Search

Background: With the increasing number of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, it is difficult to manage them within specialised IBD teams in academic medical centres: many are therefore treated in nonacademic IBD centres. It is unclear whether the time to introducing biologics is the same in both settings., Aim: We aimed to compare treatment approach with biologics in academic vs. nonacademic centres., Methods: We analysed Slovenian national IBD registry data (UR-CARE Registry, supported by the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation), which included 2 academic (2319 patients) and 4 nonacademic IBD (429 patients) centres., Results: The disease phenotype was similar in both settings. In total, 1687 patients received 2782 treatment episodes with biologics. We observed no differences in treatment episodes with TNF-alpha inhibitors (60% vs. 61%), vedolizumab (24% vs. 23%), or ustekinumab (17% vs. 16%) in academic compared to nonacademic centres ( P  = 0.949). However, TNF inhibitors were less often the first biologic in academic centres (TNF inhibitors: 67.5% vs. 74.0%, vedolizumab: 20.3% vs. 17.9%, ustekinumab: 12.1% vs. 8.1%; P = 0.0096). Consequently, more patients received ustekinumab (29.8% vs. 18.3%) and vedolizumab (17.4% vs. 13.5%) and fewer TNF inhibitors (52.7% vs. 68.2%) for Crohn's disease in academic compared to nonacademic centres, with no such differences for ulcerative colitis. The time to initiation of the first biologic from diagnosis was short and similar in both settings (11.3 vs. 10.4 months, P  = 0.2)., Conclusion: In this nationwide registry analysis, we observed that biological treatment choice was similar in academic and nonacademic settings. These findings support the decentralisation of IBD care., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

We present the case of a 58-year-old female with a history of a bleeding duodenal peptic ulcer. Endoscopic hemostasis was unsuccessful; therefore, a transcatheter arterial embolization of a culprit vessel was performed. She was admitted to the hospital two months later because of obstruction of the common bile duct with cholangitis. Attempts to endoscopically place a biliary stent failed. The treating medical team opted for a surgical choledocho-jejunostomy. After 20 months, she presented with a melena and a severe anemia. Diagnostic work-up revealed portal vein thrombosis with portal cavernoma and bleeding choledocho-jejunostomy varices. The case presents and discusses rare complications of duodenal ulcer disease, as well as possible causes and treatment options., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives : The subcutaneous (SC) formulation of vedolizumab has proven to be effective for the maintenance of remission after intravenous induction. Little is known about the efficacy of switching from intravenous maintenance treatment to SC. We aimed to assess the real-world efficacy of switching to SC treatment and to assess the impact of a baseline treatment regimen. Materials and Methods : In this observational cohort study, adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were switched to SC vedolizumab maintenance treatment were enrolled. Patients after intravenous induction and patients who switched from intravenous maintenance treatment (every 8 weeks or every 4 weeks) were included. The SC vedolizumab dosing was 108 mg every 2 weeks, regardless of the previous regimen. The clinical, biochemical, and endoscopic disease activity parameters and vedolizumab serum concentrations at the time of the switch and at the follow-up were assessed. Results : In total, 135 patients (38% Crohn's disease, 62% ulcerative colitis) were switched to SC vedolizumab treatment. The median time to the first follow-up (FU) was 14.5 weeks (IQR 12-26), and the median time to the second FU was 40 weeks (IQR 36-52). Nine patients (7%) discontinued SC vedolizumab treatment, with two-thirds of them discontinuing due to active disease. In all dosing regimens, there were no significant changes in the clinical scores and CRP at the baseline and first and second FUs. Clinical and biochemical remission appeared to be maintained irrespective of the previous dosing regimen. Conclusions : The results of this real-world study suggest that the maintenance of clinical and biomarker remission can be achieved in patients who switched from intravenous to SC vedolizumab. The baseline vedolizumab dosing regimen (every 4 weeks versus every 8 weeks) did not have an impact on outcomes.

