Effects of smoking on clinical treatment outcomes amongst patients with chronic inflammatory diseases initiating biologics: secondary analyses of the prospective BELIEVE cohort study.

The prevalence and disease burden of chronic inflammatory diseases (CIDs) are predicted to rise. Patients are commonly treated with biological agents, but the individual treatment responses vary, warranting further research into optimizing treatment strategies. This study aimed to compare the clinical treatment responses in patients with CIDs initiating biologic therapy based on smoking status, a notorious risk factor in CIDs. In this multicentre cohort study including 233 patients with a diagnosis of Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis initiating biologic therapy, we compared treatment response rates after 14 to 16 weeks and secondary outcomes between smokers and non-smokers. We evaluated the contrast between groups using logistic regression models: (i) a "crude" model, only adjusted for the CID type, and (ii) an adjusted model (including sex and age). Among the 205 patients eligible for this study, 53 (26%) were smokers. The treatment response rate among smokers (n = 23 [43%]) was lower compared to the non-smoking CID population (n = 92 [61%]), corresponding to a "crude" OR of 0.51 (95% CI: [0.26;1.01]) while adjusting for sex and age resulted in consistent findings: 0.51 [0.26;1.02]. The contrast was apparently most prominent among the 38 RA patients, with significantly lower treatment response rates for smokers in both the "crude" and adjusted models (adjusted OR 0.13, [0.02;0.81]). Despite a significant risk of residual confounding, patients with CIDs (rheumatoid arthritis in particular) should be informed that smoking probably lowers the odds of responding sufficiently to biological therapy. Registration: Clinical.Trials.gov NCT03173144.

Impact of fibre and red/processed meat intake on treatment outcomes among patients with chronic inflammatory diseases initiating biological therapy: A prospective cohort study.

Background: Biologic disease-modifying drugs have revolutionised the treatment of a number of chronic inflammatory diseases (CID). However, up to 60% of the patients do not have a sufficient response to treatment and there is a need for optimization of treatment strategies. Objective: To investigate if the treatment outcome of biological therapy is associated with the habitual dietary intake of fibre and red/processed meat in patients with a CID. Methods: In this multicentre prospective cohort study, we consecutively enrolled 233 adult patients with a diagnosis of Crohn's Disease, Ulcerative Colitis, Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Axial Spondyloarthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis and Psoriasis, for whom biologic therapy was planned, over a 3 year period. Patients with completed baseline food frequency questionnaires were stratified into a high fibre/low red and processed meat exposed group (HFLM) and an unexposed group (low fibre/high red and processed meat intake = LFHM). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a clinical response to biologic therapy after 14-16 weeks of treatment. Results: Of the 193 patients included in our primary analysis, 114 (59%) had a clinical response to biologic therapy. In the HFLM group (N = 64), 41 (64%) patients responded to treatment compared to 73 (56%) in the LFHM group (N = 129), but the difference was not statistically significant (OR: 1.48, 0.72-3.05). For RA patients however, HFLM diet was associated with a more likely clinical response (82% vs. 35%; OR: 9.84, 1.35-71.56). Conclusion: Habitual HFLM intake did not affect the clinical response to biological treatment across CIDs. HFLM diet in RA patients might be associated with better odds for responding to biological treatment, but this would need confirmation in a randomised trial. Trial registration: (clinicaltrials.gov), identifier [NCT03173144].

