Antibody responses to Influenza vaccination are diminished in patients with inflammatory bowel disease on infliximab or tofacitinib.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We sought to determine whether six commonly used immunosuppressive regimens were associated with lower antibody responses after seasonal influenza vaccination in patients with IBD. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study including 213 IBD patients and 53 healthy controls; 165 who had received seasonal influenza vaccine and 101 who had not. IBD medications included infliximab, thiopurines, infliximab and thiopurine combination therapy, ustekinumab, vedolizumab or tofacitinib. The primary outcome was antibody responses against influenza/A H3N2 and A/H1N1, compared to controls, adjusting for age, prior vaccination and interval between vaccination and sampling. RESULTS: Lower antibody responses against influenza A/H3N2 were observed in patients on infliximab (Geometric Mean Ratio 0.35 [95% CI 0.20-0.60], p=0.0002), combination of infliximab and thiopurine therapy (0.46 [0.27-0.79], p=0.0050) and tofacitinib (0.28 [0.14-0.57], p=0.0005) compared to controls. Lower antibody responses against A/H1N1 were observed in patients on infliximab (0.29 [0.15-0.56], p=0.0003), combination of infliximab and thiopurine therapy (0.34 [0.17-0.66], p=0.0016), thiopurine monotherapy (0.46 [0.24-0.87], p=0.017) and tofacitinib (0.23 [0.10-0.56], p=0.0013). Ustekinumab and vedolizumab were not associated with reduced antibody responses against A/H3N2 or A/H1N1. Vaccination in the previous year was associated with higher antibody responses to A/H3N2. Vaccine-induced anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentration weakly correlated with antibodies against H3N2 (r=0.27; p=0.0004) and H1N1 (r=0.33; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination in both the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 seasons was associated with significantly higher antibody responses to influenza/A than no vaccination or vaccination in 2021-2022 alone. Infliximab and tofacitinib are associated with lower binding antibody responses to Influenza/A, similar to COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody responses.

Neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/5 and wild-type virus in patients with inflammatory bowel disease following three doses of COVID-19 vaccine (VIP): a prospective, multicentre, cohort study.

Background: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) receiving anti-TNF and JAK-inhibitor therapy have attenuated responses to COVID-19 vaccination. We aimed to determine how IBD treatments affect neutralising antibody responses against the Omicron BA.4/5 variant. Methods: In this multicentre cohort study, we prospectively recruited 340 adults (69 healthy controls and 271 IBD) at nine UK hospitals between May 28, 2021 and March 29, 2022. The IBD study population was established (>12 weeks therapy) on either thiopurine (n = 63), infliximab (n = 45), thiopurine and infliximab combination therapy (n = 48), ustekinumab (n = 45), vedolizumab (n = 46) or tofacitinib (n = 24). Patients were excluded if they were being treated with any other immunosuppressive therapies. Participants had two doses of either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccines, followed by a third dose of either BNT162b2 or mRNA1273. Pseudo-neutralisation assays against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and BA.4/5 were performed. The half maximal inhibitory concentration (NT50) of participant sera was calculated. The primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralising response against wild-type virus and Omicron BA.4/5 variant after the second and third doses of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, stratified by immunosuppressive therapy, adjusting for prior infection, vaccine type, age, and interval between vaccination and blood collection. This study is registered with ISRCTN (No. 13495664). Findings: Both heterologous (first two doses adenovirus vaccine, third dose mRNA vaccine) and homologous (three doses mRNA vaccine) vaccination strategies significantly increased neutralising titres against both wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus and the Omicron BA.4/5 variant in healthy participants and patients with IBD. Antibody titres against BA.4/5 were significantly lower than antibodies against wild-type virus in both healthy participants and patients with IBD (p < 0.0001). Multivariable models demonstrated that neutralising antibodies against BA.4/5 after three doses of vaccine were significantly lower in patients with IBD on infliximab (Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) 0.19 [0.10, 0.36], p < 0.0001), infliximab and thiopurine combination (GMR 0.25 [0.13, 0.49], p < 0.0001) or tofacitinib (GMR 0.43 [0.20, 0.91], p = 0.028), but not in patients on thiopurine monotherapy, ustekinumab, or vedolizumab. Breakthrough infection was associated with lower neutralising antibodies against wild-type (p = 0.037) and BA.4/5 (p = 0.045). Interpretation: A third dose of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine based on the wild-type spike glycoprotein significantly boosts neutralising antibody titres in patients with IBD. However, responses are lower against the Omicron variant BA.4/5, particularly in patients taking anti-TNF and JAK-inhibitor therapy. Breakthrough infections are associated with lower neutralising antibodies and immunosuppressed patients with IBD may receive additional benefit from bivalent vaccine boosters which target Omicron variants. Funding: Pfizer.