Introduction: Symptoms, endoscopy and histology have been proposed as therapeutic targets in ulcerative colitis (UC). Observational studies suggest that the achievement of histologic remission may be associated with a lower risk of complications, compared with the achievement of endoscopic remission alone. The actiVE ulcerative colitis, a RanDomIsed Controlled Trial (VERDICT) aims to determine the optimal treatment target in patients with UC., Methods and Analysis: In this multicentre, prospective randomised study, 660 patients with moderate to severe UC (Mayo rectal bleeding subscore [RBS] ≥1; Mayo endoscopic score [MES] ≥2) are randomly assigned to three treatment targets: corticosteroid-free symptomatic remission (Mayo RBS=0) (group 1); corticosteroid-free endoscopic remission (MES ≤1) and symptomatic remission (group 2); or corticosteroid-free histologic remission (Geboes score <2B.0), endoscopic remission and symptomatic remission (group 3). Treatment is escalated using vedolizumab according to a treatment algorithm that is dependent on the patient's baseline UC therapy until the target is achieved at weeks 16, 32 or 48. The primary outcome, the time from target achievement to a UC-related complication, will be compared between groups 1 and 3 using a Cox proportional hazards model., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was approved by ethics committees at the country level or at individual sites as per individual country requirements. A full list of ethics committees is available on request. Study results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific meetings., Trial Registration Number: EudraCT: 2019-002485-12; NCT04259138., Competing Interests: Competing interests: VJ has received consulting/advisory board fees from AbbVie, Alimentiv Inc (formerly Robarts Clinical Trials), Arena Pharmaceuticals, Asieris, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Mylan, Pandion, Pendopharm, Pfizer, Reistone Biopharma, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda and Topivert; and speaker’s fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Janssen, Pfizer, Shire and Takeda. GZ has received consulting fees from Alimentiv Inc. ZW is an employee of Alimentiv Inc. SA is an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals. JFC reports receiving research grants from AbbVie, Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Takeda; payment for lectures from AbbVie, Amgen, Allergan. Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Shire and Takeda; consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Galmed Research, Genentech, Glaxo Smith Kline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kaleido Biosciences, Imedex, Immunic, Iterative Scopes, Merck, Microbia, Novartis, PBM Capital, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Sanofi, Takeda, TiGenix, Vifor; and holds stock options in Intestinal Biotech Development. GRD has served as a consultant and/or received speaker fees from Abbvie, Alimentiv, AstraZeneca, Biora (Progenity), Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion Healthcare, Cytoki Pharma, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Immunic, InDex Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Kaleido, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonist Therapeutics, Takeda, Tillotts and Ventyx Biosciences. MF is an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals. GWM is a consultant for Alimentiv and in receipt of research funding from AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson. LPB has received personal fees from AbbVie, Adacyte, Alimentiv, Alma Bio Therapeutics, Amgen, Applied Molecular Transport, Arena, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, CONNECT Biopharm, Cytoki Pharma, Enthera, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, Gossamer Bio, GSK, HAC-Pharma, IAG Image Analysis, Index Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Mopac, Morphic, MSD, Norgine, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, OM Pharma, ONO Pharma, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pandion Therapeutics, Par’Immune, Pfizer, Prometheus, Protagonist, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Takeda, Theravance, Thermo Fisher, Tigenix, Tillots, Viatris, Vifor, Ysopia, Abivax, Samsung, Ventyx, Roivant and Vectivbio. WJS reports receiving consulting fees from Abbvie, Abivax, Alfasigma, Alimentiv, Beigene, Biora (Progenity), Celltrion, Forbion, Genentech, Gossamer Biosciences, Index Pharmaceuticals, Prometheus Biosciences, Protagonist Therapeutics, Shoreline Biosciences, Vedanta Biosciences, Ventyx Biosciences, Zealand Pharma; and stock or stock options from BeiGene, Gossamer Bio, Biora (Progenity), Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Shoreline