Long-Term Effects of a Web-Based Low-FODMAP Diet Versus Probiotic Treatment for Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Including Shotgun Analyses of Microbiota: Randomized, Double-Crossover Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The long-term management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) poses many challenges. In short-term studies, eHealth interventions have been demonstrated to be safe and practical for at-home monitoring of the effects of probiotic treatments and a diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs). IBS has been linked to alterations in the microbiota. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether a web-based low-FODMAP diet (LFD) intervention and probiotic treatment were equally good at reducing IBS symptoms, and whether the response to treatments could be explained by patients' microbiota. METHODS: Adult IBS patients were enrolled in an open-label, randomized crossover trial (for nonresponders) with 1 year of follow-up using the web application IBS Constant Care (IBS CC). Patients were recruited from the outpatient clinic at the Department of Gastroenterology, North Zealand University Hospital, Denmark. Patients received either VSL#3 for 4 weeks (2 × 450 billion colony-forming units per day) or were placed on an LFD for 4 weeks. Patients responding to the LFD were reintroduced to foods high in FODMAPs, and probiotic responders received treatments whenever they experienced a flare-up of symptoms. Treatment response and symptom flare-ups were defined as a reduction or increase, respectively, of at least 50 points on the IBS Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS). Web-based ward rounds were performed daily by the study investigator. Fecal microbiota were analyzed by shotgun metagenomic sequencing (at least 10 million 2 × 100 bp paired-end sequencing reads per sample). RESULTS: A total of 34 IBS patients without comorbidities and 6 healthy controls were enrolled in the study. Taken from participating subjects, 180 fecal samples were analyzed for their microbiota composition. Out of 21 IBS patients, 12 (57%) responded to the LFD and 8 (38%) completed the reintroduction of FODMAPs. Out of 21 patients, 13 (62%) responded to their first treatment of VSL#3 and 7 (33%) responded to multiple VSL#3 treatments. A median of 3 (IQR 2.25-3.75) probiotic treatments were needed for sustained symptom control. LFD responders were reintroduced to a median of 14.50 (IQR 7.25-21.75) high-FODMAP items. No significant difference in the median reduction of IBS-SSS for LFD versus probiotic responders was observed, where for LFD it was -126.50 (IQR -196.75 to -76.75) and for VSL#3 it was -130.00 (IQR -211.00 to -70.50; P>.99). Responses to either of the two treatments were not able to be predicted using patients' microbiota. CONCLUSIONS: The web-based LFD intervention and probiotic treatment were equally efficacious in managing IBS symptoms. The response to treatments could not be explained by the composition of the microbiota. The IBS CC web application was shown to be practical, safe, and useful for clinical decision making in the long-term management of IBS. Although this study was underpowered, findings from this study warrant further research in a larger sample of patients with IBS to confirm these long-term outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03586622; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03586622.

eHealth: Disease activity measures are related to the faecal gut microbiota in adult patients with ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Microbial dysbiosis in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is poorly understood. Faecal samples collected for the purposes of microbiota analysis are not yet a part of everyday clinical practice. To explore associations between faecal microbiota and disease activity measures in adult IBD patients, for the purpose of possibly integrating microbiota measures in an existing IBD eHealth application for disease-monitoring. METHODS: We collected faecal samples from adult IBD patients for one year while they were home-monitoring for disease activity, using faecal calprotectin (FC) and the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI). Faecal samples were analysed in two different ways: commercially available test consisting of 54 pre-determined bacterial markers (DNA test) and 16S rRNA gene sequencing (16S-seq). Univariable linear mixed effect models were fitted to predict disease scores using normalised relative abundances as fixed effects. RESULTS: Seventy-eight IBD patients provided a total of 288 faecal samples for microbiota analysis. Two hundred and thirty-four of the samples were from patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Peptostreptococcus anaerobius was found to correlate significantly with increasing FC, while an additional 24 genera were found to be associated with FC and/or SCCAI (16S-seq). Bacterial markers (DNA test) for Proteobacteria, Shigella spp. and Escherichia spp., were significantly correlated with increasing FC measures, while another 14 markers were found to be associated with FC and/or SCCAI. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with UC, results of both methods are associated with disease activity, correlating significantly with Peptostretococcus anaerobius (16S-seq) and with Proteobacteria, Shigella spp. and Escherichia spp. (DNA test).

Individualized home-monitoring of disease activity in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease can be recommended in clinical practice: A randomized-clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal way to home-monitor patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) for disease progression or relapse remains to be found. AIM: To determine whether an electronic health (eHealth) screening procedure for disease activity in IBD should be implemented in clinical practice, scheduled every third month (3M) or according to patient own decision, on demand (OD). METHODS: Adult IBD patients were consecutively randomized to 1-year open-label eHealth interventions (3M vs OD). Both intervention arms were screening for disease activity, quality of life and fatigue and were measuring medical compliance with the constant care web-application according to the screening interventions OD or 3M. Disease activity was assessed using home measured fecal calprotectin (FC) and a disease activity score. RESULTS: In total, 102 patients were randomized (n = 52/50 3M/OD) at baseline, and 88 patients completed the 1-year study (n = 43 3M; n = 45 OD). No difference in the two screening procedures could be found regarding medical compliance (P = 0.58), fatigue (P = 0.86), quality of life (P = 0.17), mean time spent in remission (P > 0.32), overall FC relapse rates (P = 0.49), FC disease courses (P = 0.61), FC time to a severe relapse (P = 0.69) and remission (P = 0.88) during 1 year. Median (interquartile range) numbers of FC home-monitoring test-kits used per patient were significantly different, 3M: 6.0 (5.0-8.0) and OD: 4.0 (2.0-9.0), P = 0.04. CONCLUSION: The two eHealth screening procedures are equally good in capturing a relapse and bringing about remission. However, the OD group used fewer FC home test-kits per patient. Individualized screening procedures can be recommended for adult IBD patients in clinical web-practice.