Treatment adaptations and outcomes of patients experiencing inflammatory bowel disease flares during the early COVID-19 pandemic: the PREPARE-IBD multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic offered a unique opportunity to understand inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management during unexpected disruption. This could help to guide practice overall. AIMS: To compare prescribing behaviour for IBD flares and outcomes during the early pandemic with pre-pandemic findings METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study comprising patients who contacted IBD teams for symptomatic flares between March and June 2020 in 60 National Health Service trusts in the United Kingdom. Data were compared with a pre-pandemic cohort after propensity-matching for age and physician global assessment of disease activity. RESULTS: We included 1864 patients in each of the pandemic and pre-pandemic cohorts. The principal findings were reduced systemic corticosteroid prescription during the pandemic in Crohn's disease (prednisolone: pandemic 26.5% vs. 37.1%; p < 0.001) and ulcerative colitis (UC) (prednisolone: pandemic 33.5% vs. 40.7%, p < 0.001), with increases in poorly bioavailable oral corticosteroids in Crohn's (pandemic 15.6% vs. 6.8%; p < 0.001) and UC (pandemic 11.8% vs. 5.2%; p < 0.001). Ustekinumab (Crohn's and UC) and vedolizumab (UC) treatment also significantly increased. Three-month steroid-free remission in each period was similar in Crohn's (pandemic 28.4% vs. 32.1%; p = 0.17) and UC (pandemic 36.4% vs. 40.2%; p = 0.095). Patients experiencing a flare and suspected COVID-19 were more likely to have moderately-to-severely active disease at 3 months than those with a flare alone. CONCLUSIONS: Despite treatment adaptations during the pandemic, steroid-free outcomes were comparable with pre-pandemic levels, although concurrent flare and suspected COVID-19 caused worse outcomes. These findings have implications for IBD management during future pandemics and for standard practice.

COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody and T-cell responses in immunosuppressed patients with inflammatory bowel disease after the third vaccine dose (VIP): a multicentre, prospective, case-control study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody responses are reduced in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) taking anti-TNF or tofacitinib after two vaccine doses. We sought to assess whether immunosuppressive treatments were associated with reduced antibody and T-cell responses in patients with IBD after a third vaccine dose. METHODS: VIP was a multicentre, prospective, case-control study done in nine centres in the UK. We recruited immunosuppressed patients with IBD and non-immunosuppressed healthy individuals. All participants were aged 18 years or older. The healthy control group had no diagnosis of IBD and no current treatment with systemic immunosuppressive therapy for any other indication. The immunosuppressed patients with IBD had an established diagnosis of Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, or unclassified IBD using standard definitions of IBD, and were receiving established treatment with one of six immunosuppressive regimens for at least 12 weeks at the time of first dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. All participants had to have received three doses of an approved COVID-19 vaccine. SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody binding and T-cell responses were measured in all participant groups. The primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1 receptor binding domain [RBD]) antibody concentration 28-49 days after the third vaccine dose, adjusted by age, homologous versus heterologous vaccine schedule, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was assessed in all participants with available data. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2021, and March 29, 2022, 352 participants were included in the study (thiopurine n=65, infliximab n=46, thiopurine plus infliximab combination therapy n=49, ustekinumab n=44, vedolizumab n=50, tofacitinib n=26, and healthy controls n=72). Geometric mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 RBD antibody concentrations increased in all groups following a third vaccine dose, but were significantly lower in patients treated with infliximab (2736·8 U/mL [geometric SD 4·3]; p<0·0001), infliximab plus thiopurine (1818·3 U/mL [6·7]; p<0·0001), and tofacitinib (8071·5 U/mL [3·1]; p=0·0018) compared with the healthy control group (16 774·2 U/mL [2·6]). There were no significant differences in anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 RBD antibody concentrations between the healthy control group and patients treated with thiopurine (12 019·7 U/mL [2·2]; p=0·099), ustekinumab (11 089·3 U/mL [2·8]; p=0·060), or vedolizumab (13 564·9 U/mL [2·4]; p=0·27). In multivariable modelling, lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 RBD antibody concentrations were independently associated with infliximab (geometric mean ratio 0·15 [95% CI 0·11-0·21]; p<0·0001), tofacitinib (0·52 [CI 0·31-0·87]; p=0·012), and thiopurine (0·69 [0·51-0·95]; p=0·021), but not with ustekinumab (0·64 [0·39-1·06]; p=0·083), or vedolizumab (0·84 [0·54-1·30]; p=0·43). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (1·58 [1·22-2·05]; p=0·0006) was independently associated with higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 RBD antibody concentrations and older age (0·88 [0·80-0·97]; p=0·0073) was independently associated with lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 RBD antibody concentrations. Antigen-specific T-cell responses were similar in all groups, except for recipients of tofacitinib without evidence of previous infection, where T-cell responses were significantly reduced relative to healthy controls (p=0·021). INTERPRETATION: A third dose of COVID-19 vaccine induced a boost in antibody binding in immunosuppressed patients with IBD, but these responses were reduced in patients taking infliximab, infliximab plus thiopurine, and tofacitinib. Tofacitinib was also associated with reduced T-cell responses. These findings support continued prioritisation of immunosuppressed groups for further vaccine booster dosing, particularly patients on anti-TNF and JAK inhibitors. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Effects of bowel preparation on intestinal bacterial associated urine and faecal metabolites and the associated faecal microbiome.

BACKGROUND: Urinary and faecal metabolic profiling have been extensively studied in gastrointestinal diseases as potential diagnostic markers, and to enhance our understanding of the intestinal microbiome in the pathogenesis these conditions. The impact of bowel cleansing on the microbiome has been investigated in several studies, but limited to just one study on the faecal metabolome. AIM: To compare the effects of bowel cleansing on the composition of the faecal microbiome, and the urine and faecal metabolome. METHODS: Urine and faecal samples were obtained from eleven patients undergoing colonoscopy at baseline, and then at day 3 and week 6 after colonoscopy. 16S rRNA gene sequencing was used to analyse changes in the microbiome, and metabonomic analysis was performed using proton nuclear magnetic resonance (1H NMR) spectroscopy. RESULTS: Microbiomic analysis demonstrated a reduction in alpha diversity (Shannon index) between samples taken at baseline and three days following bowel cleansing (p = 0.002), and there was no significant difference between samples at baseline and six weeks post colonoscopy. Targeted and non-targeted analysis of urinary and faecal bacterial associated metabolites showed no significant impact following bowel cleansing. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel cleansing causes a temporary disturbance in bacterial alpha diversity measured in faeces, but no significant changes in the faecal and urine metabolic profiles, suggesting that overall the faecal microbiome and its associated metabolome is resistant to the effects of an induced osmotic diarrhoea.

COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody responses in immunosuppressed patients with inflammatory bowel disease (VIP): a multicentre, prospective, case-control study.

