Intravenous Versus Subcutaneous Infliximab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous (SC) infliximab may provide multiple benefits over intravenous (IV) formulations. However, studies for efficacy and safety in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have been constrained by small sizes that limit the interpretation of outcomes, especially for subgroups potentially at high-risk of disease relapse. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis up to January 2023 to evaluate the change in clinical remission after transitioning from IV to SC infliximab in patients with IBD in clinical remission. The primary outcome was measured using the relative risk for meta-analysis. RESULTS: 15 studies of patients established ≥3 months on IV infliximab were identified, consisting of 1371 patients and 840 patient-years of follow-up. There was no loss of clinical remission in the IBD cohort overall, Crohn's disease (CD), and perianal CD p=0.55 & p=0.11 at 9-12 months, and p=0.50 at 6 months respectively). Neither prior IV dose (≤10mg/kg 6-weekly) (p=0.48) nor IBD disease subtype was associated with an increased clinical relapse rate at 6 months (p=0.48 and p=0.45 (UC vs CD), respectively). CONCLUSION: Changing patients established on IV infliximab to an SC formulation is associated with a high ongoing clinical remission and low adverse event rate. Furthermore, there are no signals for adverse outcomes among different IBD disease subtypes, nor in those on escalated IV infliximab dosing schedules up to 10mg/kg 6-weekly. This data should provide patients and clinicians alike with confidence in SC infliximab use in IBD.

Ustekinumab or Vedolizumab after Failure of Anti-TNF Agents in Crohn's Disease: A Review of Comparative Effectiveness Studies.

Background: Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents are effective in Crohn's disease (CD), but some patients lose responsiveness and require alternative biologic therapy. Until recently, ustekinumab and vedolizumab were the only other biological agents approved for use in CD. There are no randomised trials which compare the efficacy of these two agents in patients with anti-TNF refractory disease, but several retrospective cohort studies have compared their effectiveness in this setting. Aim: To review the effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in anti-TNF refractory patients with CD. Methods: We included studies that compared the effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in treating patients with anti-TNF refractory CD. We recorded the sample size, primary and secondary outcome measures and whether the studies employed adjustments for appropriate confounders. Results: Fourteen studies were included with a total sample size of 5651, of whom 2181 (38.6%) were treated with vedolizumab and the rest were treated with ustekinumab (61.4%). Of the fourteen studies included, eight found ustekinumab to be more effective in achieving clinical remission/steroid-free remission in the induction phase or during maintenance therapy (at least 1-year post-treatment) or that treatment persistence rates with ustekinumab were higher than with vedolizumab. Only one study reported vedolizumab to be superior during the maintenance phase in terms of clinical remission or treatment persistence rates. Biochemical outcomes were reported in five studies, two of which showed superiority for ustekinumab at 14 weeks and the other at 52 weeks. Only two studies reported endoscopic and/or radiologic outcomes; of these, one study showed ustekinumab to be significantly better at achieving endoscopic and radiologic responses. Adverse outcomes were broadly comparable, barring a single study which reported a lower hospitalisation rate for severe infection with ustekinumab. Conclusions: Most studies found ustekinumab to be more effective or non-inferior to vedolizumab in treating patients with anti-TNF refractory CD. Although many studies adjusted appropriately for confounders, the possibility of residual confounding remains and further data from prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings. Further studies are required to compare these two therapies to other emerging therapies, such as Janus-kinase inhibitors.

