Prevalence and Determinants of Fatigue in Patients with IBD: A Cross-Sectional Survey from the GETAID.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is commonly reported by patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD], but the determinants of IBD-related fatigue have yet to be determined. AIMS: To identify the factors associated with fatigue in a large population of patients with IBD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fatigue and nine other IBD-related disability dimensions were assessed in a cohort of 1704 consecutive patients with IBD using the IBD-disk questionnaire in a cross-sectional survey of 42 French and Belgian centres. Fatigue and severe fatigue were defined as energy subscores >5 and >7, respectively. Determinants of fatigue were assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses (odds ratios [ORs] are provided with 95% confidence intervals). RESULTS: The prevalence rates of fatigue and severe fatigue were 54.1% and 37.1%, respectively. Both fatigue and severe fatigue were significantly higher in patients with active disease than in patients with inactive disease [64.9% vs 44.7% and 47.4% vs 28.6%, respectively; p < 0.001 for both comparisons]. In the multivariate analysis stratified by age, sex, type of IBD and IBD activity, fatigue was associated with age >40 years (OR = 0.71 [0.54-0.93]), female sex (OR = 1.48 [1.13-1.93]) and IBD-related sick leave (OR = 1.61 [1.19-2.16]), and joint pain (OR = 1.60 [1.17-2.18]), abdominal pain (OR = 1.78 [1.29-2.45]), regulating defecation (OR = 1.67 [1.20-2.32]), education and work (OR = 1.96 [1.40-2.75]), body image (OR = 1.38 [1.02-1.86]), sleep (OR = 3.60 [2.66-4.88]) and emotions (OR = 3.60 [2.66-4.88]) subscores >5. CONCLUSION: Determinants of fatigue are not restricted to IBD-related factors but also include social factors, sleep and emotional disturbances, thus supporting a holistic approach to IBD patient care.

Prevalence of anti-TNF contraindications in Crohn's disease: A cross-sectional survey from the GETAID.

BACKGROUND: The exact rate of contraindications to anti-TNF therapy and physician perspectives on treatment choices facing to anti-TNF contraindication, are poorly reported. METHODS: A two-week cross-sectional study was conducted in 31 centres. Physicians completed a questionnaire for a total of 1,314 consecutive outpatients with Crohn's disease, assessing each patient's potential contraindications to anti-TNF therapy, the choice of alternative therapy to anti-TNFs, and their preference in an unrestricted reimbursement setting. RESULTS: Among the 1,293 responses to the first item, 148 (11.5%) reported 32 absolute contraindications (2.5%) and 116 relative contraindications (9.0%) to anti-TNF therapy. When asked about their preference of alternative therapies in those cases with contraindications to anti-TNF, physicians chose ustekinumab and vedolizumab, 75.6% and 23.9%, respectively. In multivariable analysis, the choice of vedolizumab was the preferred choice for patients aged > 60 years with the L2 phenotype and the absence of perianal lesions. In a hypothetical setting of unrestricted reimbursement, anti-TNFs remained physicians' preferred first-line biological therapy choice for 78.2%. CONCLUSION: Anti-TNF contraindications occurred in up to 11.5% of patients with Crohn's disease. Physicians' choices for alternative therapy to anti-TNF relied on ustekinumab in 75.6% and vedolizumab in 23.9% of these cases. This choice was driven mainly by phenotypical criteria and age.

Ustekinumab Serum Trough Levels May Identify Suboptimal Responders to Ustekinumab in Crohn's Disease.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between serum ustekinumab (UST) trough levels and response to induction and maintenance UST treatment in refractory Crohn's Disease (CD) patients. METHODS: We performed a prospective study including CD patients who received UST from September 2015 to January 2017. Patients received 90 mg of UST subcutaneously at weeks 0, 4, and 12, then every 8 weeks. Two cohorts of patients were analyzed: an induction cohort and a maintenance cohort. We evaluated clinical, biological, and imaging/endoscopic response to UST treatment. UST trough levels and anti-UST antibodies were dosed at weeks 12 and 28 in the induction cohort, and at a single time point in the maintenance cohort. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were enrolled in the maintenance cohort. Mean concentrations of UST were 1.88 ± 1.40 µg/mL. UST trough levels were not significantly different in patients with or without clinical, biological, or imaging/endoscopic responses to UST treatment (p > 0.11). Twenty-three consecutive patients were included in the induction cohort. At week 12, mean UST concentrations were 1.45 ± 1.15 µg/mL. Patients with a biological response to UST treatment had significant higher serum UST trough concentration (median 1.72 µg/mL) than non-responders (median 0.56 µg/mL, p = 0.02). A UST trough level ≥ 1.10 µg/mL at week 12 was associated with a biological response to UST treatment at 6 months. CONCLUSION: UST trough levels were associated with a biological response at the end of the induction phase. In patients with low levels of UST, optimization treatment may be necessary to obtain a sustained response.