JAK inhibitors for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: results of an international survey of perceptions, attitudes, and clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are small molecule drugs with demonstrated efficacy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, widespread utilisation may be hindered by safety concerns. AIMS: This is the first study assessing risk-benefit perceptions and clinical practices of those using JAKi for IBD. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted using a 23-item survey distributed to IBD healthcare providers worldwide. RESULTS: Of 385 respondents from 48 countries, 72% were tertiary-centre based and 50% were gastroenterologists with ≥10 years experience. JAKi were commonly used outside market authorisation (31%), though many (17%) were unconfident discussing JAKi risk-benefit profile and 7% had never prescribed JAKi. If venous thromboembolism risks were present, 15% preferentially referred for surgery than initiate JAKi; 21% would do this even if the patient was already anticoagulated. For patients relapsing on dose reduction, 8% would switch treatment rather than dose escalate. Conversely, 45% felt that cardiovascular safety concerns from post-marketing studies were irrelevant to IBD. Despite the lack of detailed, long-term safety data, safety profiles of JAK1-selective drugs were perceived to be favourable to tofacitinib by most (62%). CONCLUSION: The study indicates that while clinical practice appears to be in keeping with international guidance, a significant minority remain deterred by safety concerns.

How achievable are STRIDE-II treatment targets in real-world practice and do they predict long-term treatment outcomes?

Objective: The second iteration of the Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE-II) initiative recommends use of the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's disease (SES-CD) as a treatment target for patients with CD. We aimed to assess whether the STRIDE-II endoscopic endpoints are achievable and whether the degree of mucosal healing (MH) affects long-term outcomes. Design/method: We performed a retrospective observational study between 2015 and 2022. Patients with CD who had baseline and follow-up SES-CD scores after biological therapy initiation were included. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for: (1) change of biological therapy for active disease (2) corticosteroid use (3) CD-related hospitalisation or (4) surgery. We compared rates of treatment failure with the degree of MH achieved. Patients were followed up until treatment failure or study end (August 2022). Results: 50 patients were included and followed up for median 39.9 (34.6-48.6) months. Baseline characteristics: 62% male, median age 36.4 (27.8-43.9) years, disease distribution (L1: 4, L2: 11, L3: 35, perianal: 18). The proportion of patients achieving STRIDE-II end-points were: SES-CD≤2-25 (50%) and >50% reduction in SES-CD-35 (70%). Failure to achieve SES-CD≤2 (HR 11.62; 95% CI 3.33 to 40.56, p=0.003) or >50% improvement in SES-CD (HR 30.30; 95% CI 6.93 to 132.40, p<0.0001) predicted treatment failure. Conclusion: Use of SES-CD is feasible in real-world clinical practice. Achieving an SES-CD≤2 or a greater than 50% reduction, as set out by STRIDE-II, is associated with reduced rates of overall treatment failure including CD-related surgery.

Ustekinumab for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: a multicentre UK cohort study.

Objective: Ustekinumab is an interleukin-12/interleukin-23 receptor antagonist licensed for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). Clinical trial data were promising; however, real-world data are limited. We assessed the safety and effectiveness of ustekinumab in UC in a real-world setting. Design/method: This was a multicentre, retrospective, observational cohort study between February 2020 and January 2022. Disease activity was assessed using the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI). Clinical remission was defined as a SCCAI≤2. The primary endpoints were rates of corticosteroid-free remission (CSFR) at week 16 and at week 26. Objective outcomes, including faecal calprotectin (FCAL), were also collected. Results: 110 patients with UC (65% male; median age 40 (IQR range 29-59); 96% with prior biologic and/or tofacitinib exposure) had a median follow-up of 28 weeks (IQR 17-47). CSFR was 36% (18/50) at week 16% and 33% (13/39) at week 26, corresponding with a significant fall in SCCAI from 6 (IQR 4-8) at baseline to 3 (IQR 0-5) at week 26, p<0.001. By week 16, there was improvement of median FCAL measurements, which fell from a baseline of 610 µg/g (IQR 333-1100) to 102 µg/g (IQR 54-674) at week 16. At the end of follow-up, 15% (17/110) had discontinued treatment; 13 patients due to primary non-response or loss of response, and 1 patient for family planning. Treatment was discontinued in three patients due to adverse events. Conclusion: In the largest real-world study to date, ustekinumab was effective with a reassuring safety profile in a refractory cohort of patients.