Safety and efficacy of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation with low-dose cyclophosphamide mobilisation and reduced intensity conditioning versus standard of care in refractory Crohn's disease (ASTIClite): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A previous controlled trial of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with refractory Crohn's disease did not meet its primary endpoint and reported high toxicity. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of HSCT with an immune-ablative regimen of reduced intensity versus standard of care in this patient population. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial was conducted in nine National Health Service hospital trusts across the UK. Adults (aged 18-60 years) with active Crohn's disease on endoscopy (Simplified Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease [SES-CD] ulcer sub-score of ≥2) refractory to two or more classes of biological therapy, with no perianal or intra-abdominal sepsis or clinically significant comorbidity, were recruited. Participants were centrally randomly assigned (2:1) to either HSCT with a reduced dose of cyclophosphamide (intervention group) or standard care (control group). Randomisation was stratified by trial site by use of random permuted blocks of size 3 and 6. Patients in the intervention group underwent stem-cell mobilisation (cyclophosphamide 1 g/m2 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) 5 µg/kg) and stem-cell harvest (minimum 2·0 × 106 CD34+ cells per kg), before conditioning (fludarabine 125 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 120 mg/kg, and rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin [thymoglobulin] 7·5 mg/kg in total) and subsequent stem-cell reinfusion supported by G-CSF. Patients in the control group continued any available conventional, biological, or nutritional therapy. The primary outcome was absence of endoscopic ulceration (SES-CD ulcer sub-score of 0) without surgery or death at week 48, analysed in the intention-to-treat population by central reading. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 17160440. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2018, and Nov 8, 2019, 49 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 23 (47%) were randomly assigned: 13 (57%) to the intervention group and ten (43%) to the control group. In the intervention group, ten (77%) participants underwent HSCT and nine (69%) reached 48-week follow-up; in the control group, nine (90%) reached 48-week follow-up. The trial was halted in response to nine reported suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions in six (46%) patients in the intervention group, including renal failure due to proven thrombotic microangiopathy in three participants and one death due to pulmonary veno-occlusive disease. At week 48, absence of endoscopic ulceration without surgery or death was reported in three (43%) of seven participants in the intervention group and in none of six participants in the control group with available data. Serious adverse events were more frequent in the intervention group (38 in 13 [100%] patients) than in the control group (16 in four [40%] patients). A second patient in the intervention group died after week 48 of respiratory and renal failure. INTERPRETATION: Although HSCT with an immune-ablative regimen of reduced intensity decreased endoscopic disease activity, significant adverse events deem this regimen unsuitable for future clinical use in patients with refractory Crohn's disease. FUNDING: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership.

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.

Impact on patient outcomes of spondyloarthritis-inflammatory bowel disease multi-disciplinary meetings.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact on patient outcomes of the spondyloarthritis (SpA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings in a large university hospital. METHODS: A single-centre retrospective observational case-note review was conducted assessing the outcome of all 226 cases discussed at the SpA-IBD MDT meetings in a large UK university hospital between 2017-2022. RESULTS: A total of 226 patients were discussed. It was deemed that 97% of MDT meetings helped to improve communication between teams, and 100% were educational. A total of 57% of discussions led to an instant change of disease management, while 40% of discussions resulted in a treatment plan that avoided the use of dual advanced therapy. This improved patient safety by reducing immunosuppression. The MDT meetings were highly cost and time efficient; 125 referrals between specialists were avoided, and in 51 cases there was a significant chance of reducing future drug costs. A timely investigation or appointment was arranged following 50% of MDT discussions, helping to clarify the diagnosis and optimise patient care. 9% of meetings enabled drugs to be prescribed to patients that are not yet licenced for the other speciality, thereby improving treatment options available in the management of complex cases. CONCLUSION: The MDT meetings have been beneficial for patients, the clinical team and the institution. This approach might be considered by other rheumatology and gastroenterology departments.

