A biomarker-stratified comparison of top-down versus accelerated step-up treatment strategies for patients with newly diagnosed Crohn's disease (PROFILE): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Management strategies and clinical outcomes vary substantially in patients newly diagnosed with Crohn's disease. We evaluated the use of a putative prognostic biomarker to guide therapy by assessing outcomes in patients randomised to either top-down (ie, early combined immunosuppression with infliximab and immunomodulator) or accelerated step-up (conventional) treatment strategies. METHODS: PROFILE (PRedicting Outcomes For Crohn's disease using a moLecular biomarker) was a multicentre, open-label, biomarker-stratified, randomised controlled trial that enrolled adults with newly diagnosed active Crohn's disease (Harvey-Bradshaw Index ≥7, either elevated C-reactive protein or faecal calprotectin or both, and endoscopic evidence of active inflammation). Potential participants had blood drawn to be tested for a prognostic biomarker derived from T-cell transcriptional signatures (PredictSURE-IBD assay). Following testing, patients were randomly assigned, via a secure online platform, to top-down or accelerated step-up treatment stratified by biomarker subgroup (IBDhi or IBDlo), endoscopic inflammation (mild, moderate, or severe), and extent (colonic or other). Blinding to biomarker status was maintained throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remission to week 48. Remission was defined by a composite of symptoms and inflammatory markers at all visits. Flare required active symptoms (HBI ≥5) plus raised inflammatory markers (CRP >upper limit of normal or faecal calprotectin ≥200 µg/g, or both), while remission was the converse-ie, quiescent symptoms (HBI <5) or resolved inflammatory markers (both CRP ≤ the upper limit of normal and calprotectin <200 µg/g) or both. Analyses were done in the full analysis (intention-to-treat) population. The trial has completed and is registered (ISRCTN11808228). FINDINGS: Between Dec 29, 2017, and Jan 5, 2022, 386 patients (mean age 33·6 years [SD 13·2]; 179 [46%] female, 207 [54%] male) were randomised: 193 to the top-down group and 193 to the accelerated step-up group. Median time from diagnosis to trial enrolment was 12 days (range 0-191). Primary outcome data were available for 379 participants (189 in the top-down group; 190 in the accelerated step-up group). There was no biomarker-treatment interaction effect (absolute difference 1 percentage points, 95% CI -15 to 15; p=0·944). Sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remission was significantly more frequent in the top-down group than in the accelerated step-up group (149 [79%] of 189 patients vs 29 [15%] of 190 patients, absolute difference 64 percentage points, 95% CI 57 to 72; p<0·0001). There were fewer adverse events (including disease flares) and serious adverse events in the top-down group than in the accelerated step-up group (adverse events: 168 vs 315; serious adverse events: 15 vs 42), with fewer complications requiring abdominal surgery (one vs ten) and no difference in serious infections (three vs eight). INTERPRETATION: Top-down treatment with combination infliximab plus immunomodulator achieved substantially better outcomes at 1 year than accelerated step-up treatment. The biomarker did not show clinical utility. Top-down treatment should be considered standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed active Crohn's disease. FUNDING: Wellcome and PredictImmune Ltd.

Nutritional care pathways in cancer patients with malignant bowel obstruction: A retrospective multi-centre study.

