SEX-RELATED DIFFERENCES IN THE PHENOTYPE AND COURSE OF INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE: SEXEII STUDY OF ENEIDA.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The impact of patient sex on the presentation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been poorly evaluated. Our aims were to assess potential disparities in IBD phenotype and progression between sexes. METHODS: Observational multicentre study that included patients with Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) from the Spanish ENEIDA registry. Data extraction was conducted in July 2021. RESULTS: 51,595 patients with IBD were included, 52% were males and 25,947 had CD. The median follow-up after diagnosis was 9 years in males and 10 in females. In CD, female sex was an independent risk factor for medium disease onset (17-40 years) (RRR 1.45, 95% CI 1.31-1.62), later disease onset (>40 years) (RRR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.38-1.73), exclusive colonic involvement (OR 1.24, 95%CI 1.14-1.34), inflammatory behaviour (OR 1.14, 95%CI 1.07-1.21) and extraintestinal manifestations (OR 1.48, 95%CI 1.38-1.59). However, female sex was a protective factor for upper gastrointestinal involvement (OR 0.84, 95%CI 0.79-0.90), penetrating behaviour (OR 0.76, 95%CI 0.70-0.82), perianal disease (OR 0.77, 95CI% 0.71-0.82) and complications (OR 0.73, 95%CI 0.66-0.80). In UC, female sex was an independent risk factor for extraintestinal manifestations (OR 1.48, 95%CI 1.26-1.61). However, female sex was an independent protective factor for disease onset from age 40 onward (RRR 0.76, IC 95%: 0.66-0.87), left sided colonic involvement (RRR 0.72, 95% CI 0.67-0.78), extensive colonic involvement (RRR 0.59, 95%CI 0.55-0.64) and abdominal surgery (OR 0.78, 95%CI 0.69-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: There is sexual dimorphism in IBD. The patient's sex should be taken into account in the clinical management of the disease.

Efficacy and safety of biological treatment for inflammatory bowel disease in elderly patients: Results from a GETECCU cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Biological therapies used for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have shown to be effective and safe, although these results were obtained from studies involving mostly a young population, who are generally included in clinical trials. The aim of our study was to determine the efficacy and safety of the different biological treatments in the elderly population. METHODS: Multicenter study was carried out in the GETECCU group. Patients diagnosed with IBD and aged over 65 years at the time of initiating biological therapy (infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, ustekinumab or vedolizumab) were retrospectively included. Among the patients included, clinical response was assessed after drug induction (12 weeks of treatment) and at 52 weeks. Patients' colonoscopy data in week 52 were assessment, where available. Regarding complications, development of oncological events during follow-up and infectious processes occurring during biological treatment were collected (excluding bowel infection by cytomegalovirus). RESULTS: A total of 1090 patients were included. After induction, at approximately 12-14 weeks of treatment, 419 patients (39.6%) were in clinical remission, 502 patients (47.4%) had responded without remission and 137 patients (12.9%) had no response. At 52 weeks of treatment 442 patients (57.1%) had achieved clinical remission, 249 patients had responded without remission (32.2%) and 53 patients had no response to the treatment (6.8%). Before 52 weeks, 129 patients (14.8%) had discontinued treatment due to inefficacy, this being significantly higher (p<0.0001) for Golimumab - 9 patients (37.5%) - compared to the other biological treatments analyzed. With respect to tumor development, an oncological event was observed in 74 patients (6.9%): 30 patients (8%) on infliximab, 23 (7.14%) on adalimumab, 3 (11.1%) on golimumab, 10 (6.4%) on ustekinumab, and 8 (3.8%) on vedolizumab. The incidence was significantly lower (p=0.04) for the vedolizumab group compared to other treatments. As regards infections, these occurred in 160 patients during treatment (14.9%), with no differences between the different biologicals used (p=0.61): 61 patients (19.4%) on infliximab, 39 (12.5%) on adalimumab, 5 (17.8%) on golimumab, 22 (14.1%) on ustekinumab, and 34 (16.5%) on vedolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Biological drug therapies have response rates in elderly patients similar to those described in the general population, Golimumab was the drug that was discontinued most frequently due to inefficacy. In our experience, tumor development was more frequent in patients who used anti-TNF therapies compared to other targets, although its incidence was generally low and that this is in line with younger patients based on previous literature.

Effectiveness and Safety of Ustekinumab in Elderly Patients with Crohn's Disease: Real World Evidence From the ENEIDA Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Clinical trials and real-life studies with ustekinumab in Crohn's disease [CD] have revealed a good efficacy and safety profile. However, these data are scarcely available in elderly patients. Therefore, we aim to assess the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in elderly patients with CD. METHODS: Elderly patients [>60 years old] from the prospectively maintained ENEIDA registry treated with ustekinumab due to CD were included. Every patient was matched with two controls under 60 years of age, according to anti-tumour necrosis factor use and smoking habit. Values for the Harvey-Bradshaw Index [HBI], endoscopic activity, C-reactive protein [CRP] and faecal calprotectin [FC] were recorded at baseline and at weeks 16, 32 and 54. RESULTS: In total, 648 patients were included, 212 of whom were elderly. Effectiveness was similar between young and elderly patients during the follow-up. Steroid-free remission was similar at week 16 [54.6 vs 51.4%, p = 0.20], 32 [53.0% vs 54.5%, p = 0.26] and 54 [57.8% vs 51.1%, p = 0.21]. Persistence of ustekinumab as maintenance therapy was similar in both age groups [log-rank test; p = 0.91]. There was no difference in the rate of adverse effects [14.2% vs 11.2%, p = 0.350], including severe infections [7.1% vs 7.3%, p = 1.00], except for the occurrence of de novo neoplasms, which was higher in older patients [0.7% vs 4.3%, p = 0.003]. CONCLUSIONS: Ustekinumab is as effective in elderly patients with CD as it is in non-elderly patients. The safety profile also seems to be similar except for a higher rate of de novo neoplasms, probably related to the age of the elderly patients.