Comparative effectiveness of a second-line biologic in patients with ulcerative colitis: vedolizumab followed by an anti-TNF versus anti-TNF followed by vedolizumab.

Background: Sequential drug treatment with biological agents in ulcerative colitis (UC) is becoming increasingly complex. There are few studies comparing head-to-head outcomes in second-line treatments. The study assesses whether using anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF)-α therapy following the α4ß7 integrin blocker vedolizumab (VDZ) or VDZ after an anti-TNF has more favourable clinical outcomes in UC in a real-world outpatient setting. Methods: Patients with UC who were exposed to first-line anti-TNF (adalimumab or infliximab) or VDZ who subsequently switched to the alternate class between May 2013 and August 2020 were identified by reviewing patient databases at 10 hospitals. Data were collected retrospectively using patient records. Baseline demographics, disease activity indices, biochemical markers, endoscopic Mayo score, colectomy rates, treatment persistence and urgent hospital utilisation composite endpoint (UHUC) rates were examined over a 52-week period. Results: Second-line week 52 treatment persistence was higher in the VDZ group (71/81, 89%) versus the anti-TNF group (15/34, 44%; p=0.0001), as were week 52 colectomy-free survival (VDZ: 77/80, 96%, vs anti-TNF: 26/32, 81%; p=0.009), week 52 UHUC survival (VDZ: 68/84, 81%, vs anti-TNF: 20/34, 59%; p=0.002) and week 52 corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CFCR) rates (VDZ: 22/34, 65%, vs anti-TNF: 4/20, 20%; p=0.001). Conclusion: Compared with second-line anti TNF usage, the VDZ second-line cohort had significantly higher 52-week treatment persistence, UHUC survival, higher colectomy-free survival rates and higher week 52 CFCR. These data suggest that VDZ is an effective biologic in UC as a second-line therapy after anti-TNF exposure. It highlights the effect of biological order on clinically important outcomes.

A retrospective cohort study: pre-operative oral enteral nutritional optimisation for Crohn's disease in a UK tertiary IBD centre.

BACKGROUND: Low-quality evidence suggests that pre-operative exclusive enteral nutrition (E/EN) can improve postoperative outcomes in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). It is not standard practice in most centres. AIMS: To test the hypothesis that pre-operative EN in patients undergoing ileal/ileocolonic surgery for CD is associated with improved postoperative outcome. METHODS: We performed a single centre retrospective observational study comparing surgical outcomes in patients receiving pre-operative EN (≥600 kcal/day for ≥2 weeks) with those who received no nutritional optimisation. Consecutive adult patients undergoing ileal/ileocolonic resection from 2008 to 2020 were included. The primary outcome was postoperative complications <30 days. Secondary outcomes included EN tolerance, specific surgical complications, unplanned stoma formation, length of stay, length of bowel resected, readmission and biochemical/anthropometric changes. RESULTS: 300 surgeries were included comprising 96 without nutritional optimisation and 204 optimised cases: oral EN n = 173, additional PN n = 31 (4 of whom had received nasogastric/nasojejunal EN). 142/204 (69.6%) tolerated EN. 125/204 (61.3%) initiated EN in clinic. Patients in the optimised cohort were younger at operation and diagnosis, with an increased frequency of penetrating disease and exposure to antibiotics or biologics, and were more likely to undergo laparoscopic surgery. The optimised cohort had favourable outcomes on multivariate analysis: all complications [OR 0.29; 0.15-0.57, p < 0.001], surgical complications [OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.20-0.87, p = 0.02], non-surgical complications [OR 0.24 95% CI 0.11-0.52, p < 0.001], infective complications [OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.16-0.66, p = 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Oral EN was reasonably well tolerated and associated with a reduction in 30-day postoperative complications. Randomised controlled trials are required to confirm these findings.