INTRODUCTION: Variation in access to parenteral nutrition (PN) in patients with intestinal failure secondary to malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) exists due to differing practice, beliefs and resource access. We aimed to examine differences in nutritional care pathways and outcomes, by referral to nutrition team for PN in patients with MBO. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of MBO adults admitted to eight UK hospitals within a year and 1 year follow-up. Demographic, nutritional and medical data were analysed by comparing patients referred (R) or not referred (NR) for PN. Differences between groups were tested by Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-Squared tests and multi-level regression and survival using Cox regression. RESULTS: 232 patients with 347 MBO admissions [median 66yr, (IQR: 55-74yrs), 67 % female], 79/232 patients were referred for PN (R group). Underlying primary malignancies of gynaecological and gastrointestinal origin predominated (71 %) and 78 % with metastases. Those in the NR group were found to be older, weigh more on admission, and more likely to be treated conservatively compared to those in the R group. For 123 (35 %) admissions, patients were referred to a nutrition team, and for 204 (59 %) admissions, patients were reviewed by a dietician. Multi-disciplinary team discussion and dietetic contact were more likely to occur in the R group-123/347 admissions (R vs NR group: 27 % vs. 7 %, P = 0.001; 95 % vs 39 %, P < 0.0001). Median admission weight loss was 8 % (IQR: 0 to 14). 43/123 R group admissions received inpatient PN only, with 32 patients discharged or already established on home parenteral nutrition. Overall survival was 150 days (126-232) with no difference between R/NR groups. CONCLUSION: In this multi-centre study evaluating nutritional care management of patients with malignant bowel obstruction, only 1 in 3 admissions resulted in a referral to the nutrition team for PN, and just over half were reviewed by a dietician. Further prospective research is required to evaluate possible consequences of these differential care pathways on clinical outcomes and quality of life.

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.

Mucosal Immunity to Gut Fungi in Health and Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

The gut microbiome is a diverse microbial community composed of bacteria, viruses, and fungi that plays a major role in human health and disease. Dysregulation of these gut organisms in a genetically susceptible host is fundamental to the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). While bacterial dysbiosis has been a predominant focus of research for many years, there is growing recognition that fungal interactions with the host immune system are an important driver of gut inflammation. Candida albicans is likely the most studied fungus in the context of IBD, being a near universal gut commensal in humans and also a major barrier-invasive pathogen. There is emerging evidence that intra-strain variation in C. albicans virulence factors exerts a critical influence on IBD pathophysiology. In this review, we describe the immunological impacts of variations in C. lbicans colonisation, morphology, genetics, and proteomics in IBD, as well as the clinical and therapeutic implications.

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.

Fecal Calprotectin in Gastrointestinal Disease.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) comprises a group of chronic conditions characterized by relapsing and remitting inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. The incidence is increasing worldwide, and the therapeutic options for management are expanding. Endoscopy is the gold standard investigation for diagnosis of IBD and for assessing mucosal healing, which is increasingly being used as a measure of disease control. However, it is an invasive procedure that is unpleasant for patients and expensive and time-consuming for hospitals. Fecal calprotectin has been shown to be an accurate surrogate marker of gastrointestinal inflammation in IBD. CONTENT: Fecal calprotectin was initially used for the diagnosis of IBD but is now recognized as having a role in assisting in assessment of disease activity, prediction of relapse, and informing decisions around therapy and may help to minimize requirement for endoscopy. However, there are various preanalytical and analytical factors that can affect interpretation of the results; these need to be understood to optimize clinical care. SUMMARY: Preanalytical and analytical factors that can potentially influence fecal calprotectin concentrations are examined, and an overview is provided of clinical situations in which fecal calprotectin is commonly measured.

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.

Understanding and managing psychological disorders in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a practical guide.

Mood disturbances such as anxiety and depression are common in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and impact negatively on their quality of life and disease course. An integrated multidisciplinary IBD team, which includes access to psychology and psychiatry opinion, makes possible the prompt recognition and management of psychological disturbance in patients with IBD. Based on our experience and existing literature, including systematic reviews of the effectiveness of available treatment modalities, a stepwise approach to the maintenance and restoration of psychological well-being is recommended, evolving upwards from lifestyle advice, through behavioural therapies to pharmacotherapy.

