical disease activity was scored by the Harvey Bradshaw Index (HBI) for Crohn's disease (CD) and the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI) for ulcerative colitis (UC). Clinical remission was determined as HBI < 5 and SCCAI < 3. Biochemical remission was defined as fecal calprotectin <250 mg/kg and serum CRP <5 mg/L. A total of 159 patients (59 CD, 100 UC) were included. In none of the patient groups, a statistically significant correlation between trough VDZ concentration and clinical remission was observed. Patients in biochemical remission had higher VDZ trough concentrations (p = 0.019). In this population, higher trough VDZ concentrations were associated with biochemical remission but not with clinical remission.

Increased versus conventional adalimumab dose interval for patients with Crohn's disease in stable remission (LADI): a pragmatic, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite its effectiveness in treating Crohn's disease, adalimumab is associated with an increased risk of infections and high health-care costs. We aimed to assess clinical outcomes of increased adalimumab dose intervals versus conventional dosing in patients with Crohn's disease in stable remission. METHODS: The LADI study was a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, parallel, randomised controlled trial, done in six academic hospitals and 14 general hospitals in the Netherlands. Adults (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with luminal Crohn's disease (with or without concomitant perianal disease) were eligible when in steroid-free clinical and biochemical remission (defined as Harvey-Bradshaw Index [HBI] score <5, faecal calprotectin <150 µg/g, and C-reactive protein <10 mg/L) for at least 9 months on a stable dose of 40 mg subcutaneous adalimumab every 2 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to the intervention group or control group by the coordinating investigator using a secure web-based system with variable block randomisation (block sizes of 6, 9, and 12). Randomisation was stratified on concomitant use of thiopurines and methotrexate. Patients and health-care providers were not masked to group assignment. Patients allocated to the intervention group increased adalimumab dose intervals to 40 mg every 3 weeks at baseline and further to every 4 weeks if they remained in clinical and biochemical remission at week 24. Patients in the control group continued their 2-weekly dose interval. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of persistent flares at week 48 defined as the presence of at least two of the following criteria: HBI score of 5 or more, C-reactive protein 10 mg/L or more, and faecal calprotectin more than 250 µg/g for more than 8 weeks and a concurrent decrease in the adalimumab dose interval or start of escape medication. The non-inferiority margin was 15% on a risk difference scale. All analyses were done in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03172377, and is not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between May 3, 2017, and July 6, 2020, 174 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n=113) or the control group (n=61). Four patients from the intervention group and one patient from the control group were excluded from the analysis for not meeting inclusion criteria. 85 (50%) of 169 participants were female and 84 (50%) were male. At week 48, the cumulative incidence of persistent flares in the intervention group (three [3%] of 109) was non-inferior compared with the control group (zero; pooled adjusted risk difference 1·86% [90% CI -0·35 to 4·07). Seven serious adverse events occurred, all in the intervention group, of which two (both patients with intestinal obstruction) were possibly related to the intervention. Per 100 person-years, 168·35 total adverse events, 59·99 infection-related adverse events, and 42·57 gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in the intervention group versus 134·67, 75·03, and 5·77 in the control group, respectively. INTERPRETATION: The individual benefit of increasing adalimumab dose intervals versus the risk of disease recurrence is a trade-off that should take patient preferences regarding medication and the risk of a flare into account. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Patient selection for urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography by endoscopic ultrasound in predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis (APEC-2): a multicentre prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Routine urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) does not improve outcome in patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis. Improved patient selection for ERCP by means of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for stone/sludge detection may challenge these findings. DESIGN: A multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis. Patients underwent urgent EUS, followed by ERCP with ES in case of common bile duct stones/sludge, within 24 hours after hospital presentation and within 72 hours after symptom onset. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or mortality within 6 months after inclusion. The historical control group was the conservative treatment arm (n=113) of the randomised APEC trial (Acute biliary Pancreatitis: urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment, patient inclusion 2013-2017) applying the same study design. RESULTS: Overall, 83 patients underwent urgent EUS at a median of 21 hours (IQR 17-23) after hospital presentation and at a median of 29 hours (IQR 23-41) after start of symptoms. Gallstones/sludge in the bile ducts were detected by EUS in 48/83 patients (58%), all of whom underwent immediate ERCP with ES. The primary endpoint occurred in 34/83 patients (41%) in the urgent EUS-guided ERCP group. This was not different from the 44% rate (50/113 patients) in the historical conservative treatment group (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29; p=0.65). Sensitivity analysis to correct for baseline differences using a logistic regression model also showed no significant beneficial effect of the intervention on the primary outcome (adjusted OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.90, p=0.92). CONCLUSION: In patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis, urgent EUS-guided ERCP with ES did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, as compared with conservative treatment in a historical control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15545919.

