ABSTRACT
Background/Aims@#Little is known about the clinical course of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected patients undergoing anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) therapy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to investigate the clinical course of HBV infection and IBD and to analyze liver dysfunction risks in patients undergoing anti-TNF-α therapy. @*Methods@#This retrospective multinational study involved multiple centers in Korea, China, Tai-wan, and Japan. We enrolled IBD patients with chronic or resolved HBV infection, who received anti-TNF-α therapy. The patients’ medical records were reviewed, and data were collected using a web-based case report form. @*Results@#Overall, 191 patients (77 ulcerative colitis and 114 Crohn’s disease) were included, 28.3% of whom received prophylactic antivirals. During a median follow-up duration of 32.4 months, 7.3% of patients experienced liver dysfunction due to HBV reactivation. Among patients with chronic HBV infection, the proportion experiencing liver dysfunction was significantly higher in the non-prophylaxis group (26% vs 8%, p=0.02). Liver dysfunction occurred in one patient with resolved HBV infection. Antiviral prophylaxis was independently associated with an 84% reduction in liver dysfunction risk in patients with chronic HBV infection (odds ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.66; p=0.01). The clinical course of IBD was not associated with liver dysfunction or the administration of antiviral prophylaxis. @*Conclusions@#Liver dysfunction due to HBV reactivation can occur in HBV-infected IBD patients treated with anti-TNF-α agents. Careful monitoring is needed in these patients, and antivirals should be administered, especially to those with chronic HBV infection.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Postoperative endoscopic recurrence (PER) occurs in nearly 80% of patients 1 year after ileocecal resection in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). Biological agents were more effective in reducing the rates of PER in comparison with conventional therapy, in prospective trials. The aim of this study was to compare the PER rates of biological versus conventional therapy after ileocecal resections in patients with CD in real-world practice. METHODS: The MULTIPER (Multicenter International Postoperative Endoscopic Recurrence) database is a retrospective analysis of PER rates in CD patients after ileocecal resection, from 7 referral centers in 3 different countries. All consecutive patients who underwent ileocecal resections between 2008 and 2012 and in whom colonoscopies had been performed up to 12 months after surgery, were included. Recurrence was defined as Rutgeerts' score > or =i2. The patients were allocated to either biological or conventional therapy after surgery, and PER rates were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Initially, 231 patients were evaluated, and 63 were excluded. Of the 168 patients in the database, 96 received anti-tumor necrosis factor agents and 72 were treated with conventional therapy after resection. The groups were comparable regarding age, gender, and perianal disease. There was longer disease duration, more previous resections, and more open surgical procedures in patients on biologicals postoperatively. PER was identified in 25/96 (26%) patients on biological therapy and in 24/72 (33.3%) patients on conventional therapy (P=0.310). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective observational analysis from an international database, no difference was observed between biological and conventional therapy in preventing PER after ileocecal resections in CD patients.