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.

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.

Patient-led Remote IntraCapillary pharmacoKinetic Sampling (fingerPRICKS) for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Because of COVID-19 public health restrictions, telemedicine has replaced conventional outpatient follow up for most patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disorders treated with biologic drugs. Innovative solutions to facilitate remote therapeutic drug monitoring are therefore required. Low-volume intracapillary blood sampling can be undertaken by patients at home and samples returned by post to central laboratories. We sought to report the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on requests for therapeutic drug monitoring and the equivalence, acceptability and effectiveness of low volume Patient-led Remote IntraCapillary pharmacoKinetic Sampling [fingerPRICKS] compared to conventional venepuncture. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional blood sampling methods comparison study and compared sample types using linear regression models. Drug and antidrug antibody levels were measured using standard ELISAs. Acceptability was assessed using a purpose-designed questionnaire. RESULTS: Therapeutic drug monitoring requests for adalimumab (96.5 [70.5-106] per week to 52 [33.5-57.0], p < 0.001) but not infliximab (184.5 [161.2-214.2] to 161 [135-197.5], p = 0.34) reduced during the first UK stay-at-home lockdown compared with the preceding 6 months. Fingerprick sampling was equivalent to conventional venepuncture for adalimumab, infliximab, vedolizumab and ustekinumab drug, and anti-adalimumab and anti-infliximab antibody levels. The median [interquartile range] volume of serum obtained using intracapillary sampling was 195 µL [130-210]. More than 87% [90/103] of patients agreed that intracapillary testing was easy and 69% [71/103] preferred it to conventional venepuncture. In routine care, 75.3% [58/77] of patients returned two blood samples within 14 days to permit remote assessment of biologic therapeutic drug monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic drug monitoring can be undertaken using patient-led remote intracapillary blood sampling and has the potential to be a key adjunct to telemedicine in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

Infliximab is associated with attenuated immunogenicity to BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with IBD.

OBJECTIVE: Delayed second dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccination trades maximal effectiveness for a lower level of immunity across more of the population. We investigated whether patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with infliximab have attenuated serological responses to a single dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. DESIGN: Antibody responses and seroconversion rates in infliximab-treated patients (n=865) were compared with a cohort treated with vedolizumab (n=428), a gut-selective anti-integrin α4ß7 monoclonal antibody. Our primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) antibody concentrations, measured using the Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) antibody assay 3-10 weeks after vaccination, in patients without evidence of prior infection. Secondary outcomes were seroconversion rates (defined by a cut-off of 15 U/mL), and antibody responses following past infection or a second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. RESULTS: Geometric mean (SD) anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were lower in patients treated with infliximab than vedolizumab, following BNT162b2 (6.0 U/mL (5.9) vs 28.8 U/mL (5.4) p<0.0001) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (4.7 U/mL (4.9)) vs 13.8 U/mL (5.9) p<0.0001) vaccines. In our multivariable models, antibody concentrations were lower in infliximab-treated compared with vedolizumab-treated patients who received the BNT162b2 (fold change (FC) 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.40), p<0.0001) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (FC 0.39 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.51), p<0.0001) vaccines. In both models, age ≥60 years, immunomodulator use, Crohn's disease and smoking were associated with lower, while non-white ethnicity was associated with higher, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations. Seroconversion rates after a single dose of either vaccine were higher in patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and after two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine. CONCLUSION: Infliximab is associated with attenuated immunogenicity to a single dose of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Vaccination after SARS-CoV-2 infection, or a second dose of vaccine, led to seroconversion in most patients. Delayed second dosing should be avoided in patients treated with infliximab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN45176516.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses are attenuated in patients with IBD treated with infliximab.