Biologic therapy for inflammatory bowel disease: Real-world comparative effectiveness and impact of drug sequencing in 13,222 patients within the UK IBD BioResource.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To compare effectiveness of different biologic therapies and sequences in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) using real-world data from a large cohort with long exposure. METHODS: Demographic, disease, treatment and outcome data were retrieved for patients in the UK IBD BioResource. Effectiveness of treatment was based on persistence free of discontinuation or failure, analysed by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for differences between groups. RESULTS: 13,222 evaluable patients received at least one biologic. In ulcerative colitis (UC) first line vedolizumab (VDZ) demonstrated superior effectiveness over five years compared to anti-TNF agents (p=0.006). VDZ was superior to both infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADA) after ADA and IFX failure respectively (p<0.001 and p<0.001). Anti-TNF therapy showed similar effectiveness when used first-line, or after failure of VDZ. In Crohn's disease (CD) we found significant differences between first line treatments over ten years (p=0.045), with superior effectiveness of IFX compared to ADA in perianal CD. Non-anti-TNF biologics were superior to a second anti-TNF after first line anti-TNF failure in CD (p=0.035). Patients with UC or CD experiencing TNF-failure due to delayed loss of response or intolerance had superior outcomes when switching to a non-anti-TNF biologic, rather than a second anti-TNF. CONCLUSIONS: We provide real-world evidence to guide biologic selection and sequencing in a range of common scenarios. Our findings challenge current guidelines regarding drug selection after loss of response to first anti-TNF.

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.

Ustekinumab and Vedolizumab Are Equally Safe and Effective in Elderly Crohn's Disease Patients.

BACKGROUND: Anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents are associated with increased infection risk among elderly inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, and thus, alternative biologics may be preferable. However, little comparative data exist on the safety and efficacy of vedolizumab and ustekinumab in elderly IBD patients. AIMS: To compare the safety and effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in elderly Crohn's disease patients. METHODS: Patients ≥ 60 years old who commenced ustekinumab or vedolizumab for Crohn's disease (CD) were included. Primary outcome was serious infections, defined as requiring hospitalisation. Efficacy was assessed by treatment persistence and clinical response rates. We appropriately adjusted for confounders using propensity score-matched analysis weighted by the inverse predicted probability of treatment weighing and performed a logistic regression analysis to assess factors associated with serious infections and treatment persistence. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients commencing ustekinumab and 42 commencing vedolizumab therapy were included. In a propensity adjusted cohort, the rate of serious infection and treatment persistence were comparable between ustekinumab and vedolizumab. There was a significant reduction in HBI at 6 and 12 months compared to baseline in both groups. Male gender was positively associated with serious infection risk at 12 months, and penetrating disease behaviour was positively associated with 12-month treatment persistence. Baseline HBI score was negatively associated with 12-month treatment persistence. Cox regression analysis showed no overall difference in treatment discontinuation-free and serious infection-free survival by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: We observed comparable safety and effectiveness for ustekinumab and vedolizumab in treating elderly CD patients.

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.

Safety and effectiveness of ustekinumab in elderly Crohn's disease patients.

OBJECTIVE: Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents are associated with increased infection risk among elderly IBD patients, but little is known about non anti-TNF biologics in this cohort. We examined the safety and effectiveness of ustekinumab in elderly Crohn's patients. METHODS: This retrospective multi-centre cohort study included Crohn's patients ≥60-years old who commenced ustekinumab. We recorded Harvey-Bradshaw index (HBI), concomitant steroid therapy, treatment persistence and new infections or malignancies. Primary outcome was serious infections requiring hospitalisation. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included, with median age of 68 years. 43 (61.4%) had prior anti-TNF exposure, and 15 (21.4%) vedolizumab. Median treatment duration was 12 months, totalling 84 patient-years. Nine serious infections were reported, incidence 106.7/1000 patient-years. Systemic steroids were associated with increased risk of serious infections [odds ratio (OR) 7.83, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.44-44.32, P = 0.02]. There were 27 "non-serious" infections; 321.4/1000 patient-years. Charlson co-morbidity index (OR 1.49, 95% CI: 1.05-2.12, P = 0.03) and steroid exposure (OR 44.10, 95% CI: 1.75-1112.10, P = 0.02) increased non-serious infection risk (P &lt; 0.05). Mean HBI improved from 8.13 to 4.64 at 6 months and 4.10 at last follow up (P &lt; 0.0001). 12-month treatment persistence was 55.7% (N = 39); 34 (48.6%) were steroid-free. CONCLUSION: Ustekinumab was safe and effective in a cohort of elderly Crohn's disease patients. Infections were mostly mild, not resulting in therapy discontinuation. Serious infection risk was comparable to previously reported rates with anti-TNF agents. Steroid exposure was associated with an increased serious infection risk.

