Management of acute severe ulcerative colitis-an update for generalist and specialist clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is a potentially life-threatening medical emergency that occurs in up to 25% of patients with ulcerative colitis. Although intravenous corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of therapy, 30-40% of patients will not respond and need timely consideration of rescue therapy with (currently) either infliximab or ciclosporin or indeed colectomy, underscoring the importance of multidisciplinary care to ensure favourable outcomes for patients. We discuss the current evidence and present an approach to the management of ASUC for general and specialist clinicians caring for patients with ASUC. SOURCES OF DATA: The information in this review is derived from data published in peer- reviewed academic journals and registered clinical trials. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Management of acute severe colitis requires a multidisciplinary approach with early initiation with steroids and timely escalation of treatment to either medical rescue therapy or surgery. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Balancing the risks of delayed surgery vs. optimizing medical therapy, including accelerated dosing schedules for biologics, remains ambiguous. GROWING POINTS: The position on newer molecules like Janus Kinase inhibitors, such as tofacitinib, is a growing area with early real-world data showing promise for steroid refractory ASUC. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Developing predictive biomarkers and clinical risk scores for personalized rescue therapy selection is an evolving area of research.

Fecal Urgency in Ulcerative Colitis: Impact on Quality of Life and Psychological Well-Being in Active and Inactive Disease States.

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic, relapsing-and-remitting, potentially progressive form of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with multidimensional and often negative effects on patients' lives. Fecal urgency, the sudden and compelling desire to defecate, often accompanied by impaired bowel control leading to frequent and urgent trips to the bathroom, is a distressing symptom, experienced by more than 50% of patients with UC.1 Physicians frequently underestimate the burden of fecal urgency on patients' lives, with ramifications ranging from disruption in daily activities, social interactions, and emotional distress with resultant impairment in quality of life (QoL).2,3.

The effect of immunomodulators on seroconversion after BNT162b2 and AZD1222 vaccines in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Biologic and nonbiologic immunomodulators, used to treat immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), could impair the immune response to COVID-19 vaccines and thus vaccine effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to investigate the association between biologic and nonbiologic immunomodulators and seroconversion following the first and second dose of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with IMIDs. METHODS: Serum samples were collected following the first or second dose of the BNT162b2 or AZD1222 vaccines from patients receiving biologic and/or nonbiologic immunomodulators for one or more of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease or systemic lupus erythematosus. Seroconversion was defined as a positive Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (spike protein subunit S1/receptor binding domain) immunoassay (≥ 0.8 U mL-1). Association between immunomodulator exposure and seroconversion was assessed using logistic regression, adjusting for age and sex. RESULTS: After excluding those with prior COVID-19, post-first vaccine dose samples from 193 participants and post-second dose samples from 312 participants were included in the analysis. Following the first vaccine dose, 17.6% (n = 34) of participants did not seroconvert. Seroconversion was reduced for those on nonbiologic [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12-0.69] or combined nonbiologic and biologic treatment (adjusted OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.045-0.45) compared with those on biologic monotherapy. Subgroup analysis demonstrated reduced odds of seroconversion in those on methotrexate (adjusted OR 0.097, 95% CI 0.19-0.49) or prednisolone treatment (adjusted OR 0.044, 95% CI 0.002-1.00) relative to tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor monotherapy. No participants receiving rituximab (n < 5) seroconverted after the first vaccine dose. Following the second vaccine dose, 1.6% of all participants did not seroconvert. Non-seroconversion was associated with receiving rituximab (n = 3 of 4) compared with those receiving other therapies (n = 2 of 308, P < 0.001). Post hoc analyses demonstrated that non-seroconversion was associated with age [adjusted OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.037-0.93 for those aged 60 years and over (reference category age 18-39 years)], but not sex, ethnicity or vaccine type. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with nonbiologics, particularly methotrexate, is associated with impaired seroconversion following two BNT162b2 or AZD1222 vaccine doses, in patients with IMIDs. These findings are consistent with those of other published studies. While this could indicate reduced protection against COVID-19, the immunological parameters that correlate most closely with vaccine effectiveness need to be defined to reach this conclusion.

Ustekinumab and Vedolizumab Are Equally Safe and Effective in Elderly Crohn's Disease Patients.

