Uptake of a Switching Program for Patients Receiving Intravenous Infliximab and Vedolizumab to Subcutaneous Preparations.

BACKGROUND: Recent trials support the clinical efficacy and safety of subcutaneous infliximab (IFX) or vedolizumab (VDZ) for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). We evaluated the uptake and rationale for choosing to switch from intravenous infusions to subcutaneous injections. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all adult patients receiving standard dosing IFX or VDZ maintenance therapy to investigate uptake of subcutaneous injections and the rationale for switching to subcutaneous injections. RESULTS: Of 232 eligible patients (total = 258: IFX = 190, VDZ = 68, and no longer eligible = 26), 58% of patients on IFX and 59% of patients on VDZ chose to switch to subcutaneous treatment. Age, sex, diagnosis, drug, line of treatment, and duration of treatment were not predictors for willingness to switch. Questionnaire responses (n = 51) demonstrate that the decision to switch was not influenced by COVID-19 exposure risk, impact on wider IBD service provision, impact on patient mental health, financial savings, seeking support following a switch, or a sense of independence managing IBD. Switchers (68%) were more motivated by time savings than non-switchers (25%; p = 0.0042). CONCLUSIONS: Switch uptake rates were 58%, with 90% of patients eligible to switch. Switch decision was influenced by time savings for patients but not by other patient-related factors.

British Society of Gastroenterology interim framework for addressing the COVID-19-related backlog in inflammatory bowel disease colorectal cancer surveillance

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) continues to carry an increased risk of colon cancer and national protocols for endoscopic surveillance are in place. [...]we propose the patient factors to consider when withdrawal of surveillance may be contemplated. Alternative strategies, such as the qFIT and virtual colonoscopy (either via CT or capsule), have not been used in IBD surveillance. qFIT, which measures the concentration of degraded haemoglobin and is raised in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients with active inflammation,12 13 has not been validated as a marker of IBD-related dysplasia. A faecal calprotectin threshold of >250 [micro]g/g to indicate disease activity is based on consensus and published evidence. 31-33 A three-point colonoscopy indicates a 45-minute procedure. 1st DR, first degree relative;CRC, colorectal cancer;FH, family history;IBD, inflammatory bowel disease;PSC, primary sclerosing cholangitis;qFIT, quantitative Faecal Immunochemical Test for haemoglobin The Gastroenterology GIRFT report has recommended the use of stool biomarkers to aid in the prioritisation of colonoscopy procedures on waiting lists.

Risk stratifying gastric ulcers: development and validation of a scoring system.

Objective: Debate is ongoing regarding the need for universal endoscopic follow-up to ensure gastric ulcer healing. We aimed to assess the value of follow-up oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopies (OGDs) for gastric ulcer healing and stratify patients according to risk of malignancy by developing a risk score. Design/method: All patients in National Health Service (NHS) Lothian with an index OGD and a diagnosis of gastric ulcer between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2018 were identified. Data were analysed with logistic regression to identify factors significantly associated with a diagnosis of cancer; a risk score was derived and externally validated. Results: 778 patients were identified and 60.3% (469/778) of patients had a follow-up OGD. 8.6% (66/778) of patients were diagnosed with cancer. No cases of cancer were found on follow-up OGD of a benign appearing ulcer with negative biopsies. Macroscopic suspicion of malignancy was present at index OGD in 100% (3/3) of those diagnosed with cancer on subsequent OGDs. Older age (p=0.014), increased ulcer size (p<0.001) and non-antral location (p=0.030) were significantly associated with malignancy. A risk score (area under the curve (AUC) 0.868, p<0.001, minimum score=0, maximum score=6) was derived from these variables. 78.0% of patients with malignant ulcers scored ≥3, only 15.8% with benign ulcers scored ≥3 (negative predictive value (NPV) 97.4%). External validation yielded an AUC of 0.862 (p<0.001) and NPV of 98.6%; 84.0% of those with malignant ulcers scored ≥3. Conclusion: Ulcers with a combination of macroscopically benign appearances, at least six negative biopsies and a low risk score do not necessarily need endoscopic follow-up.

Comparative Outcomes of Budesonide MMX versus Prednisolone for Ulcerative Colitis: Results from a British Retrospective Multi-Centre Real-World Study.

During the COVID-19 pandemic many IBD units chose Budesonide MMX (Cortiment) as the first-line treatment for flares of ulcerative colitis (UC) in outpatients for its favourable side effect profile. This retrospective study of all UC patients treated with oral steroids between 1 March 2019-30 June 2019 and 1 March 2020-30 June 2020 aimed to compare Cortiment with Prednisolone in routine clinical practice. Outcomes included the need for hospitalisation for acute severe ulcerative colitis, symptoms at four weeks and end of treatment, and the need for rescue Prednisolone. The 2019 and 2020 cohorts did not differ at the baseline. Cortiment prescriptions rose from 24.5% in 2019 to 70.1% in 2020 (p < 0.001). At week four there were significant differences between 2019 and 2020 in mean bowel frequency (3.49 vs. 5.85, p = 0.001), rectal bleeding <50% (89.7% vs. 73.1% of patients, p = 0.039), and physician global assessment (PGA) (39.2% vs. 19.8% in remission, p = 0.045). There was no significant difference in hospital admissions, rectal bleeding, and PGA at week eight. Rescue Prednisolone was required in 10% of Cortiment patients in 2019 vs. 31.3% in 2020 (p = 0.058). Active IBD is associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes prompting the careful evaluation of the choice of first-line steroid for UC, as Cortiment was associated with worse outcomes at four weeks.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a British Society of Gastroenterology Inflammatory Bowel Disease section and IBD Clinical Research Group position statement.

SARS-CoV-2 has caused a global health crisis and mass vaccination programmes provide the best opportunity for controlling transmission and protecting populations. Despite the impressive clinical trial results of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines, important unanswered questions remain, especially in patients with pre-existing conditions. In this position statement endorsed by the British Society of Gastroenterology Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) section and IBD Clinical Research Group, we consider SARS-CoV-2 vaccination strategy in patients with IBD. The risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are anticipated to be very low, and we strongly support SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with IBD. Based on data from previous studies with other vaccines, there are conceptual concerns that protective immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may be diminished in some patients with IBD, such as those taking anti-TNF drugs. However, the benefits of vaccination, even in patients treated with anti-TNF drugs, are likely to outweigh these theoretical concerns. Key areas for further research are discussed, including vaccine hesitancy and its effect in the IBD community, the effect of immunosuppression on vaccine efficacy, and the search for predictive biomarkers of vaccine success.