Vitamin D and COVID-19-Revisited.

Vitamin D, when activated to 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, is a steroid hormone that induces responses in several hundred genes, including many involved in immune responses to infection. Without supplementation, people living in temperate zones commonly become deficient in the precursor form of vitamin D, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, during winter, as do people who receive less sunlight exposure or those with darker skin pigmentation. Studies performed pre-COVID-19 have shown significant but modest reduction in upper respiratory infections in people receiving regular daily vitamin D supplementation. Vitamin D deficiency, like the risk of severe COVID-19, is linked with darker skin colour and also with obesity. Greater risk from COVID-19 has been associated with reduced ultraviolet exposure. Various studies have examined serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, either historical or current, in patients with COVID-19. The results of these studies have varied but the majority have shown an association between vitamin D deficiency and increased risk of COVID-19 illness or severity. Interventional studies of vitamin D supplementation have so far been inconclusive. Trial protocols commonly allow control groups to receive low-dose supplementation that may be adequate for many. The effects of vitamin D supplementation on disease severity in patients with existing COVID-19 are further complicated by the frequent use of large bolus dose vitamin D to achieve rapid effects, even though this approach has been shown to be ineffective in other settings. As the pandemic passes into its third year, a substantial role of vitamin D deficiency in determining the risk from COVID-19 remains possible but unproven.

Efficacy and Safety of Elective Switching from Intravenous to Subcutaneous Infliximab [CT-P13]: A Multicentre Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous [IV] infliximab is a well-established therapy for inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD] patients. A subcutaneous [SC] formulation of infliximab [CT-P13] has recently been shown to be as effective as IV infliximab after two doses of IV induction in a randomised trial, but there are no data to support elective switching of patients on maintenance IV infliximab therapy. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of an elective switching programme to SC CT-P13 in patients treated with IV infliximab. METHODS: Patients on established maintenance IV infliximab, who switched to SC CT-P13, were included in this retrospective multicentre cohort study. Disease activity was monitored serially with the Harvey-Bradshaw Index [HBI] for Crohn's disease [CD] and the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index [SCCAI] for ulcerative colitis (UC) for up to 12 months at months 3, 6, and 12. Faecal calprotectin [FC] and C-reactive protein [CRP] were recorded at baseline and follow-up, if available. Infliximab trough levels were measured prior to switch and at months 3, 6, and 12 following switch. The primary outcome measure was treatment persistence at latest follow-up. Secondary outcome measures included infliximab pharmacokinetics [PK], safety, need for corticosteroid rescue therapy, and need for surgery. RESULTS: We included 181 patients, of whom 115 [63.5%] had CD. The majority [72.4%] were on 8-weekly dosing of intravenous infliximab prior to switching, and more than half [59.1%] were on concomitant immunomodulatory therapy. The majority of patients (CD: 106, 92.2%; UC: 46, 76.7%; and IBD unclassified [IBD-U]: 5, 83.3%) were in clinical remission. Treatment persistence rate was high [n = 167, 92.3%] and only 14 patients [7.7%] stopped treatment during the follow-up period. There was no significant difference between baseline and repeat measurements at 3, 6, or 12 months for HBI, SCCAI, CRP, or FC. Of the total cohort, 25 patients (13.8%) had perianal CD. Of these, only two patients [8%] had worsening of perianal CD and required antibiotic therapy and further examination under anaesthesia [EUA]. Both these patients also switched back to intravenous infliximab. Median infliximab level increased from a baseline of 8.9 µg/dl [range 0.4-16] to 16.0 µg/dl [range 2.3-16, p <0.001] at 3 months. Serum levels stayed stable at 6 months [median 16 µg/dl, range 0.3-17.2] and 12 months [median 16 µg/dl, range 0.3-19.1, both p <0.001 compared with baseline]. Among the variables examined, only antibodies to infliximab [ATI] was associated with infliximab levels (odds ratio [OR] -13.369, 95% CI -15.405, -11.333, p <0.001]. A total of 14 patients [7.7%] developed ATI; of these, nine [64.3%] were on concomitant immunomodulatory therapy. Immunomodulatory therapy was not significantly associated with development of ATI [p = 0.15]. In a subset of patients receiving escalated IV infliximab dosing frequency prior to switching, no difference in treatment persistence was observed in patients receiving weekly versus alternate weekly SC CT-P13. Patient acceptance and satisfaction rates with SC CT-P13 were very high. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients on IV infliximab maintenance therapy switched to SC CT-P13, we observed high treatment persistence rates and low rates of immunogenicity, with no change in clinical disease activity indices or biomarkers. Infliximab levels increased after switch to SC CT-P13, and only ATI was associated with serum infliximab levels. Patient acceptance and satisfaction rates were high with SC CT-P13.