Thromboprophylaxis Use in Paediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An International RAND Appropriateness Panel.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Thromboprophylaxis use in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is inconsistent. Current guidelines only support treating children with acute severe colitis with risk factors. We convened an international RAND panel to explore thromboprophylaxis in paediatric IBD inpatients in the context of new evidence. METHODS: We convened a geographically diverse 14-person panel of paediatric gastroenterologists alongside supporting experts. An online survey was sent before an online meeting. Panellists were asked to rate the appropriateness of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised paediatric IBD patients via 27 scenarios of varying ages, gender, and phenotype, with and without thrombotic risk factors. Anonymised results were presented at the meeting. A second modified survey was distributed to all panellists present at the meeting. Results from the second survey constitute the RAND panel results. The validated RAND disagreement index defined disagreement when ≥ 1. RESULTS: The combined outcome of thromboprophylaxis being considered appropriate until discharge and inappropriate to withhold was seen in 20 of 27 scenarios, including: all patients with new-onset acute severe colitis; all flares of known ulcerative colitis, irrespective of risk factors except in pre-pubescent patients with limited disease and no risk factors; and all Crohn's patients with risk factors. Disagreement was seen in five scenarios regarding Crohn's without risk factors, where outcomes were already uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: RAND panels are an established method to assess expert opinion in areas of limited evidence. This work therefore constitutes neither a guideline nor a consensus; however, the findings suggest a need to re-evaluate the role of thromboprophylaxis in future guidelines.

Iron deficiency anaemia: pathophysiology, assessment, practical management.

The WHO has recognised iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) as the most common nutritional deficiency in the world, with 30% of the population being affected with this condition. Although the most common causes of IDA are gastrointestinal bleeding and menstruation in women, decreased dietary iron and decreased iron absorption are also culpable causes. Patients with IDA should be treated with the aim of replenishing iron stores and returning the haemoglobin to a normal level. This has shown to improve quality of life, morbidity, prognosis in chronic disease and outcomes in pregnancy. Iron deficiency occurs in many chronic inflammatory conditions, including congestive cardiac failure, chronic kidney disease and inflammatory bowel disease. This article will provide an updated overview on diagnosis and management of IDA in patients with chronic conditions, preoperative and in pregnancy. We will discuss the benefits and limitations of oral versus intravenous iron replacement in each cohort, with an overview on cost analysis between the different iron formulations currently on the market.

Depression, anxiety, and stress among inflammatory bowel disease patients during COVID-19: A UK cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Patients with chronic diseases are believed to be at increased risk of mental health conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to assess the incidence of psychological morbidity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, explore for association with risk of severe COVID-19 and other factors, and establish patients' interest in psychological support. METHODS: A survey including the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, General Anxiety Disorder-7, and Perceived Stress Scale tools for depression, anxiety, and stress was administered to IBD patients from a tertiary center in London, United Kingdom, in June 2020. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-four patients responded to the survey (57% response rate), with 271 (99%) completing it. Moderate-severe depression was observed in 61 (22.5%), while 49 (18%) had moderate-severe anxiety; 39 (14%) had both diagnoses. Mean (SD) stress score was 16.2 (7.4). There was no association between degree of severe COVID-19 risk and psychological morbidity. Flare symptoms and fatigue were associated with worse psychological morbidity, while accessibility of information regarding COVID-19 risk and reducing that risk was protective for depression (odds ratio [OR] 0.56 [0.33-0.94], P = 0.03), anxiety (OR 0.62 [0.4-0.96], P = 0.03), and stress (standardized ß-coefficient -0.15 [-0.28 to -0.03], P = 0.02). Seventy-nine (30%) respondents were interested in receiving psychological support during the pandemic, while 200 (76%) expressed interest beyond the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Although depression, anxiety, and stress among IBD patients during the pandemic were common, their frequency was similar to pre-pandemic rates and recent general population levels. Ensuring easy access to personalized risk information with targeted psychological support may mitigate psychological burden as patients reintegrate into society and deal with future COVID-19 waves.

