Real-World Evidence of Tofacinitib in Ulcerative Colitis: Short-Term and Long-Term Effectiveness and Safety.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to assess the durability, short-term and long-term effectiveness, and safety of tofacitinib in ulcerative colitis (UC) in clinical practice. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter study including patients with UC who had received the first tofacitinib dose at least 8 weeks before the inclusion. Clinical effectiveness was based on partial Mayo score. RESULTS: A total of 408 patients were included. Of them, 184 (45%) withdrew tofacitinib during follow-up (mean = 18 months). The probability of maintaining tofacitinib was 67% at 6 m, 58% at 12 m, and 49% at 24 m. The main reason for tofacitinib withdrawal was primary nonresponse (44%). Older age at the start of tofacitinib and a higher severity of clinical activity were associated with tofacitinib withdrawal. The proportion of patients in remission was 38% at week 4, 45% at week 8, and 47% at week 16. Having moderate-to-severe vs mild disease activity at baseline and older age at tofacitinib start were associated with a lower and higher likelihood of remission at week 8, respectively. Of 171 patients in remission at week 8, 83 (49%) relapsed. The probability of maintaining response was 66% at 6 m and 54% at 12 m. There were 93 adverse events related to tofacitinib treatment (including 2 pulmonary thromboembolisms [in patients with risk factors] and 2 peripheral vascular thrombosis), and 29 led to tofacitinib discontinuation. DISCUSSION: Tofacitinib is effective in both short-term and long-term in patients with UC. The safety profile is similar to that previously reported.

Using Interpretable Machine Learning to Identify Baseline Predictive Factors of Remission and Drug Durability in Crohn's Disease Patients on Ustekinumab.

Ustekinumab has shown efficacy in Crohn's Disease (CD) patients. To identify patient profiles of those who benefit the most from this treatment would help to position this drug in the therapeutic paradigm of CD and generate hypotheses for future trials. The objective of this analysis was to determine whether baseline patient characteristics are predictive of remission and the drug durability of ustekinumab, and whether its positioning with respect to prior use of biologics has a significant effect after correcting for disease severity and phenotype at baseline using interpretable machine learning. Patients' data from SUSTAIN, a retrospective multicenter single-arm cohort study, were used. Disease phenotype, baseline laboratory data, and prior treatment characteristics were documented. Clinical remission was defined as the Harvey Bradshaw Index ≤ 4 and was tracked longitudinally. Drug durability was defined as the time until a patient discontinued treatment. A total of 439 participants from 60 centers were included and a total of 20 baseline covariates considered. Less exposure to previous biologics had a positive effect on remission, even after controlling for baseline disease severity using a non-linear, additive, multivariable model. Additionally, age, body mass index, and fecal calprotectin at baseline were found to be statistically significant as independent negative risk factors for both remission and drug survival, with further risk factors identified for remission.

Long-Term Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Ustekinumab in Crohn's Disease Patients: The SUSTAIN Study.

BACKGROUND: Large real-world-evidence studies are required to confirm the durability of response, effectiveness, and safety of ustekinumab in Crohn's disease (CD) patients in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: A retrospective, multicentre study was conducted in Spain in patients with active CD who had received ≥1 intravenous dose of ustekinumab for ≥6 months. Primary outcome was ustekinumab retention rate; secondary outcomes were to identify predictive factors for drug retention, short-term remission (week 16), loss of response and predictive factors for short-term efficacy and loss of response, and ustekinumab safety. RESULTS: A total of 463 patients were included. Mean baseline Harvey-Bradshaw Index was 8.4. A total of 447 (96.5%) patients had received prior biologic therapy, 141 (30.5%) of whom had received ≥3 agents. In addition, 35.2% received concomitant immunosuppressants, and 47.1% had ≥1 abdominal surgery. At week 16, 56% had remission, 70% had response, and 26.1% required dose escalation or intensification; of these, 24.8% did not subsequently reduce dose. After a median follow-up of 15 months, 356 (77%) patients continued treatment. The incidence rate of ustekinumab discontinuation was 18% per patient-year of follow-up. Previous intestinal surgery and concomitant steroid treatment were associated with higher risk of ustekinumab discontinuation, while a maintenance schedule every 12 weeks had a lower risk; neither concomitant immunosuppressants nor the number of previous biologics were associated with ustekinumab discontinuation risk. Fifty adverse events were reported in 39 (8.4%) patients; 4 of them were severe (2 infections, 1 malignancy, and 1 fever). CONCLUSIONS: Ustekinumab is effective and safe as short- and long-term treatment in a refractory cohort of CD patients in real-world clinical practice.