Neutralising antibody potency against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and omicron BA.1 and BA.4/5 variants in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with infliximab and vedolizumab after three doses of COVID-19 vaccine (CLARITY IBD): an analysis of a prospective multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Anti-TNF drugs, such as infliximab, are associated with attenuated antibody responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We aimed to determine how the anti-TNF drug infliximab and the anti-integrin drug vedolizumab affect vaccine-induced neutralising antibodies against highly transmissible omicron (B.1.1.529) BA.1, and BA.4 and BA.5 (hereafter BA.4/5) SARS-CoV-2 variants, which possess the ability to evade host immunity and, together with emerging sublineages, are now the dominating variants causing current waves of infection. METHODS: CLARITY IBD is a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study investigating the effect of infliximab and vedolizumab on SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Patients aged 5 years and older with a diagnosis of IBD and being treated with infliximab or vedolizumab for 6 weeks or longer were recruited from infusion units at 92 hospitals in the UK. In this analysis, we included participants who had received uninterrupted biological therapy since recruitment and without a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and omicron subvariants BA.1 and BA.4/5 after three doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. We constructed Cox proportional hazards models to investigate the risk of breakthrough infection in relation to neutralising antibody titres. The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN45176516, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 22 and Dec 23, 2020, 7224 patients with IBD were recruited to the CLARITY IBD study, of whom 1288 had no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection after three doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and were established on either infliximab (n=871) or vedolizumab (n=417) and included in this study (median age was 46·1 years [IQR 33·6-58·2], 610 [47·4%] were female, 671 [52·1%] were male, 1209 [93·9%] were White, and 46 [3·6%] were Asian). After three doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, 50% neutralising titres (NT50s) were significantly lower in patients treated with infliximab than in those treated with vedolizumab, against wild-type (geometric mean 2062 [95% CI 1720-2473] vs 3440 [2939-4026]; p<0·0001), BA.1 (107·3 [86·40-133·2] vs 648·9 [523·5-804·5]; p<0·0001), and BA.4/5 (40·63 [31·99-51·60] vs 223·0 [183·1-271·4]; p<0·0001) variants. Breakthrough infection was significantly more frequent in patients treated with infliximab (119 [13·7%; 95% CI 11·5-16·2] of 871) than in those treated with vedolizumab (29 [7·0% [4·8-10·0] of 417; p=0·00040). Cox proportional hazards models of time to breakthrough infection after the third dose of vaccine showed infliximab treatment to be associated with a higher hazard risk than treatment with vedolizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 1·71 [95% CI 1·08-2·71]; p=0·022). Among participants who had a breakthrough infection, we found that higher neutralising antibody titres against BA.4/5 were associated with a lower hazard risk and, hence, a longer time to breakthrough infection (HR 0·87 [0·79-0·95]; p=0·0028). INTERPRETATION: Our findings underline the importance of continued SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programmes, including second-generation bivalent vaccines, especially in patient subgroups where vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy might be reduced, such as those on anti-TNF therapies. FUNDING: Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust; Hull University Teaching Hospital NHS Trust; NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre; Crohn's and Colitis UK; Guts UK; National Core Studies Immunity Programme, UK Research and Innovation; and unrestricted educational grants from F Hoffmann-La Roche, Biogen, Celltrion Healthcare, Takeda, and Galapagos.