BACKGROUND: The effects that therapies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have on immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are not yet fully known. Therefore, we sought to determine whether COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody responses were altered in patients with IBD on commonly used immunosuppressive drugs. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective, case-control study (VIP), we recruited adults with IBD treated with one of six different immunosuppressive treatment regimens (thiopurines, infliximab, a thiopurine plus infliximab, ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib) and healthy control participants from nine centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older and had received two doses of COVID-19 vaccines (either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [Oxford-AstraZeneca], BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech], or mRNA1273 [Moderna]) 6-12 weeks apart (according to scheduling adopted in the UK). We measured antibody responses 53-92 days after a second vaccine dose using the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. The primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibody concentrations in participants without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, adjusted by age and vaccine type, and was analysed by use of multivariable linear regression models. This study is registered in the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN13495664, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between May 31 and Nov 24, 2021, we recruited 483 participants, including patients with IBD being treated with thiopurines (n=78), infliximab (n=63), a thiopurine plus infliximab (n=72), ustekinumab (n=57), vedolizumab (n=62), or tofacitinib (n=30), and 121 healthy controls. We included 370 participants without evidence of previous infection in our primary analysis. Geometric mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibody concentrations were significantly lower in patients treated with infliximab (156·8 U/mL [geometric SD 5·7]; p<0·0001), infliximab plus thiopurine (111·1 U/mL [5·7]; p<0·0001), or tofacitinib (429·5 U/mL [3·1]; p=0·0012) compared with controls (1578·3 U/mL [3·7]). There were no significant differences in antibody concentrations between patients treated with thiopurine monotherapy (1019·8 U/mL [4·3]; p=0·74), ustekinumab (582·4 U/mL [4·6]; p=0·11), or vedolizumab (954·0 U/mL [4·1]; p=0·50) and healthy controls. In multivariable modelling, lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibody concentrations were independently associated with infliximab (geometric mean ratio 0·12, 95% CI 0·08-0·17; p<0·0001) and tofacitinib (0·43, 0·23-0·81; p=0·0095), but not with ustekinumab (0·69, 0·41-1·19; p=0·18), thiopurines (0·89, 0·64-1·24; p=0·50), or vedolizumab (1·16, 0·74-1·83; p=0·51). mRNA vaccines (3·68, 2·80-4·84; p<0·0001; vs adenovirus vector vaccines) were independently associated with higher antibody concentrations and older age per decade (0·79, 0·72-0·87; p<0·0001) with lower antibody concentrations. INTERPRETATION: For patients with IBD, the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines varies according to immunosuppressive drug exposure, and is attenuated in recipients of infliximab, infliximab plus thiopurines, and tofacitinib. Scheduling of third primary, or booster, doses could be personalised on the basis of an individual's treatment, and patients taking anti-tumour necrosis factor and tofacitinib should be prioritised. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Systematic review: the association between the gut microbiota and medical therapies in inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: The gut microbiota has been implicated in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), with Faecalibacterium prausnitizii associated with protection, and certain genera (including Shigella and Escherichia) associated with adverse features. The variability of patient response to medical therapies in IBD is incompletely understood. Given the recognised contribution of the microbiota to treatment efficacy in other conditions, there may be interplay between the gut microbiota, IBD medical therapy and IBD phenotype. AIMS: To evaluate the bidirectional relationship between IBD medical therapies and the gut microbiota. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE. All original studies analysing interactions between the gut microbiota and established IBD medical therapies were included. RESULTS: We screened 1296 records; 19 studies were eligible. There was heterogeneity in terms of sample analysis, treatment protocols, and outcome reporting. Increased baseline α-diversity was observed in responders versus non-responders treated with exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN), infliximab, ustekinumab or vedolizumab. Higher baseline Faecalibacterium predicted response to infliximab and ustekinumab. A post-treatment increase in Faecalibacterium prausnitzii was noted in responders to aminosalicylates, anti-TNF medications and ustekinumab; conversely, this species decreased in responders to EEN. Escherichia was a consistent marker of unfavourable drug response, and its presence in the gut mucosa correlated with inflammation in aminosalicylate-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Both gut microbiota diversity and specific taxonomic features (including high abundance of Faecalibacterium) are associated with the efficacy of a range of IBD therapies. These findings hold promise for a potential role for the gut microbiota in explaining the heterogeneity of patient response to IBD treatments.

