Effectiveness and safety of a third-line rescue treatment for acute severe ulcerative colitis refractory to infliximab or ciclosporin (REASUC study).

BACKGROUND: The advent of new therapeutic agents and the improvement of supporting care might change the management of acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) and avoid colectomy. AIMS: To evaluate the colectomy-free survival and safety of a third-line treatment in patients with ASUC refractory to intravenous steroids and who failed either infliximab or ciclosporin. METHODS: Multicentre retrospective cohort study of patients with ASUC refractory to intravenous steroids who had failed infliximab or ciclosporin and received a third-line treatment during the same hospitalisation. Patients who stopped second-line treatment due to disease activity or adverse events (AEs) were eligible. We assessed short-term colectomy-free survival by logistic regression analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models were used for long-term assessment. RESULTS: Among 78 patients, 32 received infliximab and 46 ciclosporin as second-line rescue treatment. Third-line treatment was infliximab in 45 (58%), ciclosporin in 17 (22%), tofacitinib in 13 (17%) and ustekinumab in 3 (3.8%). Colectomy was performed in 29 patients (37%) during follow-up (median 21 weeks). Of the 78 patients, 32 and 18 were in clinical remission at, respectively, 12 and 52 weeks. At the last visit, 25 patients were still on third-line rescue treatment, while 12 had stopped it due to clinical remission. AEs were reported in 26 (33%) patients. Two patients died (2.6%), including one following colectomy. CONCLUSION: Third-line rescue treatment avoided colectomy in over half of the patients with ASUC and may be considered a therapeutic strategy.

Baseline Data and Measurement Instruments Reported in Observational Studies in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Results from a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in demographic and outcomes data with corresponding measurement instruments [MIs] creates barriers to data pooling and analysis. Several core outcome sets have been developed in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] to homogenize outcomes data. A parallel Minimum Data Set [MDS] for baseline characteristics is lacking. We conducted a systematic review to develop the first MDS. METHODS: A systematic review was made of observational studies from three databases [2000-2021]. Titles and abstracts were screened, full-text articles were reviewed, and data were extracted by two reviewers. Baseline data were grouped into ten domains: demographics, clinical features, disease behaviour/complications, biomarkers, endoscopy, histology, radiology, healthcare utilization and patient-reported data. Frequency of baseline data and MIs within respective domains are reported. RESULTS: From 315 included studies [600 552 subjects], most originated from Europe [196; 62%] and North America [59; 19%], and were published between 2011 and 2021 [251; 80%]. The most frequent domains were demographics [311; 98.7%] and clinical [289; 91.7%]; 224 [71.1%] studies reported on the triad of sex [306; 97.1%], age [289; 91.7%], and disease phenotype [231; 73.3%]. Few included baseline data for radiology [19; 6%], healthcare utilization [19; 6%], and histology [17; 5.4%]. Ethnicity [19; 6%], race [17; 5.4%], and alcohol/drug consumption [6; 1.9%] were the least reported demographics. From 25 MIs for clinical disease activity, the Harvey-Bradshaw Index [n = 53] and Mayo score [n = 37] were most frequently used. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variability exists in baseline population data reporting. These findings will inform a future consensus for MDS in IBD to enhance data harmonization and credibility of real-world evidence.

A Narrative Systematic Review and Categorisation of Outcomes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease to Inform a Core Outcome Set for Real-world Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity exists in reported outcomes and outcome measurement instruments [OMI] from observational studies. A core outcome set [COS] for observational and real-world evidence [RWE] in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] will facilitate pooling large datasets. This systematic review describes and classifies clinical and patient-reported outcomes, for COS development. METHODS: The systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases identified observational studies published between 2000 and 2021 using the population exposure outcome [PEO] framework. Studies meeting eligibility criteria were included. After titles and abstracts screening, full-text articles were extracted by two independent reviewers. Primary and secondary outcomes with corresponding OMI were extracted and categorised in accordance with OMERACT Filter 2.1 framework. The frequency of outcomes and OMIs are described. RESULTS: From 5854 studies, 315 were included: 129 [41%] Crohn's disease [CD], 60 [19%] ulcerative colitis [UC], and 126 [40%] inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] studies with 600 552 participants. Totals of 1632 outcomes and 1929 OMI were extracted mainly from medical therapy [181; 72%], surgical [34; 11%], and endoscopic [6; 2%] studies. Clinical and medical therapy-related safety were frequent outcome domains recorded in 194 and 100 studies. Medical therapy-related adverse events [n = 74] and need for surgery [n = 71] were the commonest outcomes. The most frequently reported OMI were patient or event numbers [n = 914], Harvey-Bradshaw Index [n = 45], and Montreal classification [n = 42]. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variability in outcomes reporting and OMI types. Categorised outcomes and OMI from this review will inform a Delphi consensus on a COS for future RWE in IBD. Data collection standardisation may enhance the quality of RWE applied to decision-making.

Safety and efficacy of combining biologics or small molecules for inflammatory bowel disease or immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: A European retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Few data are available regarding the combination of biologics or small molecules in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. We report safety and efficacy of such combinations through a retrospective multicentre series. METHODS: Combination therapy was defined as the concomitant use of two biologics or one biologic with a small molecule. Patient demographics, disease characteristics and types of combinations were recorded. Safety was evaluated according to the occurrence of serious infection, opportunistic infection, hospitalisation, life-threatening event, worsening of IBD or immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID), cancer and death. Efficacy was evaluated as the physician global assessment of the combination and comparison of clinical/endoscopic scores of IBD/IMID activity prior and during combination. RESULTS: A total of 104 combinations were collected in 98 patients. Concomitant IMID were present in 41 patients. Reasons for starting combination therapy were active IBD (67%), active IMID or extra-intestinal manifestations (EIM) (22%), both (10%) and unclassified in 1. Median duration of combination was 8 months (interquartile range 5-16). During 122 patient-years of follow-up, 42 significant adverse events were observed, mostly related to uncontrolled IBD. There were 10 significant infections, 1 skin cancer and no death. IBD disease activity was clinically improved in 70% and IMID/EIM activity in 81% of the patients. Overall, combination was continued in 55% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of biologics and small molecules in patients with IBD and IMID/EIM seems to be a promising therapeutic strategy but is also associated with a risk of opportunistic infections or infections leading to hospitalisation in 10%.