This large retrospective study demonstrated the short- and long-term effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in patients with Crohn's disease in real-world clinical practice, including those with refractory disease.

Ensayo clínico comparando propofol versus propofol más midazolam en endoscopia diagnóstica en pacientes de bajo riesgo anestésico / A clinical trial comparing propofol versus propofol plus midazolam in diagnostic endoscopy of patients with a low anesthetic risk

Antecedentes y objetivos: propofol y midazolam son dos de los fármacos más utilizados en la endoscopia digestiva alta (EDA). El objetivo del estudio fue evaluar dos protocolos de sedación utilizando estos fármacos en pacientes sometidos a una EDA en términos de seguridad, eficiencia, calidad de la exploración y aceptación del paciente. Pacientes y métodos: estudio prospectivo, randomizado y a doble ciego, en el que se incluyó a 83 pacientes de 18-80 años, de bajo riesgo anestésico (ASA I-II) sometidos a EDA diagnóstica, aleatorizados a recibir propofol más placebo (grupo A) o midazolam más propofol (grupo B). Resultados: en el grupo A, 42 pacientes recibieron un bolo de placebo (suero salino) y propofol en bolos de 20 mg hasta una media de 115 mg; en el grupo B, 41 pacientes recibieron 3 mg de midazolam y bolos de 20 mg de propofol hasta una media 83 mg. No hubo diferencias significativas en los efectos adversos en ambos grupos y los que se presentaron se trataron de forma conservadora. Los pacientes en el grupo B (midazolam más propofol) alcanzaron de forma más rápida la sedación deseada sin variar el tiempo global de la exploración. La calidad en la evaluación endoscópica fue similar en ambos grupos y los pacientes se sintieron igualmente satisfechos con ambos regímenes de sedación. Conclusiones: la sedación con midazolam más propofol no afecta al tiempo global de la exploración, utiliza menos dosis de propofol, es tan segura como la administración del propofol en monoterapia, proporciona igual calidad de exploración y similar aceptación por los pacientes

Background and objectives: propofol and midazolam are two of the most commonly used sedatives in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). The objective of this study was to evaluate these two sedation regimens administered to patients who underwent an UGE with regard to security, efficiency, quality of exploration and patient response. Patients and methods: a prospective, randomized and double-blind study was performed which included 83 patients between 18 and 80 years of age of a low anesthetic risk (ASA - American Society of Anesthesiologists- I-II) who underwent a diagnostic UGE. Patients were randomized to receive sedation with either placebo plus propofol (group A) or midazolam plus propofol (group B). Results: in group A, 42 patients received a placebo bolus (saline solution) and on average up to 115 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. In group B, 41 patients received 3 mg of midazolam and an average of up to 83 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. There were no significant differences in the adverse effects observed in either group and all adverse events were treated conservatively. The patients in group B (midazolam plus propofol) entered the desired sedated state more quickly with no variation in the overall time of the exploration. The quality of the endoscopic evaluation was similar in both groups and the patients were equally satisfied regardless of the sedatives they received. Conclusions: the use of midazolam plus propofol as a sedative does not affect the overall exploration time, a lower dose of propofol can be used and it is as safe as administering propofol as a monotherapy while providing the same level of both exploration quality and patient approval

A clinical trial comparing propofol versus propofol plus midazolam in diagnostic endoscopy of patients with a low anesthetic risk.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: propofol and midazolam are two of the most commonly used sedatives in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). The objective of this study was to evaluate these two sedation regimens administered to patients who underwent an UGE with regard to security, efficiency, quality of exploration and patient response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: a prospective, randomized and double-blind study was performed which included 83 patients between 18 and 80 years of age of a low anesthetic risk (ASA - American Society of Anesthesiologists- I-II) who underwent a diagnostic UGE. Patients were randomized to receive sedation with either placebo plus propofol (group A) or midazolam plus propofol (group B). RESULTS: in group A, 42 patients received a placebo bolus (saline solution) and on average up to 115 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. In group B, 41 patients received 3 mg of midazolam and an average of up to 83 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. There were no significant differences in the adverse effects observed in either group and all adverse events were treated conservatively. The patients in group B (midazolam plus propofol) entered the desired sedated state more quickly with no variation in the overall time of the exploration. The quality of the endoscopic evaluation was similar in both groups and the patients were equally satisfied regardless of the sedatives they received. CONCLUSIONS: the use of midazolam plus propofol as a sedative does not affect the overall exploration time, a lower dose of propofol can be used and it is as safe as administering propofol as a monotherapy while providing the same level of both exploration quality and patient approval.