Short-term and Long-term Outcomes of a Disruption and Disconnection of the Pancreatic Duct in Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Multicenter Cohort Study in 896 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Necrotizing pancreatitis may result in a disrupted or disconnected pancreatic duct (DPD) with the potential for long-lasting negative impact on a patient's clinical outcome. There is a lack of detailed data on the full clinical spectrum of DPD, which is critical for the development of better diagnostic and treatment strategies. METHODS: We performed a long-term post hoc analysis of a prospectively collected nationwide cohort of 896 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis (2005-2015). The median follow-up after hospital admission was 75 months (P25-P75: 41-151). Clinical outcomes of patients with and without DPD were compared using regression analyses, adjusted for potential confounders. Predictive features for DPD were explored. RESULTS: DPD was confirmed in 243 (27%) of the 896 patients and resulted in worse clinical outcomes during both the patient's initial admission and follow-up. During hospital admission, DPD was associated with an increased rate of new-onset intensive care unit admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-3.93), new-onset organ failure (aOR 2.26; 95% CI 1.45-3.55), infected necrosis (aOR 4.63; 95% CI 2.87-7.64), and pancreatic interventions (aOR 7.55; 95% CI 4.23-13.96). During long-term follow-up, DPD increased the risk of pancreatic intervention (aOR 9.71; 95% CI 5.37-18.30), recurrent pancreatitis (aOR 2.08; 95% CI 1.32-3.29), chronic pancreatitis (aOR 2.73; 95% CI 1.47-5.15), and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency (aOR 1.63; 95% CI 1.05-2.53). Central or subtotal pancreatic necrosis on computed tomography (OR 9.49; 95% CI 6.31-14.29) and a high level of serum C-reactive protein in the first 48 hours after admission (per 10-point increase, OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03) were identified as independent predictors for developing DPD. DISCUSSION: At least 1 of every 4 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis experience DPD, which is associated with detrimental, short-term and long-term interventions, and complications. Central and subtotal pancreatic necrosis and high levels of serum C-reactive protein in the first 48 hours are independent predictors for DPD.

Long-term effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in Crohn's disease: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data showed that ustekinumab is an effective treatment for Crohn's disease for up to 52 weeks. Yet, long-term effectiveness and safety outcomes beyond 52 weeks are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the corticosteroid-free clinical remission for up to 104 weeks. Secondary aims were focused on biochemical disease, dosing adjustments and safety outcomes. METHODS: This multicentre prospective cohort study enrolled Crohn's disease patients who started ustekinumab between May 2016 and September 2019. Participants had scheduled outpatient visits at week 0, 13, 26, 52 and 104. Data on clinical disease [Harvey Bradshaw Index (HBI) = 4 points = remission], biochemical disease (faecal calprotectin = 200 µg/g or C-reactive protein = 10 mg/l = remission), dose adjustments and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were recorded. RESULTS: We included 101 Crohn's disease patients. In all patients, the proportion of patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission was 35 and 36% at week 52 and 104. Of patients achieving corticosteroid-free remission at week 52, more than half maintained corticosteroid-free remission throughout week 104. Biochemical remission rates were 25 and 30% at week 52 and 104, respectively. In the first year of treatment, 33% required their first dose escalation, and 15% in the second year. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued ustekinumab due to ADRs. Ustekinumab persistency rates were 68% at week 52 and 59% at week 104. CONCLUSION: Ustekinumab is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for Crohn's disease. More than half of all patients continued ustekinumab treatment after 104 weeks whereas one-third achieved corticosteroid-free remission.

Effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib for ulcerative colitis: two-year results of the ICC Registry.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor and is registered for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The effectiveness of tofacitinib has been evaluated up to 12 months of treatment. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of 24 months of tofacitinib use in UC patients in the Netherlands. METHODS: Patients initiating tofacitinib treatment were included in the ICC Registry, a nationwide, observational registry. Patients were prospectively evaluated for up to 24 months. The primary outcome was corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CSFR, Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index [SCCAI] ≤2) at week 104. Secondary outcomes included biochemical remission (C-reactive protein (CRP) ≤5 mg/L and faecal calprotectin (FC) ≤250 µg/g), safety, and discontinuation rate. RESULTS: We included 110 patients of whom 104 (94.5%) were anti-TNF experienced. After 104 weeks of tofacitinib, 31.8% (34/107) were in CSFR, 23.4% (25/107) in biochemical remission and 18.7% (20/107) in combined clinical and biochemical remission. Of the patients in CSFR at week 52, 76.5% (26/34) remained so after 104 weeks of treatment. Sixty-one patients (55.5%) discontinued tofacitinib after a median duration of 13 weeks (IQR 7-34). The main reasons for discontinuation were non-response (59%), loss of response (14.8%), and adverse events (18%). There were 33.9 possible tofacitinib-related adverse events per 100 patient-years during follow-up. Adverse events most probably related to tofacitinib were skin reactions and headaches. There were 6.4 herpes zoster infections per 100 patient-years. CONCLUSION: Tofacitinib was effective in 31.8% of patients after 24 months of treatment.

Complete Endoscopic Healing Is Associated With Lower Relapse Risk After Anti-TNF Withdrawal in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Discontinuation of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α treatment (anti-TNF) (infliximab and adalimumab) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with a high relapse risk that may be influenced by endoscopic activity at the time of stopping. We assessed the relapse rate after anti-TNF withdrawal in patients with endoscopic healing and studied predictors of relapse including the depth of endoscopic healing. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective study in adult patients with Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC), or IBD-unclassified (IBDU), with ≥6 months of corticosteroid-free clinical remission (confirmed at baseline) and endoscopic healing (Mayo <2/SES-CD <5 without large ulcers), who discontinued anti-TNF between 2018 and 2020 in the Netherlands. We performed Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses to assess the relapse rate and evaluate potential predictors: partial (Mayo 1/SES-CD 3-4) versus complete (Mayo 0/SES-CD 0-2) endoscopic healing, anti-TNF trough levels, and immunomodulator and/or mesalamine use. RESULTS: Among 81 patients (CD: n = 41, 51%) with a median follow-up of 2.0 years (interquartile range, 1.6-2.1), 40 patients (49%) relapsed. Relapse rates in CD and UC/IBDU patients were comparable. At 12 months, 70% versus 35% of patients with partial versus complete endoscopic healing relapsed, respectively (adjusted hazard rate [aHR], 3.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-7.50). Mesalamine use was associated with fewer relapses in UC/IBDU patients (aHR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01-0.67). Thirty patients restarted anti-TNF, and clinical remission was regained in 73% at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: The relapse risk was high after anti-TNF withdrawal in IBD patients with endoscopic healing, but remission was regained in most cases after anti-TNF reintroduction. Complete endoscopic healing and mesalamine treatment in UC/IBDU patients decreased the risk of relapse.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Loss of Response and Need for Dose Escalation of Infliximab and Adalimumab in Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Loss of response to infliximab or adalimumab in ulcerative colitis occurs frequently, and dose escalation may aid in regaining clinical benefit. This study aimed to systematically assess the annual loss of response and dose escalation rates for infliximab and adalimumab in ulcerative colitis. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted from August 1999 to July 2021 for studies reporting loss of response and dose escalation during infliximab and/or adalimumab use in ulcerative colitis patients with primary response. Annual loss of response, dose escalation rates, and clinical benefit after dose escalation were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed for studies with 1-year follow-up or less. RESULTS: We included 50 unique studies assessing loss of response (infliximab, n = 24; adalimumab, n = 21) or dose escalation (infliximab, n = 21; adalimumab, n = 16). The pooled annual loss of response for infliximab was 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1-14.3) and 13.6% (95% CI, 9.3-19.9) for studies with 1-year follow-up. The pooled annual loss of response for adalimumab was 13.4% (95% CI, 8.2-21.8) and 23.3% (95% CI, 15.4-35.1) for studies with 1-year follow-up. Annual pooled dose escalation rates were 13.8% (95% CI, 8.7-21.7) for infliximab and 21.3% (95% CI, 14.4-31.3) for adalimumab, regaining clinical benefit in 72.4% and 52.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Annual loss of response was 10% for infliximab and 13% for adalimumab, with higher rates during the first year. Annual dose escalation rates were 14% (infliximab) and 21% (adalimumab), with clinical benefit in 72% and 52%, respectively. Uniform definitions are needed to facilitate more robust evaluations.