Vaccine escape, increased breakthrough and reinfection in infliximab-treated patients with IBD during the Omicron wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Antitumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs impair serological responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We sought to assess if a third dose of a messenger RNA (mRNA)-based vaccine substantially boosted anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses and protective immunity in infliximab-treated patients with IBD. DESIGN: Third dose vaccine induced anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (anti-S) receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibody responses, breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection, reinfection and persistent oropharyngeal carriage in patients with IBD treated with infliximab were compared with a reference cohort treated with vedolizumab from the impaCt of bioLogic therApy on saRs-cov-2 Infection and immuniTY (CLARITY) IBD study. RESULTS: Geometric mean (SD) anti-S RBD antibody concentrations increased in both groups following a third dose of an mRNA-based vaccine. However, concentrations were lower in patients treated with infliximab than vedolizumab, irrespective of whether their first two primary vaccine doses were ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (1856 U/mL (5.2) vs 10 728 U/mL (3.1), p<0.0001) or BNT162b2 vaccines (2164 U/mL (4.1) vs 15 116 U/mL (3.4), p<0.0001). However, no differences in anti-S RBD antibody concentrations were seen following third and fourth doses of an mRNA-based vaccine, irrespective of the combination of primary vaccinations received. Post-third dose, anti-S RBD antibody half-life estimates were shorter in infliximab-treated than vedolizumab-treated patients (37.0 days (95% CI 35.6 to 38.6) vs 52.0 days (95% CI 49.0 to 55.4), p<0.0001).Compared with vedolizumab-treated, infliximab-treated patients were more likely to experience SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection (HR 2.23 (95% CI 1.46 to 3.38), p=0.00018) and reinfection (HR 2.10 (95% CI 1.31 to 3.35), p=0.0019), but this effect was uncoupled from third vaccine dose anti-S RBD antibody concentrations. Reinfection occurred predominantly during the Omicron wave and was predicted by SARS-CoV-2 antinucleocapsid concentrations after the initial infection. We did not observe persistent oropharyngeal carriage of SARS-CoV-2. Hospitalisations and deaths were uncommon in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Following a third dose of an mRNA-based vaccine, infliximab was associated with attenuated serological responses and more SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and reinfection which were not predicted by the magnitude of anti-S RBD responses, indicative of vaccine escape by the Omicron variant. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN45176516.

Ustekinumab for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: a multicentre UK cohort study.

Objective: Ustekinumab is an interleukin-12/interleukin-23 receptor antagonist licensed for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). Clinical trial data were promising; however, real-world data are limited. We assessed the safety and effectiveness of ustekinumab in UC in a real-world setting. Design/method: This was a multicentre, retrospective, observational cohort study between February 2020 and January 2022. Disease activity was assessed using the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI). Clinical remission was defined as a SCCAI≤2. The primary endpoints were rates of corticosteroid-free remission (CSFR) at week 16 and at week 26. Objective outcomes, including faecal calprotectin (FCAL), were also collected. Results: 110 patients with UC (65% male; median age 40 (IQR range 29-59); 96% with prior biologic and/or tofacitinib exposure) had a median follow-up of 28 weeks (IQR 17-47). CSFR was 36% (18/50) at week 16% and 33% (13/39) at week 26, corresponding with a significant fall in SCCAI from 6 (IQR 4-8) at baseline to 3 (IQR 0-5) at week 26, p<0.001. By week 16, there was improvement of median FCAL measurements, which fell from a baseline of 610 µg/g (IQR 333-1100) to 102 µg/g (IQR 54-674) at week 16. At the end of follow-up, 15% (17/110) had discontinued treatment; 13 patients due to primary non-response or loss of response, and 1 patient for family planning. Treatment was discontinued in three patients due to adverse events. Conclusion: In the largest real-world study to date, ustekinumab was effective with a reassuring safety profile in a refractory cohort of patients.

Comparative effectiveness of a second-line biologic in patients with ulcerative colitis: vedolizumab followed by an anti-TNF versus anti-TNF followed by vedolizumab.

Background: Sequential drug treatment with biological agents in ulcerative colitis (UC) is becoming increasingly complex. There are few studies comparing head-to-head outcomes in second-line treatments. The study assesses whether using anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF)-α therapy following the α4ß7 integrin blocker vedolizumab (VDZ) or VDZ after an anti-TNF has more favourable clinical outcomes in UC in a real-world outpatient setting. Methods: Patients with UC who were exposed to first-line anti-TNF (adalimumab or infliximab) or VDZ who subsequently switched to the alternate class between May 2013 and August 2020 were identified by reviewing patient databases at 10 hospitals. Data were collected retrospectively using patient records. Baseline demographics, disease activity indices, biochemical markers, endoscopic Mayo score, colectomy rates, treatment persistence and urgent hospital utilisation composite endpoint (UHUC) rates were examined over a 52-week period. Results: Second-line week 52 treatment persistence was higher in the VDZ group (71/81, 89%) versus the anti-TNF group (15/34, 44%; p=0.0001), as were week 52 colectomy-free survival (VDZ: 77/80, 96%, vs anti-TNF: 26/32, 81%; p=0.009), week 52 UHUC survival (VDZ: 68/84, 81%, vs anti-TNF: 20/34, 59%; p=0.002) and week 52 corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CFCR) rates (VDZ: 22/34, 65%, vs anti-TNF: 4/20, 20%; p=0.001). Conclusion: Compared with second-line anti TNF usage, the VDZ second-line cohort had significantly higher 52-week treatment persistence, UHUC survival, higher colectomy-free survival rates and higher week 52 CFCR. These data suggest that VDZ is an effective biologic in UC as a second-line therapy after anti-TNF exposure. It highlights the effect of biological order on clinically important outcomes.

