Significant differences in IBD care and education across Europe: results of the pan-European VIPER survey.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care and education might differ around Europe. Therefore, we conducted this European Variation In IBD PracticE suRvey (VIPER) to investigate potential differences between countries. METHODS: This trainee-initiated survey, run through SurveyMonkey®, consisted of 47 questions inquiring basic demographics, IBD training, and clinical care. Results were compared according to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, for which countries were divided into 2 groups (low/high income, according to the World Bank). RESULTS: The online survey was completed by 1285 participants from 40 European countries, with a majority of specialists (65.3%) working in academic institutions (50.4%). Significant differences in IBD-specific training (55.9% vs. 38.4%), as well as availability of IBD units (58.4% vs. 39.7%) and multidisciplinary meetings (73.2% vs. 40.1%) were observed between respondees from high and low GDP countries (p<0.0001). In high GDP countries, IBD nurses are more common (85.9% vs. 36.0%), also mirrored by more nurse-led IBD clinics (40.6% vs. 13.7%; p<0.0001). IBD dieticians (33.4% vs. 16.5%) and psychologists (16.8% vs. 7.5%) are mainly present in high GDP countries (p<0.0001). In the current COVID era, telemedicine is available in 73.2% vs. 54.1% of the high/low GDP countries respectively (p<0.0001). Treat-to-target approaches are implemented everywhere (85.0%), though access to biologicals and small molecules differs significantly. CONCLUSION: Much variability in IBD practice exists across Europe, with marked differences between high vs. low GDP countries. Further work is required to help address some of these inequalities, aiming to improve and standardize IBD care and training across Europe.

Multiple infliximab biosimilar switches appear to be safe and effective in a real-world inflammatory bowel disease cohort.

BACKGROUND: Switching from originator infliximab (IFX) to biosimilar IFX is effective and safe. However, data on multiple switching are scarce. The Edinburgh inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) unit has undertaken three switch programmes: (1) Remicade to CT-P13 (2016), (2) CT-P13 to SB2 (2020), and (3) SB2 to CT-P13 (2021). OBJECTIVE: The primary endpoint of this study was to assess CT-P13 persistence following switch from SB2. Secondary endpoints included persistence stratified by the number of biosimilar switches (single, double and triple), effectiveness and safety. METHODS: We performed a prospective, observational, cohort study. All adult IBD patients on IFX biosimilar SB2 underwent an elective switch to CT-P13. Patients were reviewed in a virtual biologic clinic with protocol driven collection of clinical disease activity, C-reactive protein (CRP), faecal calprotectin (FC), IFX trough/antibody levels, and drug survival. RESULTS: 297 patients (CD n = 196 [66%], ulcerative colitis/inflammatory bowel disease unclassified n = 101, [34%]) were switched (followed-up: 7.5 months [6.8-8.1]). This was the third, second and first IFX switch for 67/297 (22.5%), 138/297 (46.5%) and 92/297 (31%) of the cohort respectively. 90.6% of patients remained on IFX during follow-up. The number of switches was not independently associated with IFX persistence after adjusting for confounders. Clinical (p = 0.77), biochemical (CRP ≤5 mg/ml; p = 0.75) and faecal biomarker (FC<250 µg/g; p = 0.63) remission were comparable at baseline, week 12 and week 24. CONCLUSION: Multiple successive switches from IFX originator to biosimilars are effective and safe in patients with IBD, irrespective of the number of IFX switches.

Adalimumab and Infliximab Impair SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses: Results from a Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Study in 11 422 Biologic-Treated Patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Infliximab attenuates serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Whether this is a class effect, or if anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] level influences serological responses, remains unknown. METHODS: Seroprevalence and the magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody responses were measured in surplus serum from 11 422 (53.3% [6084] male; median age 36.8 years) patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, stored at six therapeutic drug monitoring laboratories between January 29 and September 30, 2020. Data were linked to nationally held SARS-CoV-2 PCR results to July 11, 2021. RESULTS: Rates of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were similar across treatment groups. Seroprevalence rates were lower in infliximab- and adalimumab- than vedolizumab-treated patients (infliximab: 3.0% [178/5893], adalimumab: 3.0% [152/5074], vedolizumab: 6.7% [25/375], p = 0.003). The magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 reactivity was similar in infliximab- vs adalimumab-treated patients (median 4.30 cut-off index [COI] [1.94-9.96] vs 5.02 [2.18-18.70], p = 0.164), but higher in vedolizumab-treated patients (median 21.60 COI [4.39-68.10, p < 0.004). Compared to patients with detectable infliximab and adalimumab drug levels, patients with undetectable drug levels [<0.8 mg/L] were more likely to be seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. One-third of patients who had PCR testing prior to antibody testing failed to seroconvert, all were treated with anti-TNF. Subsequent positive PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was seen in 7.9% [12/152] of patients after a median time of 183.5 days [129.8-235.3], without differences between drugs. CONCLUSION: Anti-TNF treatment is associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid seroprevalence and antibody reactivity when compared to vedolizumab-treated patients. Higher seropositivity rates in patients with undetectable anti-TNF levels support a causal relationship, although confounding factors, such as combination therapy with a immunomodulator, may have influenced the results.

Clinical Outcomes of Covid-19 in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The COVID-19 risk and disease course in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] patients remains uncertain. Therefore, we aimed to assess the clinical presentation, disease course, and outcomes of COVID-19 in IBD patients. Second, we determined COVID-19 incidences in IBD patients and compared this with the general population. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, nationwide IBD cohort study in The Netherlands and identified patients with COVID-19. First, we assessed the COVID-19 disease course and outcomes. Second, we compared COVID-19 incidences between our IBD study cohort and the general Dutch population. RESULTS: We established an IBD cohort of 34 763 patients. COVID-19 was diagnosed in 100/34 763 patients [0.29%]; 20/100 of these patients [20%] had severe COVID-19 defined as admission to the intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, and/or death. Hospitalisation occurred in 59/100 [59.0%] patients and 13/100 [13.0%] died. All patients who died had comorbidities and all but one were ≥65 years old. In line, we identified ≥1 comorbidity as an independent risk factor for hospitalisation (odds ratio [OR] 4.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-11.17,; p = 0.004). Incidences of COVID-19 between the IBD study cohort and the general population were comparable (287.6 [95% CI 236.6-349.7] versus 333.0 [95% CI 329.3-336.7] per 100000 patients, respectively; p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Of 100 cases with IBD and COVID-19, 20% developed severe COVID-19, 59% were hospitalised and 13% died. A comparable COVID-19 risk was found between the IBD cohort [100/34 763 = 0.29%] and the general Dutch population. The presence of ≥1 comorbidities was an independent risk factor for hospitalisation due to COVID-19.