Effectiveness and Safety of Ustekinumab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Ustekinumab, an interleukin-12 and interleukin-23 antagonist, is licensed for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) after the phase III trial programs demonstrated efficacy over placebo. However, these findings may not be directly transferable to the real-world due to the stringent inclusion criteria of clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and effectiveness of ustekinumab in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). A systematic literature search was conducted via Medline and Embase from inception to April 21, 2020. Observational studies assessing ustekinumab's safety and effectiveness by reporting response, remission and/or adverse events (AE) in either CD or UC were included. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and extracted study data. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool rates of clinical response, remission, and safety data. RESULTS: Following deduplication, 2147 records were identified of which 41 studies (38 CD, 3 UC) comprising 4400 patients were included for quantitative analysis. Pooled clinical remission rates for CD were 34% (95% CI, 26%-42%) following induction and 31% (95% CI, 25%-38%) at one year. For UC, post-induction clinical remission rates were 39% (95% CI, 23%-56%). Serious AEs were reported in 5.6% of patients. Pregnancy outcomes were similar to the general population. One-third of patients with active baseline perianal disease responded or had fistula healing with ustekinumab. CONCLUSIONS: In the most comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to date, and the first to include UC, ustekinumab was shown to be effective and safe in the real-world treatment of IBD.

RAND appropriateness panel to determine the applicability of UK guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template. METHODS: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again. RESULTS: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease. CONCLUSION: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines.

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A RAND Appropriateness Panel Approach.

BACKGROUND: Current practice in cardiogenic shock is guided by expert opinion in guidelines and scientific statements from professional societies with limited high quality randomized trial data to inform optimal patient management. An international panel conducted a modified Delphi process with the intent of identifying aspects of cardiogenic shock care where there was uncertainty regarding optimal patient management. METHODS: An 18-person multidisciplinary panel comprising international experts was convened. A modified RAND/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness methodology was used. A survey comprising 70 statements was completed. Participants anonymously rated the appropriateness of each statement on a scale of 1 to 9: 1 to 3 inappropriate, 4 to 6 uncertain, and 7 to 9 appropriate. A summary of the results was discussed as a group, and the survey was iterated and completed again before final analysis. RESULTS: There was broad alignment with current international guidelines and consensus statements. Overall, 44 statements were rated as appropriate, 19 as uncertain, and 7 as inappropriate. There was no disagreement with a disagreement index <1 for all statements. Routine fluid administration was deemed to be inappropriate. Areas of uncertainty focused panel on pre-PCI interventions, the use of right heart catheterization to guide management, routine use of left ventricular unloading strategies, and markers of futility when considering escalation to mechanical circulatory support. CONCLUSIONS: While there was broad alignment with current guidance, an expert panel found several aspects of care where there was clinical equipoise, further highlighting the need for randomized controlled trials to better guide patient management and decision making in cardiogenic shock.

An observational study of switching infliximab biosimilar: no adverse impact on inflammatory bowel disease control or drug levels with first or second switch.

