Evaluation of Genetic Variants Associated with the Risk of Thiopurine-Related Pancreatitis: A Case Control Study from ENEIDA Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Risk factors for developing pancreatitis due to thiopurines in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are not clearly identified. Our aim was to evaluate the predictive pharmacogenetic risk of pancreatitis in IBD patients treated with thiopurines. METHODS: We conducted an observational pharmacogenetic study of acute pancreatitis events in a cohort study of IBD patients treated with thiopurines from the prospectively maintained ENEIDA registry biobank of GETECCU. Samples were obtained and the CASR, CEL, CFTR, CDLN2, CTRC, SPINK1, CPA1, and PRSS1 genes, selected based on their known association with pancreatitis, were fully sequenced. RESULTS: Ninety-five cases and 105 controls were enrolled; a total of 57% were women. Median age at pancreatitis diagnosis was 39 years. We identified 81 benign variants (50 in cases and 67 in controls) and a total of 35 distinct rare pathogenic and unknown significance variants (10 in CEL, 21 in CFTR, 1 in CDLN2, and 3 in CPA1). None of the cases or controls carried pancreatitis-predisposing variants within the CASR, CPA1, PRSS1, and SPINK1 genes, nor a pathogenic CFTR mutation. Four different variants of unknown significance were detected in the CDLN and CPA1 genes; one of them was in the CDLN gene in a single patient with pancreatitis and 3 in the CPA1 gene in 5 controls. After the analysis of the variants detected, no significant differences were observed between cases and controls. CONCLUSION: In patients with IBD, genes known to cause pancreatitis seem not to be involved in thiopurine-related pancreatitis onset.

Influence of familial forms of inflammatory bowel disease on the use of immunosuppressants, biological agents, and surgery in the era of biological therapies. Results from the ENEIDA project.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Familial inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) history is a controversial prognostic factor in IBD. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a familial history of IBD on the use of medical and surgical treatments in the biological era. METHODS: Patients included in the prospectively maintained ENEIDA database and diagnosed with IBD after 2005 were included. Familial forms were defined as those cases with at least one first-degree relative diagnosed with IBD. Disease phenotype, the use of biological agents, or surgical treatments were the main outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 5263 patients [2627 Crohn's disease (CD); 2636 ulcerative colitis (UC)] were included, with a median follow-up of 31 months. Of these, 507 (10%) corresponded to familial forms. No clinical differences were observed between familial and sporadic IBD forms except a lower age at IBD diagnosis and a higher rate of males in familial forms of UC. In CD, the proportions of patients treated with thiopurines (54.4% vs 46.7%; P = .015) and survival time free of thiopurines (P = .009) were lower in familial forms. No differences were found regarding the use of biological agents. Concerning surgery, a higher rate of intestinal resections was observed in sporadic CD (14.8% vs 9.9%, P = .027). No differences were observed in UC. CONCLUSIONS: In the era of biological therapies, familial and sporadic forms of IBD show similar phenotypes and are managed medically in a similar way; whether these is due to lack of phenotypical differences or an effect of biological therapies is uncertain. What is already known on this topic: IBD's etiopathogenesis points to an interaction between environmental and genetic factors, being familial history a controversial prognostic factor. Biological agents use and need for surgery regarding familial or sporadic forms of IBDs present conflicting results. What this study adds: Familial and sporadic forms of IBD have similar phenotypes and are managed medically and surgically in a similar way. How this study might affect research, practice or policy: Familial aggregation should not be considered a factor associated with more aggressive disease.

Clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with two consecutive anti-TNF agents: data from the ENEIDA registry.

Background: Infliximab seems to be the most efficacious of the three available anti-TNF agents for ulcerative colitis (UC) but little is known when it is used as the second anti-TNF. Objectives: To compare the clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in UC patients. Design: Retrospective observational study. Methods: Patients from the ENEIDA registry treated consecutively with infliximab and a subcutaneous anti-TNF (or vice versa), naïve to other biological agents, were identified and grouped according to the administration route of the first anti-TNF into IVi (intravenous initially) or SCi (subcutaneous initially). Results: Overall, 473 UC patients were included (330 IVi and 143 SCi). Clinical response at week 14 was 42.7% and 48.3% in the IVi and SCi groups (non-statistically significant), respectively. Clinical remission rates at week 52 were 32.8% and 31.4% in the IVi and SCi groups (nonsignificant differences), respectively. A propensity-matched score analysis showed a higher clinical response rate at week 14 in the SCi group and higher treatment persistence in the IVi group. Regarding long-term outcomes, dose escalation and discontinuation due to the primary failure of the first anti-TNF and more severe disease activity at the beginning of the second anti-TNF were inversely associated with clinical remission. Conclusion: The use of a second anti-TNF for UC seems to be reasonable in terms of efficacy, although it is particularly reduced in the case of the primary failure of the first anti-TNF. Whether the second anti-TNF is infliximab or subcutaneous does not seem to affect efficacy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in UC patients. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. METHODS: Patients from the ENEIDA registry treated consecutively with infliximab and a subcutaneous anti-TNF (or vice versa), naïve to other biological agents, were identified and grouped according to the administration route of the first anti-TNF into IVi (intravenous initially) or SCi (subcutaneous initially). RESULTS: Overall, 473 UC patients were included (330 IVi, 143 SCi). Clinical response at week 14 was 42.7% and 48.3% in the IVi and SCi groups (non-statistically significant), respectively. Clinical remission rates at week 52 were 32.8% and 31.4%, in the IVi and SCi groups (nonsignificant differences), respectively. A propensity-matched score analysis showed a higher clinical response rate at week 14 in the SCi group and higher treatment persistence in the IVi group. Regarding long-term outcomes, dose escalation and discontinuation due to the primary failure of the first anti-TNF and more severe disease activity at the beginning of the second anti-TNF were inversely associated with clinical remission. CONCLUSION: The use of a second anti-TNF for UC seems to be reasonable in terms of efficacy, although it is particularly reduced in the case of the primary failure of the first anti-TNF. Whether the second anti-TNF is infliximab or subcutaneous does not seem to affect efficacy.

Clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with two consecutive anti-TNF agents. Data from the ENEIDA registry Background: Infliximab seems to be the most efficacious of the three available anti-TNF agents for ulcerative colitis (UC), but little is known when it is used as the second anti-TNF.

Trends in Targeted Therapy Usage in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: TRENDY Study of ENEIDA.

Markers that allow for the selection of tailored treatments for individual patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are yet to be identified. Our aim was to describe trends in real-life treatment usage. For this purpose, patients from the ENEIDA registry who received their first targeted IBD treatment (biologics or tofacitinib) between 2015 and 2021 were included. A subsequent analysis with Machine Learning models was performed. The study included 10,009 patients [71% with Crohn's disease (CD) and 29% with ulcerative colitis (UC)]. In CD, anti-TNF (predominantly adalimumab) were the main agents in the 1st line of treatment (LoT), although their use declined over time. In UC, anti-TNF (mainly infliximab) use was predominant in 1st LoT, remaining stable over time. Ustekinumab and vedolizumab were the most prescribed drugs in 2nd and 3rd LoT in CD and UC, respectively. Overall, the use of biosimilars increased over time. Machine Learning failed to identify a model capable of predicting treatment patterns. In conclusion, drug positioning is different in CD and UC. Anti-TNF were the most used drugs in IBD 1st LoT, being adalimumab predominant in CD and infliximab in UC. Ustekinumab and vedolizumab have gained importance in CD and UC, respectively. The approval of biosimilars had a significant impact on treatment.