Annual loss of response in ulcerative colitis was 10% for infliximab and 13% for adalimumab, with higher rates during the first year. Annual dose escalation was higher than loss of response, with clinical benefit for 72% (infliximab) and 52% (adalimumab).

Anemia and Iron Deficiency in Outpatients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Ubiquitous Yet Suboptimally Managed.

Background: Iron deficiency (ID) and anemia in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) are associated with a reduced quality of life. We assessed the prevalence of ID and anemia in Dutch outpatients with IBD and compared routine ID(A) management among medical professionals to the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) treatment guidelines. Methods: Between January and November 2021, consecutive adult outpatients with IBD were included in this study across 16 Dutch hospitals. Clinical and biochemical data were extracted from medical records. Additionally, medical professionals filled out questionnaires regarding routine ID(A) management. Results: In total, 2197 patients (1271 Crohn's Disease, 849 Ulcerative Colitis, and 77 IBD-unclassified) were included. Iron parameters were available in 59.3% of cases. The overall prevalence of anemia, ID, and IDA was: 18.0%, 43.4%, and 12.2%, respectively. The prevalence of all three conditions did not differ between IBD subtypes. ID(A) was observed more frequently in patients with biochemically active IBD than in quiescent IBD (ID: 70.8% versus 23.9%; p < 0.001). Contrary to the guidelines, most respondents prescribed standard doses of intravenous or oral iron regardless of biochemical parameters or inflammation. Lastly, 25% of respondents reported not treating non-anemic ID. Conclusions: One in five patients with IBD suffers from anemia that­despite inconsistently measured iron parameters­is primarily caused by ID. Most medical professionals treat IDA with oral iron or standard doses of intravenous iron regardless of biochemical inflammation; however, non-anemic ID is often overlooked. Raising awareness about the management of ID(A) is needed to optimize and personalize routine care.

Validation and update of a prediction model for risk of relapse after cessation of anti-TNF treatment in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy is effective for the treatment of Crohn's disease. Cessation may be considered in patients with a low risk of relapse. We aimed to externally validate and update our previously developed prediction model to estimate the risk of relapse after cessation of anti-TNF therapy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in 17 Dutch hospitals. Crohn's disease patients in clinical, biochemical or endoscopic remission were included after anti-TNF cessation. Primary outcome was a relapse necessitating treatment. Discrimination and calibration of the previously developed model were assessed. After external validation, the model was updated. The performance of the updated prediction model was assessed in internal-external validation and by using decision curve analysis. RESULTS: 486 patients were included with a median follow-up of 1.7 years. Relapse rates were 35 and 54% after 1 and 2 years. At external validation, the discriminative ability of the prediction model was equal to that found at the development of the model [c-statistic 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.62)], though the model was not well-calibrated on our cohort [calibration slope: 0.52 (0.28-0.76)]. After an update, a c-statistic of 0.60 (0.58-0.63) and calibration slope of 0.89 (0.69-1.09) were reported in internal-external validation. CONCLUSION: Our previously developed and updated prediction model for the risk of relapse after cessation of anti-TNF in Crohn's disease shows reasonable performance. The use of the model may support clinical decision-making to optimize patient selection in whom anti-TNF can be withdrawn. Clinical validation is ongoing in a prospective randomized trial.

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION): Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. METHODS: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571.