Assessment, endoscopy, and treatment in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (PROTECT-ASUC): a multicentre, observational, case-control study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of evidence to support safe and effective management of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify alterations to established conventional evidence-based management of acute severe ulcerative colitis during the early COVID-19 pandemic, the effect on outcomes, and any associations with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: The PROTECT-ASUC study was a multicentre, observational, case-control study in 60 acute secondary care hospitals throughout the UK. We included adults (≥18 years) with either ulcerative colitis or inflammatory bowel disease unclassified, who presented with acute severe ulcerative colitis and fulfilled the Truelove and Witts criteria. Cases and controls were identified as either admitted or managed in emergency ambulatory care settings between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020 (COVID-19 pandemic period cohort), or between Jan 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019 (historical control cohort), respectively. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or colectomy. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04411784. FINDINGS: We included 782 patients (398 in the pandemic period cohort and 384 in the historical control cohort) who met the Truelove and Witts criteria for acute severe ulcerative colitis. The proportion of patients receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or surgery was higher during the pandemic period than in the historical period (217 [55%] of 393 patients vs 159 [42%] of 380 patients; p=0·00024) and the time to rescue therapy was shorter in the pandemic cohort than in the historical cohort (p=0·0026). This difference was driven by a greater use of rescue and primary induction therapies with biologicals, ciclosporin, or tofacitinib in the COVID-19 pandemic period cohort than in the historical control period cohort (177 [46%] of 387 patients in the COVID-19 cohort vs 134 [36%] of 373 patients in the historical cohort; p=0·0064). During the pandemic, more patients received ambulatory (outpatient) intravenous steroids (51 [13%] of 385 patients vs 19 [5%] of 360 patients; p=0·00023). Fewer patients received thiopurines (29 [7%] of 398 patients vs 46 [12%] of 384; p=0·029) and 5-aminosalicylic acids (67 [17%] of 398 patients vs 98 [26%] of 384; p=0·0037) during the pandemic than in the historical control period. Colectomy rates were similar between the pandemic and historical control groups (64 [16%] of 389 vs 50 [13%] of 375; p=0·26); however, laparoscopic surgery was less frequently performed during the pandemic period (34 [53%] of 64] vs 38 [76%] of 50; p=0·018). Five (2%) of 253 patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during hospital treatment. Two (2%) of 103 patients re-tested for SARS-CoV-2 during the 3-month follow-up were positive 5 days and 12 days, respectively, after discharge from index admission. Both recovered without serious outcomes. INTERPRETATION: The COVID-19 pandemic altered practice patterns of gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons in the management of acute severe ulcerative colitis but was associated with similar outcomes to a historical cohort. Despite continued use of high-dose corticosteroids and biologicals, the incidence of COVID-19 within 3 months was low and not associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes. FUNDING: None.

Analysis of Exhaled Breath Volatile Organic Compounds in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Distinguishing between the inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD], Crohn's disease [CD] and ulcerative colitis [UC], is important for determining management and prognosis. Selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry [SIFT-MS] may be used to analyse volatile organic compounds [VOCs] in exhaled breath: these may be altered in disease states, and distinguishing breath VOC profiles can be identified. The aim of this pilot study was to identify, quantify, and analyse VOCs present in the breath of IBD patients and controls, potentially providing insights into disease pathogenesis and complementing current diagnostic algorithms. METHODS: SIFT-MS breath profiling of 56 individuals [20 UC, 18 CD, and 18 healthy controls] was undertaken. Multivariate analysis included principal components analysis and partial least squares discriminant analysis with orthogonal signal correction [OSC-PLS-DA]. Receiver operating characteristic [ROC] analysis was performed for each comparative analysis using statistically significant VOCs. RESULTS: OSC-PLS-DA modelling was able to distinguish both CD and UC from healthy controls and from one other with good sensitivity and specificity. ROC analysis using combinations of statistically significant VOCs [dimethyl sulphide, hydrogen sulphide, hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, butanal, and nonanal] gave integrated areas under the curve of 0.86 [CD vs healthy controls], 0.74 [UC vs healthy controls], and 0.83 [CD vs UC]. CONCLUSIONS: Exhaled breath VOC profiling was able to distinguish IBD patients from controls, as well as to separate UC from CD, using both multivariate and univariate statistical techniques.

Metabonomics and diagnostics.

Metabonomic techniques have considerable potential in the field of clinical diagnostics, typifying the application of a translational research paradigm. Care must be taken at all stages to apply appropriate methodology with accurate patient selection and profiling, and rigorous data acquisition and handling, to ensure clinical validity.An ever-increasing number of publications in a wide range of diseases and diverse patient groups suggest a variety of potential clinical uses; prospective studies in large validation cohorts are required to bring metabonomics into routine clinical practice. In this chapter, the utility of metabonomics as a diagnostic tool will be discussed.