Biosciences, Ventyx Biosciences, Vimalan Biosciences, Vivreon Gastrosciences; he is an employee at Shoreline Biosciences and Ventyx Biosciences. Spouse: Iveric Bio—consultant, stock options; Biora (Progenity)—stock; Prometheus Biosciences—employee, stock, stock options; Prometheus Laboratories—stock, stock options; Ventyx Biosciences—stock, stock options; Vimalan Biosciences—stock, stock options. SS reports research grants from Takeda, Pfizer, Tillotts Pharma, Abbvie and Biogen; and personal fees for speaker role and advisory board meetings from Janssen, Amgen, Tillotts Pharma, Abbvie, Takeda, Celgene, Roche, Pharmacosmos, and Falk Pharma outside the submitted work. ST has received grants/research support from AbbVie, Buhlmann, Celgene, ECCO, Helmsley Trust, IOIBD, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, UKIERI, Vifor and Norman Collisson Foundation; consulting fees from Abacus, AbbVie, Actial, ai4gi, Alcimed, Allergan, Amgen, Apexian, Aptel, Arena, Asahi, Aspen, Astellas, Atlantic, AstraZeneca, Barco, Biocare, Biogen, BLPharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Buhlmann, Calcico, Celgene, Cellerix, Cerimon, ChemoCentryx, Chiesi, CisBio, ComCast, Coronado, Cosmo, Ducentis, Dynavax, Elan, Enterome, EQrX, Equillium, Falk, Ferring, FPRT Bio, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme, Gilead, Glenmark, Grunenthal, GSK, GW Pharmaceuticals, Immunocore, Immunometabolism, Indigo, Janssen, Lexicon, Lilly, Medarex, Medtrix, Merck, Merrimack, Mestag, Millenium, Neovacs, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, NPS-Nycomed, Ocera, Optima, Origin, Otsuka, Palau, Pentax, Pfizer, Pharmaventure, Phesi, Phillips, P&G, Pronota, Protagonist, Proximagen, Resolute, Robarts, Sandoz, Sanofi, Santarus, Satisfai, Sensyne Health, Shire, SigmoidPharma, Sorriso, Souffinez, Syndermix, Synthon, Takeda, Theravance, Tigenix, Tillotts, Topivert, Trino Therapeutics with Wellcome Trust, TxCell, UCB Pharma, Vertex, VHsquared, Vifor, Warner Chilcott and Zeria; speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Falk, Ferring, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Shire, Takeda and UCB. He has no stocks or share options. SV has received grants from AbbVie, J&J, Pfizer, Takeda and Galapagos; consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, AbolerIS Pharma, AgomAb, Alimentiv, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Avaxia, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, CVasThera, Cytoki Pharma, Dr Falk Pharma, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech-Roche, Gilead, GSK, Hospira, Imidomics, Janssen, J&J, Lilly, Materia Prima, MiroBio, Morphic, MrMHealth, Mundipharma, MSD, Pentax, Pfizer, Prodigest, Progenity, Prometheus, Robarts Clinical Trials, Second Genome, Shire, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, Tillots Pharma AG and Zealand Pharma. GR is an employee of Alimentiv Inc. JS is an employee of Alimentiv Inc. JH has received consulting fees from Alimentiv Inc.; and speaker’s fees from Abbvie, Janssen and Takeda. CM has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Alimentiv, Amgen, AVIR Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, McKesson, Mylan, Takeda, Pfizer and Roche; speaker's fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AVIR Pharma, Alimentiv, Ferring, Janssen, Takeda and Pfizer; and research support from Pfizer. RS is an employee of Alimentiv Inc. SCM is an employee of Alimentiv Inc. NA reports no conflicts of interest. MB has received honoraria from Shire, Allergan, Pfizer, and Takeda; advisory board fees from AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, Lupin, Gilead, Pfizer, and Novo Nordisk; clinical trials: AbbVie, Novo Nordisk, Gilead, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Intercept; research publications: AbbVie (2021–letter signed). PB reports receiving research grants from Abbvie, Amgen, Celltrion, Mylan, Pfizer and Takeda; lecture fees from AbbVie, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, and Takeda; and consulting fees Abbvie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Celltrion, Dr Falk, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pentax, PSI-CRO, Roche, Takeda, and Tetrameros. DG has received advisory board fees from Takeda, Abbvie, Janssen, Pfizer, Merck, and Freseni Kabi. WH reports no conflicts of interest. MH reports no conflicts of interest. MK has received personal fees from Shire, a Takeda company, during the conduct of the study; personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda; personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen; personal fees and non-financial support from Ferring, outside the submitted work. RP has received consulting/advisory board fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer and Allergan. MSS has received consulting, speaker and advisory board fees from Abbvie, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda. LW reports no conflicts of interest. BGF is a scientific advisory board member for AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Avaxia Biologics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Elan, Biogen, Ferring, Genentech–Roche, Janssen–Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Millennium, Nestlé, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, Prometheus, Protagonist, Receptos, Salix, Sigmoid Pharma, Takeda, Teva, TiGenix, Tillotts Pharma and UCB Pharma; consulting fees from AbbVie, Actogenix, Akros, Albireo Pharma, Allergan, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Avaxia Biologics, Avir Pharma, Axcan, Baxter Healthcare, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calypso Biotech, Celgene, Elan–Biogen, EnGene, Ferring, Genentech–Roche, GiCare Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Given Imaging, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Janssen Biotech–Centocor, Janssen–Johnson & Johnson, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mesoblast Pharma, Millennium, Nestlé, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, Prometheus, Protagonist, Receptos Salix, Sanofi, Shire, Sigmoid Pharma, Synergy Pharma, Takeda, Teva, TiGenix, Tillotts Pharma, UCB Pharma, Vertex, VHsquared, Wyeth, Zealand and Zygenia; lecture fees from AbbVie, Janssen–Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, and UCB Pharma, and grant support from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen Biotech–Centocor, Janssen–Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Receptos, Sanofi, and Takeda and is the Senior Scientific Officer of Alimentiv Inc. Alimentiv Inc is an academic gastrointestinal contract research organisation (CRO), operating under the Alimentiv Health Trust. Alimentiv Inc. provides comprehensive clinical trial services, precision medicine offerings, and centralised imaging solutions for endoscopy, histopathology and other imaging modalities. The beneficiaries of the Alimentiv Health Trust are the employees of the enterprises it holds. BGF, GRD, GZ, VJ and WJS are consultants to Alimentiv Inc. and have a primary academic appointment; they do not hold equity positions or shares in Alimentiv Inc., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Objectives: Up to one-third of patients with acute biliary pancreatitis also present with choledocholithiasis. Guidelines from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) for investigating suspected choledocholithiasis suggest endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with high-likelihood (ESGE)/high-probability (ASGE) predictors and endoscopic ultrasound in those with intermediate-likelihood (ESGE)/intermediate-probability (ASGE) predictors. Although both guidelines are similar, they are not identical. Furthermore, these algorithms were mainly developed from cohorts of patients without pancreatitis and are therefore poorly validated in a subset of patients with acute pancreatitis. We aimed to assess the performance of the ESGE and ASGE algorithms for the prediction of choledocholithiasis in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 86 consecutive patients admitted to a tertiary referral centre in the year 2020 due to acute biliary pancreatitis. Results: Choledocholithiasis was confirmed in 29/86 (33.7%) of patients (13 with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and 16 with endoscopic ultrasound). All 10/10 (100%) ESGE high-likelihood and 14/19 (73.7%) ASGE high-probability patients had choledocholithiasis. Only 19/71 (26.8%) patients with ESGE intermediate likelihood and 15/67 (22.4%) with ASGE intermediate probability had choledocholithiasis. Only 8/13 (61.5%) patients with the ASGE high-probability predictor of dilated common bile duct plus bilirubin > 68.4 µmol/mL had choledocholithiasis. Since this predictor is not considered high likelihood by ESGE, this resulted in a superior specificity of the European compared to the American guideline (100% vs. 91.2%). Following the American instead of the European guidelines would have resulted in five unnecessary endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies and five unnecessary endoscopic ultrasound examinations. Conclusions: This retrospective analysis suggests that the European guidelines may perform better than the American guidelines at predicting choledocholithiasis in the setting of acute pancreatitis. This was because dilated common bile duct plus bilirubin > 68.4 µmol/mL was not a reliable predictor for persistent bile duct stones.