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.

Antibody decay, T cell immunity and breakthrough infections following two SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses in inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with infliximab and vedolizumab.

Anti tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs increase the risk of serious respiratory infection and impair protective immunity following pneumococcal and influenza vaccination. Here we report SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced immune responses and breakthrough infections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, who are treated either with the anti-TNF antibody, infliximab, or with vedolizumab targeting a gut-specific anti-integrin that does not impair systemic immunity. Geometric mean [SD] anti-S RBD antibody concentrations are lower and half-lives shorter in patients treated with infliximab than vedolizumab, following two doses of BNT162b2 (566.7 U/mL [6.2] vs 4555.3 U/mL [5.4], p <0.0001; 26.8 days [95% CI 26.2 - 27.5] vs 47.6 days [45.5 - 49.8], p <0.0001); similar results are also observed with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (184.7 U/mL [5.0] vs 784.0 U/mL [3.5], p <0.0001; 35.9 days [34.9 - 36.8] vs 58.0 days [55.0 - 61.3], p value < 0.0001). One fifth of patients fail to mount a T cell response in both treatment groups. Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections are more frequent (5.8% (201/3441) vs 3.9% (66/1682), p = 0.0039) in patients treated with infliximab than vedolizumab, and the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection is predicted by peak anti-S RBD antibody concentration after two vaccine doses. Irrespective of the treatments, higher, more sustained antibody levels are observed in patients with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination. Our results thus suggest that adapted vaccination schedules may be required to induce immunity in at-risk, anti-TNF-treated patients.

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.

Adalimumab and Infliximab Impair SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses: Results from a Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Study in 11 422 Biologic-Treated Patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Infliximab attenuates serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Whether this is a class effect, or if anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] level influences serological responses, remains unknown. METHODS: Seroprevalence and the magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody responses were measured in surplus serum from 11 422 (53.3% [6084] male; median age 36.8 years) patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, stored at six therapeutic drug monitoring laboratories between January 29 and September 30, 2020. Data were linked to nationally held SARS-CoV-2 PCR results to July 11, 2021. RESULTS: Rates of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were similar across treatment groups. Seroprevalence rates were lower in infliximab- and adalimumab- than vedolizumab-treated patients (infliximab: 3.0% [178/5893], adalimumab: 3.0% [152/5074], vedolizumab: 6.7% [25/375], p = 0.003). The magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 reactivity was similar in infliximab- vs adalimumab-treated patients (median 4.30 cut-off index [COI] [1.94-9.96] vs 5.02 [2.18-18.70], p = 0.164), but higher in vedolizumab-treated patients (median 21.60 COI [4.39-68.10, p < 0.004). Compared to patients with detectable infliximab and adalimumab drug levels, patients with undetectable drug levels [<0.8 mg/L] were more likely to be seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. One-third of patients who had PCR testing prior to antibody testing failed to seroconvert, all were treated with anti-TNF. Subsequent positive PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was seen in 7.9% [12/152] of patients after a median time of 183.5 days [129.8-235.3], without differences between drugs. CONCLUSION: Anti-TNF treatment is associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid seroprevalence and antibody reactivity when compared to vedolizumab-treated patients. Higher seropositivity rates in patients with undetectable anti-TNF levels support a causal relationship, although confounding factors, such as combination therapy with a immunomodulator, may have influenced the results.