BACKGROUND: Biologics account for a significant cost in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management; however, switching from infliximab originator to its biosimilars has enabled cost saving without compromising disease control. The effects on IBD activity and infliximab trough levels of a second switch to another biosimilar are, however, uncertain. AIMS: To assess the effects on disease activity and infliximab trough levels associated with switching from infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 to another biosimilar SB2 and compare outcomes in those switching for the first and second time. METHODS: IBD patients on CT-P13, including some previously switched from originator, were prospectively followed during a switch to SB2. C-reactive protein (CRP), trough infliximab level and clinical disease activity indices were collected at baseline, Infusion 3 or 4 ('early' after switch), and 1 year. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-six patients (n = 99 second switch) on stable infliximab dosing underwent switching. Compared with baseline, there was no significant change in CRP, clinical disease activity scores or median trough infliximab level at the early time point among first-switch (baseline vs early: 5.7 vs 6.6 µg/mL, P = 0.05) and second-switch (4.3 vs 4.9 µg/mL, P = 0.07) patients nor at 1 year (median infliximab trough levels, baseline vs 1 year, in first-switch [5.7 vs 5.7 µg/mL, P = 0.37] and second-switch [4.3 vs 4.7 µg/mL, P = 0.06] patients). The proportion of patients in clinical remission did not significantly change at the early (92% vs 91% at baseline, P = 0.75) or 1 year (95% vs 91% at baseline, P = 0.16) time points. There was no significant difference in time to loss of response between patients switching for the first or second time (P = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Switching from one infliximab biosimilar to another had no adverse impact on infliximab trough levels, and clinical and biochemical disease activity, regardless of whether switching for the first or second time.

An expert consensus to standardise clinical, endoscopic and histologic items and inclusion and outcome criteria for evaluation of pouchitis disease activity in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Pouchitis is a condition with large unmet medical needs and no approved therapies. Lack of validated instruments to measure disease activity and treatment response is a major barrier to drug development. AIM: To conduct a modified RAND/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness process to produce a standardised assessment of pouchitis disease activity in clinical trials. METHODS: A list of 164 items generated upon a systematic review and expert opinion were rated based on a 9-point scale (appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate), by a panel including 16 gastroenterologists, surgeons and histopathologists. RESULTS: Items rated as appropriate to evaluate in pouchitis clinical trials were: (a) clinical: stool frequency and faecal urgency; (b) endoscopic: primary assessment in the pouch body according to the percentage of affected area (<50%, 50%-75% and >75%), evaluation of the presence of ulcers/erosions according to size (erosions <5 mm, ulcers ≥5 mm to 2 cm and large ulcers >2 cm) and ulcerated area (<10%, 10%-30% and >30%); (c) histologic: two biopsies from each segment, from the ulcer's edge when present, or endoscopically normal areas, assessment of lamina propria chronic inflammation, epithelial and lamina propria neutrophils, epithelial damage, erosions and ulcers; and (d) clinical trial inclusion/outcome criteria: minimum histologic disease activity for inclusion, a primary endpoint based on stool frequency and assessment of clinical, endoscopic and histologic response and remission. The overall majority of items surveyed (100/164) were rated 'uncertain'. CONCLUSION: We conducted a RAND/UCLA appropriateness process to help inform measurement of pouchitis disease activity within clinical trials and foster the development of novel therapies.

Ischaemic colitis: practical challenges and evidence-based recommendations for management.

Ischaemic colitis (IC) is a common condition with rising incidence, and in severe cases a high mortality rate. Its presentation, severity and disease behaviour can vary widely, and there exists significant heterogeneity in treatment strategies and resultant outcomes. In this article we explore practical challenges in the management of IC, and where available make evidence-based recommendations for its management based on a comprehensive review of available literature. An optimal approach to initial management requires early recognition of the diagnosis followed by prompt and appropriate investigation. Ideally, this should involve the input of both gastroenterology and surgery. CT with intravenous contrast is the imaging modality of choice. It can support clinical diagnosis, define the severity and distribution of ischaemia, and has prognostic value. In all but fulminant cases, this should be followed (within 48 hours) by lower gastrointestinal endoscopy to reach the distal-most extent of the disease, providing endoscopic (and histological) confirmation. The mainstay of medical management is conservative/supportive treatment, with bowel rest, fluid resuscitation and antibiotics. Specific laboratory, radiological and endoscopic features are recognised to correlate with more severe disease, higher rates of surgical intervention and ultimately worse outcomes. These factors should be carefully considered when deciding on the need for and timing of surgical intervention.