BACKGROUND: Anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents are associated with increased infection risk among elderly inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, and thus, alternative biologics may be preferable. However, little comparative data exist on the safety and efficacy of vedolizumab and ustekinumab in elderly IBD patients. AIMS: To compare the safety and effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in elderly Crohn's disease patients. METHODS: Patients ≥ 60 years old who commenced ustekinumab or vedolizumab for Crohn's disease (CD) were included. Primary outcome was serious infections, defined as requiring hospitalisation. Efficacy was assessed by treatment persistence and clinical response rates. We appropriately adjusted for confounders using propensity score-matched analysis weighted by the inverse predicted probability of treatment weighing and performed a logistic regression analysis to assess factors associated with serious infections and treatment persistence. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients commencing ustekinumab and 42 commencing vedolizumab therapy were included. In a propensity adjusted cohort, the rate of serious infection and treatment persistence were comparable between ustekinumab and vedolizumab. There was a significant reduction in HBI at 6 and 12 months compared to baseline in both groups. Male gender was positively associated with serious infection risk at 12 months, and penetrating disease behaviour was positively associated with 12-month treatment persistence. Baseline HBI score was negatively associated with 12-month treatment persistence. Cox regression analysis showed no overall difference in treatment discontinuation-free and serious infection-free survival by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: We observed comparable safety and effectiveness for ustekinumab and vedolizumab in treating elderly CD patients.

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.

An update on the role of anti-IL-12/IL23 agents in the management of inflammatory bowel disease.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of treatment in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is to control symptoms and suppress gut inflammation with minimal systemic side effects. A large proportion of patients are either primary non-responders or lose response to currently licensed therapies. The development of monoclonal antibodies, blocking interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 pathways are a promising therapeutic advance. We review the data on IL12/23 inhibitors and emerging data on IL-23 inhibition in IBD treatment. SOURCES OF DATA: This review is based on data published in peer-reviewed journals and clinical trials registry. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Ustekinumab is currently approved for managing corticosteroid and biologic refractory IBD patients with a favourable safety profile. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Despite a growing therapeutic armamentarium and convergence on the role of biological therapies in patients with greater disease severity, there remains considerable uncertainty with selection and positioning of treatment. GROWING POINTS: Efficacy data from clinical trials and a growing body of real-world data have established a role for IL12/23 inhibitor Ustekinumab in IBD. There is resurgent interest in IL-23 specificity and the potential for incremental benefit. The potential for IL-22 to act as a biomarker for IL-23 inhibitors has exciting implications for personalized medicine. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Head-to-head trials exploring efficacy and combination with other biologics with the potential for synergistic benefit are under investigation. Results of phase 3 trials with IL-23 inhibitors incorporating clinical, biochemical and endoscopic parameters and also exploring biomarkers as predictors of response are urgently needed.

Does Similarity Breed Contempt? A Review of the Use of Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

The introduction of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies directed against tumor necrosis factor-α has revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) by improving quality of life, decreasing the frequency and length of hospital admissions, and reducing corticosteroid use. Nevertheless, biologics are very expensive, substantially contributing to the cost of care for patients with IBD. To reduce this cost and improve treatment access, biosimilars, which are therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (biologicals) similar to but not identical to the reference biologic, were introduced. Despite their potential benefits, the adoption and uptake of biosimilars have varied considerably across the USA and Europe. Here, we highlight the current biosimilar therapeutic landscape, discuss barriers to their use, and provide an overview of published studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of biosimilars in IBD.

Adaptations to the British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the management of acute severe UC in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a RAND appropriateness panel.

OBJECTIVE: Management of acute severe UC (ASUC) during the novel COVID-19 pandemic presents significant dilemmas. We aimed to provide COVID-19-specific guidance using current British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines as a reference point. DESIGN: We convened a RAND appropriateness panel comprising 14 gastroenterologists and an IBD nurse consultant supplemented by surgical and COVID-19 experts. Panellists rated the appropriateness of interventions for ASUC in the context of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Median scores and disagreement index (DI) were calculated. Results were discussed at a moderated meeting prior to a second survey. RESULTS: Panellists recommended that patients with ASUC should be isolated throughout their hospital stay and should have a SARS-CoV-2 swab performed on admission. Patients with a positive swab should be discussed with COVID-19 specialists. As per BSG guidance, intravenous hydrocortisone was considered appropriate as initial management; only in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia was its use deemed uncertain. In patients requiring rescue therapy, infliximab with continuing steroids was recommended. Delaying colectomy because of COVID-19 was deemed inappropriate. Steroid tapering as per BSG guidance was deemed appropriate for all patients apart from those with COVID-19 pneumonia in whom a 4-6 week taper was preferred. Post-ASUC maintenance therapy was dependent on SARS-CoV-2 status but, in general, biologics were more likely to be deemed appropriate than azathioprine or tofacitinib. Panellists deemed prophylactic anticoagulation postdischarge to be appropriate in patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 swab. CONCLUSION: We have suggested COVID-19-specific adaptations to the BSG ASUC guideline using a RAND panel.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidance for management of inflammatory bowel disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic is putting unprecedented pressures on healthcare systems globally. Early insights have been made possible by rapid sharing of data from China and Italy. In the UK, we have rapidly mobilised inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) centres in order that preparations can be made to protect our patients and the clinical services they rely on. This is a novel coronavirus; much is unknown as to how it will affect people with IBD. We also lack information about the impact of different immunosuppressive medications. To address this uncertainty, the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) COVID-19 IBD Working Group has used the best available data and expert opinion to generate a risk grid that groups patients into highest, moderate and lowest risk categories. This grid allows patients to be instructed to follow the UK government's advice for shielding, stringent and standard advice regarding social distancing, respectively. Further considerations are given to service provision, medical and surgical therapy, endoscopy, imaging and clinical trials.