The dietary practices and beliefs of British South Asian people living with inflammatory bowel disease: a multicenter study from the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Epidemiological associations have implicated factors associated with Westernization, including the Western diet, in the development of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The role of diet in IBD etiopathogenesis, disease control and symptom management remains incompletely understood. Few studies have collected data on the dietary habits of immigrant populations living with IBD. Our aim was to describe the dietary practices and beliefs of British South Asians with IBD. METHODS: A 30-item questionnaire was developed and consecutively administered to 255 British South Asians with IBD attending gastroenterology clinics in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent of participants believed diet was the initiating factor for their IBD and 63% felt diet had previously triggered disease relapse. Eighty-nine percent avoided certain dietary items in the belief that this would prevent relapse. The most commonly avoided foods and drinks were spicy and fatty foods, carbonated drinks, milk products, alcohol, coffee, and red meat. A third of patients had tried a whole food exclusion diet, most commonly lactose- or gluten-free, and this was most frequently reported amongst those with clinically active IBD (P= 0.02). Almost 60% of participants avoided eating the same menu as their family, or eating out, at least sometimes, to prevent IBD relapse. CONCLUSIONS: British South Asians with IBD demonstrate significant dietary beliefs and food avoidance behaviors with increased frequency compared to those reported in Caucasian IBD populations. Studies in immigrant populations may offer valuable insights into the interaction between diet, Westernization and cultural drift in IBD pathogenesis and symptomatology.

Inflammatory bowel disease in pregnancy: Developing a multidisciplinary care pathway in East London.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the management of pregnant women with inflammatory bowel disease. METHOD: We collected data from maternity records for women with IBD who gave birth at The Royal London Hospital between January 2018 and February 2019. RESULTS: Twenty-three pregnancies were identified where 8/23 (35%) women had a peri-conception flare and 7/23 (30%) had a flare during pregnancy. Two women received pre-conception counselling. The obstetric medicine team reviewed a patient on average three times and the gastroenterologists twice, during pregnancy. Nine women (39%) gave birth pre-term. Mean birthweight was lower in the group with active disease at conception compared with those in remission (2173 g vs. 2807 g, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Women with IBD should all receive pre-conception counselling to reduce the risk of pregnancy complications. By developing a multidisciplinary care pathway for pregnant women with IBD (which includes a joint obstetric/gastroenterology clinic), this will ensure care is standardised throughout the pregnancy and puerperium.

Provision of care for pregnant women with IBD in the UK: the current landscape.

INTRODUCTION: Suboptimal control of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can result in increased rates of adverse pregnancy-related outcomes. We aimed to describe the current landscape of provision of antenatal care for women with IBD in the UK. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey collected data on service setup; principles of care pre-conception, during pregnancy and post partum; and on perceived roles and responsibilities of relevant clinicians. RESULTS: Data were provided for 97 IBD units. Prepregnancy counselling was offered mostly on request only (54%) and in an ad hoc manner. In 86% of units, IBD antenatal care was provided by the patient's usual gastroenterologist, rather than a gastroenterologist with expertise in pregnancy (14%). Combined clinics with obstetricians and gastroenterologists were offered in 14% of units (24% academic vs 7% district hospitals; p=0.043). Communication with obstetrics was 'as and when required' in 51% and 30% of IBD units reviewed pregnant women with IBD 'only when required'. The majority of respondents thought gastroenterologists should be involved in decisions regarding routine vaccinations (70%), breast feeding (80%), folic acid dosage (61%) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis (53%). Sixty-five per cent of respondents thought that gastroenterologists should be involved in decisions around mode of delivery and 30% recommended caesarean sections for previous but healed perianal disease. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide survey found considerable variation in IBD antenatal services. We identified deficiencies in service setup, care provided by IBD units and clinician knowledge. A basic framework to inform service setup, and better education on the available clinical guidance, is required to ensure consistent high-quality multidisciplinary care.