OBJECTIVE: Antitumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs impair protective immunity following pneumococcal, influenza and viral hepatitis vaccination and increase the risk of serious respiratory infections. We sought to determine whether infliximab-treated patients with IBD have attenuated serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 infections. DESIGN: Antibody responses in participants treated with infliximab were compared with a reference cohort treated with vedolizumab, a gut-selective anti-integrin α4ß7 monoclonal antibody that is not associated with impaired vaccine responses or increased susceptibility to systemic infections. 6935 patients were recruited from 92 UK hospitals between 22 September and 23 December 2020. RESULTS: Rates of symptomatic and proven SARS-CoV-2 infection were similar between groups. Seroprevalence was lower in infliximab-treated than vedolizumab-treated patients (3.4% (161/4685) vs 6.0% (134/2250), p<0.0001). Multivariable logistic regression analyses confirmed that infliximab (vs vedolizumab; OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.87), p=0.0027) and immunomodulator use (OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.92), p=0.012) were independently associated with lower seropositivity. In patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, seroconversion was observed in fewer infliximab-treated than vedolizumab-treated patients (48% (39/81) vs 83% (30/36), p=0.00044) and the magnitude of anti-SARS-CoV-2 reactivity was lower (median 0.8 cut-off index (0.2-5.6) vs 37.0 (15.2-76.1), p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab is associated with attenuated serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 that were further blunted by immunomodulators used as concomitant therapy. Impaired serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection might have important implications for global public health policy and individual anti-TNF-treated patients. Serological testing and virus surveillance should be considered to detect suboptimal vaccine responses, persistent infection and viral evolution to inform public health policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN45176516.

Root-cause analyses of missed opportunities for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopic surveillance in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) leads to earlier detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and reduces CRC-associated mortality. However, it is limited by poor adherence in practice. AIM: To identify missed opportunities to detect IBD-associated CRC at our hospital METHODS: We undertook root-cause analyses to identify patients with missed opportunities to diagnose IBD-associated CRC. We matched patients with IBD-associated CRC to patients with CRC in the general population to identify differences in staging at diagnosis and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with the general population, patients with IBD were at increased risk of developing CRC (odds ratio 2.7 [95% CI 1.6-3.9], P < 0.001). The mean incidence of IBD-associated CRC between 1998 and 2019 was 165.4 (IQR 130.4-199.4) per 100 000 patients and has not changed over the last 20 years. Seventy-eight patients had IBD-associated CRC. Forty-two (54%) patients were eligible for CRC surveillance: 12% (5/42) and 10% (4/42) patients were diagnosed with CRC at an appropriately timed or overdue surveillance colonoscopy, respectively. Interval cancers occurred in 14% (6/42) of patients; 64% (27/42) of patients had a missed opportunity for colonoscopic surveillance where root-cause analyses demonstrated that 10/27 (37%) patients known to secondary care had not been offered surveillance. Four (15%) patients had a delayed diagnosis of CRC due to failure to account for previous colonoscopic findings. Seventeen (63%) patients were managed by primary care including seven patients discharged from secondary care without a surveillance plan. Matched case-control analysis did not show significant differences in cancer staging or 10-year survival outcomes. CONCLUSION: The incidence of IBD-associated CRC has remained static. Two-thirds of patients eligible for colonoscopic surveillance had missed opportunities to diagnose CRC. Surveillance programmes without comprehensive and fully integrated recall systems across primary and secondary care are set to fail.

Quality improvement project identifies factors associated with delay in IBD diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Delay in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is common and contemporary UK studies are lacking. AIM: To determine factors associated with, and the consequences of, a prolonged time to diagnosis in IBD. METHODS: This quality improvement study included 304 adults with a new IBD diagnosis made between January 2014 and December 2017 across 49 general practices (GP) and gastroenterology secondary care services. Outcome measures were demographic, clinical and laboratory factors associated with a delayed time, defined as greater than upper quartile, to: (a) patient presentation (b) GP referral (c) secondary care diagnosis, and factors associated with a complicated disease course (hospitalisation and/or surgery and/or biologic treatment) in the year after diagnosis. RESULTS: The median [IQR] diagnosis sub-intervals were: (a) patient = 2.1 months [0.9-5.1]; (b) GP = 0.3 months [0.0-0.9]; (c) secondary care = 1.1 months [0.5-2.1]. 50% of patients were diagnosed within 4 months and 92% were diagnosed within 2 years of symptom onset. Diagnostic delay was more common in Crohn's disease (7.6 months [3.1-15.0]) than ulcerative colitis (3.3 months [1.9-7.3]) (P < 0.001). Patients who presented as an emergency (P < 0.001) but not those with a delayed overall time to diagnosis (P = 0.35) were more likely to have a complicated disease course. CONCLUSION: Time to patient presentation is the largest component of time to IBD diagnosis. Emergency presentation is common and, unlike a delayed time to diagnosis, is associated with a complicated disease course.