The use of combination therapy with a biologic agent and immunosuppressant has well-established efficacy and safety and is common practice in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Current research has shifted focus toward the use of advanced combination treatment (ACT). This term was coined to describe combination therapy using 2 or more advanced treatments (biologic agents and/or oral small molecule drugs) with the aim of achieving optimal disease control in selected patients. An ACT approach may be particularly beneficial in patients with documented medically refractory IBD and in patients with a poor prognosis, extraintestinal manifestations, or concomitant immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. To date, the body of evidence for ACT strategies in IBD is largely comprised of uncontrolled retrospective case series and cohort studies in highly refractory patients. Recently, results from the VEGA trial have suggested that combination induction therapy with guselkumab and golimumab was more effective in ulcerative colitis than either agent alone. However, questions remain about issues such as related costs, ACT duration, and optimal combinations to adopt. Future randomized controlled trials are likely to evaluate rationally selected combinations of agents. This article summarizes the available literature on ACT, including comparisons with traditional combination therapy and the rheumatology field, and discusses practical recommendations, profiles of IBD patients who should be considered for combination approaches in clinical practice, and remaining knowledge gaps., (Copyright © 2023, Gastro-Hep Communications, Inc.)

Background: The appropriate location for biopsy collection in ulcerative colitis is unknown., Objectives: We aimed to determine the location for biopsy collection in the presence of ulcers which yields the highest histopathological score., Design and Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study enrolled patients with ulcerative colitis and ulcers in the colon. Biopsy specimens were obtained at the edge of the ulcer; at a distance of one open forceps (7-8 mm) from the ulcer edge; at a distance of three open forceps (21-24 mm) from the ulcer edge; further referred to as locations 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Histological activity was assessed using Robarts Histopathology Index and the Nancy Histological Index. Statistical analysis was performed using mixed effects models., Results: A total of 19 patients were included. Decreasing trends with distance from the ulcer edge ( P  < 0.0001) were observed. Biopsies procured from the edge of the ulcer (location 1) yielded a higher histopathological score compared to biopsies procured at locations 2 and 3 ( P  ≤ 0.001)., Conclusion: Biopsies from the ulcer edge yield higher histopathological scores than biopsies next to the ulcer. In clinical trials with histological endpoints, biopsies should be obtained from the ulcer edge (if ulcers are present) to reliably assess histological disease activity., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) is having an increasing role in Crohn's disease; however, fully validated indices are needed. We evaluated the responsiveness of 4 MRE indices in luminal Crohn's disease., Methods: Paired MRE images (pretreatment and post-treatment at weeks 12 or 14) from 41 patients were scored by 3 blinded radiologists. Disease activity was scored for 4 MRE indices (magnetic resonance index of activity [MaRIA], simplified MaRIA, London index, and London extended index) and a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) of overall disease activity. The criterion for change was an improvement by at least one half of an SD in the VAS after treatment. Responsiveness was evaluated using the standardized effect size (SES). Longitudinal validity was evaluated using correlations between changes in MRE index scores and disease activity measures including endoscopy and the VAS., Results: The SES was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.56-1.77) for the simplified MaRIA, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.42-1.55) for the MaRIA, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.38-1.51) for the London extended index, and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.31-1.39) for the London index. The simplified MaRIA was significantly more responsive than the London index (ΔSES, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.05-0.58) but not the MaRIA (ΔSES, 0.18; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.38) or the London extended index (ΔSES, 0.22; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.50). Correlations with endoscopy (simplified MaRIA: r = 0.72) were not different from correlations with the VAS (London extended index: r = 0.70)., Conclusions: Evaluated MRE indices showed moderate-to-large responsiveness and are suitable for use in clinical trials. The simplified MaRIA may be preferred because of its responsiveness and nonreliance on gadolinium administration., (Copyright © 2022 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Some patients with Crohn's disease do not achieve remission with the approved maintenance dosing of ustekinumab every 8 weeks, possibly due to insufficient drug exposure. We aimed to study the exposure-response relationship for endoscopic