Ambulatory care management of 69 patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis in comparison to 695 inpatients: insights from a multicentre UK cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) traditionally requires inpatient hospital management for intravenous therapies and/or colectomy. Ambulatory ASUC care has not yet been evaluated in large cohorts. AIMS: We used data from PROTECT, a UK multicentre observational COVID-19 inflammatory bowel disease study, to report the extent, safety and effectiveness of ASUC ambulatory pathways. METHODS: Adults (≥18 years old) meeting Truelove and Witts criteria between 1 January 2019-1 June 2019 and 1 March 2020-30 June 2020 were recruited to PROTECT. We used demographic, disease phenotype, treatment outcomes and 3-month follow-up data. Primary outcome was rate of colectomy during the index ASUC episode. Secondary outcomes included corticosteroid response, time to and rate of rescue or primary induction therapy, response to rescue or primary induction therapy, time to colectomy, mortality, duration of inpatient treatment and hospital readmission and colectomy within 3 months of index flare. We compared outcomes in three cohorts: (1) patients treated entirely in inpatient setting; ambulatory patients subdivided into; (2) patients managed as ambulatory from diagnosis and (3) patients hospitalised and subsequently discharged to ambulatory care for continued intravenous steroids. RESULTS: 37% (22/60) participating hospitals used ambulatory pathways. Of 764 eligible patients, 695 (91%) patients received entirely inpatient care, 15 (2%) patients were managed as ambulatory from diagnosis and 54 (7%) patients were discharged to ambulatory pathways. Aside from younger age in patients treated as ambulatory from diagnosis, no significant differences in disease or patient phenotype were observed. The rate of colectomy (15.0% (104/695) vs 13.3% (2/15) vs 13.0% (7/54), respectively, p=0.96) and secondary outcomes were similar among all three cohorts. Stool culture and flexible sigmoidoscopy were less frequently performed in ambulatory cohorts. Forty per cent of patients treated as ambulatory from diagnosis required subsequent hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: In a post hoc analysis of one of the largest ASUC cohorts collected to date, we report an emerging UK ambulatory practice which challenges treatment paradigms. However, our analysis remains underpowered to detect key outcome measures and further studies exploring clinical and cost-effectiveness as well as patient and physician acceptability are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04411784.