A review of endoscopic scoring systems and their importance in a treat-to-target approach in inflammatory bowel disease (with videos).

Endoscopic assessment is currently the criterion standard for the diagnosis and assessment of mucosal disease activity, prognosis and monitoring for dysplasia, and assessment of response to therapy. Wider appreciation of the potential disconnect between symptoms and objective measures of disease activity and evidence that uncontrolled inflammation may lead to progressive intestinal injury and irreversible bowel damage with adverse events has led to the concept of treating to target. Treating to target is defined as treating patients with high risk for disease progression early to prevent or limit intestinal injury or disability. Endoscopic remission (mucosal healing) has emerged as a key goal of therapy. Although there are no currently validated definitions of endoscopic mucosal remission, the use of endoscopic scoring systems add uniformity and objectivity and aid standardization with reporting of mucosal appearance, augmenting clinical decision making. A plethora of scoring systems exist to define activity, response, and remission in both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. In this review, we discuss the most commonly used endoscopic scoring systems and proposed definitions of response and remission, and how they can be integrated into a treat-to-target approach to optimize patient outcomes.

British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults.

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn's and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, including patients, their families and friends.

Optimal management of acute severe ulcerative colitis.

Acute severe ulcerative colitis is a life-threatening medical emergency, which can be associated with significant morbidity and is preventable through prompt and effective management. Corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of initial therapy, although a third of patients will not respond. Further management hinges on timely decisions with use of rescue therapy with ciclosporin or infliximab, without compromising the health or safety of the patient, or timely surgery. Although such patients need specialist care, it is imperative that emergency care physicians are aware of the important principles of management of this condition to achieve successful outcomes. Risk stratification and the use of predictive models using clinical parameters have reduced the morbidity associated with this condition.We discuss current evidence and present a clinical approach to clinicians involved in the emergency care of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis in this review.

An Update on Surveillance in Ulcerative Colitis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients with long-standing ulcerative colitis have an increased risk for the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). Colitis-related dysplasia appears to confer the greatest risk. Colonoscopic surveillance to detect dysplasia has been advocated by gastrointestinal societies. The aim of surveillance is the reduction of mortality and morbidity of CRC through detection and resection of dysplasia or detecting CRC at an earlier and potentially curable stage. Traditional surveillance has relied on mucosal assessment with targeted biopsy of visible lesions and random biopsy sampling on the premise that dysplasia was not visible at endoscopy. Advances in optical technology permitting increased detection of dysplasia and evidence that most dysplasia is visible has had practice-changing implications. RECENT FINDINGS: Emerging evidence favours chromoendoscopy (CE) for dysplasia detection and is gaining wider acceptance through recent international (International Consensus Statement on Surveillance and Management of Dysplasia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SCENIC)) recommendations and endorsed by many gastrointestinal societies. Adoption of CE as the gold standard of surveillance has been met with by scepticism, from conflicting data, operational barriers and the need to understand the true impact of increasingly higher dysplasia detection on overall CRC mortality. Valid debate notwithstanding, implementation of a risk stratification protocol that includes CE is an effective approach allowing earlier detection of dysplasia and colorectal neoplasia, determination of surveillance intervals with appropriate allocation of resources and limiting morbidity from CRC and colonoscopy itself. Further prospective data should define the true and long-term impact of dysplasia detection with modern techniques.

Evaluation of abnormal liver function tests.

Incidentally detected abnormality in liver function tests is a common situation encountered by physicians across all disciplines. Many of these patients do not have primary liver disease as most of the commonly performed markers are not specific for the liver and are affected by myriad factors unrelated to liver disease. Also, many of these tests like liver enzyme levels do not measure the function of the liver, but are markers of liver injury, which is broadly of two types: hepatocellular and cholestatic. A combination of a careful history and clinical examination along with interpretation of pattern of liver test abnormalities can often identify type and aetiology of liver disease, allowing for a targeted investigation approach. Severity of liver injury is best assessed by composite scores like the Model for End Stage Liver Disease rather than any single parameter. In this review, we discuss the interpretation of the routinely performed liver tests along with the indications and utility of quantitative tests.