remission and biomarker normalization with ustekinumab dose escalation to every 4 weeks., Methods: Out of 135 consecutive patients, 44 with active Crohn's disease despite standard maintenance dosing [at least one of C-reactive protein (CRP) >5 mg/L, fecal calprotectin >100 mg/kg, simple endoscopic score (SES) for Crohn's disease >3] underwent dose escalation to every 4 weeks. Subsequent endoscopic remission (SES-CD ≤3 without ulceration) and biomarker normalization were compared against ustekinumab concentrations., Results: Dose escalation led to endoscopic remission in 28.6% (8/28), CRP normalization 29.2% (7/24) and fecal calprotectin normalization 51.7% (15/29) of patients. Ustekinumab concentrations after escalation were higher in patients with endoscopic remission (6.90 vs. 4.29 mg/L; P = 0.025) and fecal calprotectin normalization (6.65 vs. 3.74 mg/L; P = 0.001). A threshold of 6.00 mg/L identified endoscopic remission [area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC): 0.775; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.551-0.999), a threshold of 4.40 mg/L (AUROC 0.755; 95% CI, 0.545-0.964) two months after escalation identified patients with fecal calprotectin normalization at the end of follow-up. Concentrations <3.5 mg/L after escalation precluded endoscopic remission or biomarker normalization., Conclusion: Endoscopic remission was associated with higher ustekinumab concentrations after dose escalation. Patients with concentrations <3.5 mg/L after dose escalation are unlikely to achieve endoscopic remission or biomarker normalization., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Real life data regarding pharmacokinetics of vedolizumab in patients needing dose optimisation are scarce. We set to examine whether pre-optimisation vedolizumab levels associate with therapy outcomes and which mechanisms explain the associations., Methods: A multicentre observational study assessed the outcome of dose increase in association with pre-escalation levels in vedolizumab-treated patients. SubsequentIy, α4β7 occupancy on peripheral blood [PB] and intestinal lamina propria [LP] tissues was investigated on various cellular subsets in patients undergoing lower endoscopy on infusion day. Cellular localisation of vedolizumab-bound α4β7 and effects on M1 and M2 macrophages were also explored., Results: A total of 161 inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] patients were included. Among 129/161 patients intensified during maintenance [Week 14 onward], pre-intensification trough levels were comparable or higher among those subsequently attaining post-optimisation clinical, biomarker, and endoscopic remission, compared with non-remitting patients [p = 0.09, 0.25, 0.04, respectively]. Similar results were demonstrated for those dose-optimised during induction [Week 6, n = 32]. In the immune sub-study [n = 43], free α4β7 receptors at trough were similarly low among patients with/without mucosal healing, on PB T cells [p = 0.15], LP T cells [p = 0.88], and on PB eosinophils [p = 0.08]. Integrin receptors on M1 and M2 macrophages were also saturated by low levels of vedolizumab and anti-inflammatory cytokine secretion was not increased. Co-localisation and dissociation experiments demonstrated membranal α4β7 receptors of two origins: non-internalised and newly generated α4β7, but re-binding was still complete at very low concentrations., Conclusions: These results do not support pharmacokinetics as the mechanism responsible for loss of response to vedolizumab, nor do they support a need for higher drug concentration to enhance vedolizumab's immune effects. Higher pre-escalation levels may indicate less clearance [less severe disease] and higher likelihood of subsequent re-gained response, regardless of therapy escalation., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Ustekinumab is a monoclonal antibody used in Crohn's disease (CD). Dose optimization in case of non-response and the role of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) monitoring remain unresolved dilemmas in clinical practice. We aimed to develop a population PK-PD model for ustekinumab in CD and simulate efficacy of alternative dosing regimens. We included 57 patients and recorded their characteristics during 32 weeks after starting with ustekinumab therapy. Serum ustekinumab concentration was prospectively measured and fecal calprotectin (FC) concentration was used to monitor the disease activity. Ustekinumab PK-PD was described by a two-compartment target-mediated drug disposition model linked to an indirect response model. Lower fat-free mass, higher serum albumin, previous non-exposure to biologics, FCGR3A -158 V/V variant and lower C-reactive protein were associated with higher ustekinumab exposure. Model-based simulation suggested that 41.9% of patients receiving standard dosing achieve biochemical remission at week 32. In patients not achieving remission with standard dosing at week 16, transition to 4-weekly subcutaneous maintenance dosing with or without intravenous reinduction resulted in comparably higher remission rates at week 32 (51.1% vs. 49.2%, respectively). Our findings could be used to guide stratified ustekinumab treatment in CD, particularly in patients with unfavorable characteristics, who might benefit from early transition to 4-weekly maintenance dosing.