Impact of Biological Therapies and Tofacitinib on Real-world Work Impairment in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: There are limited real-world data on the change in total work impairment (TWI) in biological-treated patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This study aimed to evaluate the real-world effects of initiating biological therapy or tofacitinib on change in TWI in IBD patients. METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study enrolled IBD patients who started treatment with biological therapy or tofacitinib. Subjects completed the work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) questionnaire and short inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire at therapy initiation and at week 26. Total work impairment comprises working hours missed due to sick leave and impact of disease during working hours (range 0%-100%). Clinical disease activity was assessed using the Harvey-Bradshaw Index and Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI). RESULTS: We included 137 IBD patients for analyses (median age 38 years, 58% Crohn's disease [CD]). The median baseline TWI was 50% and decreased by a median of 10%-points of points after 26 weeks. Patients with continued biological therapy or tofacitinib use, clinical disease activity at baseline, and clinical response or remission at week 26 showed a greater median TWI reduction (22%-points) than the remaining study patients (7%-points; P = .014). Ulcerative colitis (UC) and IBD-unclassified (IBD-U) patients showed a greater median TWI reduction (26%-points) than CD patients (6%-points); P = .041. Correlations were observed between decrease in TWI and decrease in SCCAI, decrease in fatigue and increase in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Work impairment in IBD patients decreased following biological therapy or tofacitinib initiation. Patients achieving clinical remission or response showed the greatest improvement, especially UC and IBD-U patients.

De-escalation of biological therapy in inflammatory bowel disease patients following prior dose escalation.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on biological therapy de-escalation after prior escalation in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. This study aimed to assess the frequency and success rate of de-escalation of biological therapy in IBD patients after prior dose escalation and to evaluate which measures are used to guide de-escalation. METHODS: This multicentre retrospective cohort study enrolled IBD patients treated with infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA) or vedolizumab (VEDO) in whom therapy was de-escalated after prior biological escalation. De-escalations were considered pharmacokinetic-driven if based on clinical symptoms combined with therapeutic or supratherapeutic trough levels, and disease activity-driven if based on faecal calprotectin less than or equal to 200 µg/g or resolution of perianal fistula drainage or closure or endoscopic remission. Successful de-escalation was defined as remaining on the same or lower biological dose for greater than or equal to 6 months after de-escalation without the need for corticosteroids. RESULTS: In total, 206 IFX users, 85 ADA users and 55 VEDO users underwent therapy escalation. Of these patients, 34 (17%) on IFX, 18 (21%) on ADA and 8 (15%) on VEDO underwent therapy de-escalation. De-escalation was successful in 88% of IFX patients, 89% of ADA and 100% of VEDO. The probability of remaining on the de-escalated regimen or further de-escalation after 1 year was 85% for IFX, 62% for ADA and 100% for VEDO. Disease activity-driven de-escalations were more often successful (97%) than pharmacokinetic- and no marker-driven de-escalations (76%); P = 0.017. CONCLUSION: De-escalation after biological dose escalation was successful in the majority of carefully selected IBD patients. Objective assessment of remission increased the likelihood of successful de-escalation.

Immediate versus Postponed Intervention for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, -1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 10; P = 0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions. (Funded by Fonds NutsOhra and Amsterdam UMC; POINTER ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN33682933.).

Discrepancy between patient- and healthcare provider-reported adverse drug reactions in inflammatory bowel disease patients on biological therapy.

BACKGROUND: Only limited data is available on the extent and burden of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to biological therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients in daily practice, especially from a patient's perspective. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically assess patient-reported ADRs during biological therapy in IBD patients and compare these with healthcare provider (HCP)-reported ADRs. METHODS: This multicentre, prospective, event monitoring study enrolled IBD patients on biological therapy. Patients completed bimonthly comprehensive web-based questionnaires regarding description of biological induced ADRs, follow-up of previous ADRs and experienced burden of the ADR using a five-point Likert scale. The relationship between patient-reported ADRs and biological therapy was assessed. HCP-reported ADRs were extracted from the electronic healthcare records. RESULTS: In total, 182 patients (female 51%, mean age 42.2 [standard deviation 14.2] years, Crohn's disease 77%) were included and completed 728 questionnaires. At baseline, 60% of patients used infliximab, 30% adalimumab, 9% vedolizumab and 1% ustekinumab. Fifty percent of participants reported at least one ADR with a total of 239 unique ADRs. Fatigue (n = 26) and headache (n = 20) resulted in the highest burden and a correlation in time with the administration of the biological was described in 56% and 85% respectively. Out of 239 ADRs, 115 were considered biological-related. HCPs reported 119 ADRs. Agreement between patient-reported ADRs and HCP-reported ADRs was only 13%. CONCLUSION: IBD patients often report ADRs during biological therapy. We observed an important significant difference between the type and frequency of patient-reported ADRs versus HCP-reported ADRs, leading to an underestimation of more subjective ADRs and patients' ADR-related burden.