Vitamin D, vitamin D-binding protein, free vitamin D and COVID-19 mortality in hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency has been associated with worse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes, but circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] is largely bound to vitamin D-binding protein (DBP) or albumin, both of which tend to fall in illness, making the 25(OH)D status hard to interpret. Because of this, measurements of unbound ("free") and albumin-bound ("bioavailable") 25(OH)D have been proposed. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine the relationship between vitamin D status and mortality from COVID-19. METHODS: In this observational study conducted in Liverpool, UK, hospitalized COVID-19 patients with surplus sera available for 25(OH)D analysis were studied. Clinical data, including age, ethnicity, and comorbidities, were extracted from case notes. Serum 25(OH)D, DBP, and albumin concentrations were measured. Free and bioavailable 25(OH)D were calculated. Relationships between total, free, and bioavailable 25(OH)D and 28-day mortality were analyzed by logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 472 patients with COVID-19 included, of whom 112 (23.7%) died within 28 days. Nonsurvivors were older (mean age, 73 years; range, 34-98 years) than survivors (mean age, 65 years; range, 19-95 years; P = 0.003) and were more likely to be male (67%; P = 0.02). The frequency of vitamin D deficiency [25(OH)D < 50 nmol/L] was similar between nonsurvivors (71/112; 63.4%) and survivors (204/360; 56.7%; P = 0.15) but, after adjustments for age, sex, and comorbidities, increased odds for mortality were present in those with severe deficiency [25(OH)D < 25 nmol/L: OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.17-4.78] or a high 25(OH)D (≥100 nmol/L; OR, 4.65; 95% CI, 1.51-14.34) compared with a 25(OH)D value of 50-74 nmol/L (reference). Serum DBP levels were not associated with mortality after adjustments for 25(OH)D, age, sex, and comorbidities. Neither free nor bioavailable 25(OH)D values were associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D deficiency, as commonly defined by serum 25(OH)D levels (<50 nmol/L), is not associated with increased mortality from COVID-19, but extremely low (<25 nmol/L) and high (>100 nmol/L) levels may be associated with mortality risks. Neither free nor bioavailable 25(OH)D values are associated with mortality risk. The study protocol was approved by the London-Surrey Research Ethics Committee (20/HRA/2282).

Women's Willingness to Accept Risks of Medication for Inflammatory Bowel Disease During Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) face difficult decisions regarding treatment during pregnancy: while the majority of IBD medications are safe, there is substantial societal pressure to avoid exposures during pregnancy. However, discontinuation of IBD medications risks a disease flare occurring during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: This study quantified women's knowledge about pregnancy and IBD and their willingness to accept the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes to avoid disease activity or medication use during pregnancy. METHODS: Women with IBD recruited from four centers completed an online discrete-choice experiment stated-preference study including eight choice tasks and the Crohn's and Colitis Pregnancy Knowledge questionnaire. Random-parameters logit was used to estimate preferences for both the respondent personally and what the respondent thought most women would prefer. We also tested for systematically different preferences among individuals with different demographic and personal characteristics, including IBD knowledge. The primary outcome was the maximum acceptable risk of premature birth, birth defects, or miscarriage that women with IBD were willing to accept to avoid (1) taking an IBD medication or (2) having a disease flare during pregnancy. RESULTS: Among 230 respondents, women would accept, on average, up to a 4.9% chance of miscarriage to avoid a disease flare. On average, there were no statistically significant differences in women's preferences for continuing versus avoiding medication in the absence of a flare. However, prior understanding of IBD and pregnancy significantly affected preferences for IBD medication use during pregnancy: women with "poor knowledge" would accept up to a 6.4% chance of miscarriage to avoid IBD medication use during pregnancy, whereas women with "adequate knowledge" would accept up to a 5.1% chance of miscarriage in order to remain on their medication. Respondents' personal treatment preferences did not differ from their assessment of other women's preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Women with IBD demonstrated a strong preference for avoiding disease activity during pregnancy. Knowledge regarding pregnancy and IBD was a strong modifier of preferences for continuation of IBD medications during pregnancy. These findings point to an important opportunity for intervention to improve disease control through education to increase medication adherence and alleviate unnecessary fears about IBD medication use during pregnancy.