Real-world Effectiveness of Tofacitinib for Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis: A Multicentre UK Experience.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is a partially selective Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of refractory moderate to severe ulcerative colitis [UC]. We sought to define the effectiveness and adverse effects of tofacitinib in a real-world cohort. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of 134 patients with UC [64% male; median age 37 years [range 16-81]; 83% of patients had previously received at least one biologic] treated with tofacitinib from October 2018 to October 2019 in four UK centres. Disease activity was assessed using the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index [SCCAI] or partial Mayo score [PMS], depending on study site. Response and remission were defined as a reduction in SCCAI or PMS of ≥3and SCCAI ≤2 or a PMS ≤1, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 74% (88/119; 95 confidence interval [CI] 65-81%] patients responded to tofacitinib at Week 8 and steroid-free remission was observed in 44% [47/108; 95% CI 3453%] patients at Week 26. Primary non-response was independently associated with younger age [p = 0.014] and higher C-reactive protein [CRP] levels at baseline [p = 0.004]. Only 23% [3/13] of patients who continued tofacitinib in the setting of primary non-response were in steroid-free remission at Week 26. Prior biologic exposure did not influence response or remission rates. Dose escalation, however, recaptured response in approximately half of patients who had lost response. Dyslipidaemia was observed in 20% [27/134; 95% CI 1428%] of patients, but adverse events necessitating drug withdrawal were uncommon and no venous thromboembolic events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre real-world cohort, tofacitinib was well tolerated and clinically effective in a treatment-refractory UC population.

Lack of congruence between patients' and health professionals' perspectives of adherence to imatinib therapy in treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Consistent use of imatinib is critical for treatment success in chronic myeloid leukemia, yet perfect adherence to the prescribed clinical regimen is reported to be as low as 14%. This study aimed to understand patients' experiences of chronic myeloid leukemia with a qualitative approach, including identified facilitators and barriers to adherence, drawing on patients' and health professionals' perspectives, recording comments made by patients and health professionals involved with the same treatment team. METHOD: We recruited patients with chronic myeloid leukemia prescribed imatinib therapy and health professionals involved in their treatment from a specialized cancer center. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were recorded, transcribed, and manually analyzed using interpretive phenomenological analysis. Recruitment ceased upon saturation, with 16 patients and 10 health professionals (hematologists n = 4, nurses n = 3, pharmacists n = 3). RESULTS: Twelve patients reported at least one instance of nonadherence. Reasons for unintentional nonadherence included forgetfulness related to variations of routine and doctor-patient communication issues. Reasons for intentional nonadherence included desires to reduce dose-dependent side effects and insufficient support. Patients who reported higher nonadherence rates felt complacent following periods of sustained disease control or had received conflicting advice regarding nonadherence. Health professionals had difficulty in accurately evaluating medication adherence due to a lack of reliable measures, utilizing patient self-report and manifestations of suboptimal disease control to guide assessments. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Adherence issues persist throughout the course of treatment. While high patient-reported nonadherence rates were recorded, health professionals were often unaware of the complex causes, compounded by an inadequacy of adherence assessment tools. Some patients reported nonadherence events because of insufficient education or lack of access to prompt medical guidance. These issues should be addressed to improve clinical practice.

The potential of capillary birthmarks as a significant marker for capillary malformation-arteriovenous malformation syndrome in children who had nontraumatic cerebral hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Capillary malformation-arteriovenous malformation (CM-AVM) is a new autosomal dominant disorder with cutaneous capillary malformations (CM) and high-flow cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVM). Patients may have Parkes-Weber syndrome. This study determined if cutaneous CM are a significant indicator of CM-AVM in children with cerebral bleeds. METHODS: Children with cerebral AVMs between 1991 and 2009 were reviewed. A family history of brain hemorrhage, AVMs, or cutaneous birthmarks was elicited. Patients and siblings were examined for CM and a family tree recorded. A brief questionnaire determined the family's opinion regarding screening for this syndrome. RESULTS: Of 30 families, 1 family had Parkes-Weber syndrome. In 3 families, both patient and relatives had CM. In 9 families, patients had no CM, but relatives had them. One family had hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia. From the survey, 80% of families would be concerned about vascular marks, and 87% of families would allow screening for cerebral AVMs. CONCLUSION: A family history of vascular marks may predict families at risk of having a cerebral AVM with hemorrhage. Most families would agree to screening. However, family history and physical examination alone do not confirm CM-AVM but form a useful screening tool to identify families needing further investigations with genetic testing and/or magnetic resonance imaging.