Background & Aims: Little is known about the relationship between ustekinumab exposure during the first 2 weeks of treatment and outcomes of patients with Crohn's disease (CD). We investigated the relationship between serum concentrations of ustekinumab during the first 2 weeks of treatment and endoscopic and biochemical remission in patients with CD., Methods: In a prospective observational study, we measured concentrations of ustekinumab in serum samples from 41 consecutive patients who started treatment with ustekinumab (approximately 6 mg/kg, intravenously, then 90 mg every 8 weeks), due to endoscopic markers of active CD, at a single center from October 2017 through January 2019. We measured ustekinumab exposure parameters during the first 2 weeks (peak concentration measured immediately after intravenous infusion, week 2 concentration, and area under the curve through week 2). We investigated the correlation between these parameters and endoscopic remission (simple endoscopic score for CD scores of 3 or less without ulceration, assessed centrally) and biochemical remission (level of fecal calprotectin below 100 mg/kg) using the Mann-Whitney U test., Results: Endoscopic remission was achieved in 10 patients (24.4%) at week 24; biochemical remission was achieved in 17 patients (41.5%) at week 8, 17 patients (41.5%) at week 16, and 21 patients (51.2%) at week 24. Peak concentrations associated with endoscopic remission (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.717; 95% CI, 0.517-0.916); 6 of 13 patients (46%) with peak concentrations above 105 μg/mL (upper tercile) achieved endoscopic remission, compared with only 1 of 14 patients (7%) with peak concentrations below 88 μg/mL (lower tercile). All exposure parameters during the first 2 weeks were associated with biochemical remission. There was no significant difference between the associations of peak concentrations, week-2 concentrations, area under the curve through week 2, or later exposure measures (at weeks 4 and 8) with biochemical or endoscopic remission., Conclusions: In a prospective study, we found that serum concentrations of ustekinumab as early as 1 hour after intravenous infusion might be used to identify patients with CD most likely to achieve endoscopic remission. This early measurement might be used to optimize treatment of CD., (Copyright © 2021 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction : Treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) aims to control symptoms and to suppress intestinal inflammation. Despite considerable advances, a proportion of patients do not respond to currently available drugs. The interleukin (IL)-23 axis plays a significant role in the pathogenesis of UC and has thus become an important target for drug development. Areas covered : The review briefly summarizes the pathophysiology of the IL-12/23 axis and provides a synopsis of the available evidence for efficacy and safety of ustekinumab, mirikizumab (LY3074828), risankizumab (BI655066/ABBV066), brazikumab (MEDI2070; formerly AMG139) and guselkumab (CNTO1959) in UC. We also provide an overview of ongoing and anticipated trials in this field. Expert opinion : A Phase 2 trial with mirikizumab and a Phase 3 trial with ustekinumab have demonstrated the efficacy of anti-IL-23 agents in achieving clinical and endoscopic outcomes in UC with a favorable safety profile. Trials of other anti-IL-23 agents in UC are under way and designed to explore head-to-head efficacy with existing biologics, as well as the prospect of combination biological therapy. Apart from data on longer term efficacy and safety, future trials should also explore strategies to inform the positioning of IL-23 antagonists in therapeutic algorithms.

Background: The relationship between vedolizumab trough levels and combined endoscopic and clinical remission is unknown., Objective: To compare vedolizumab trough levels in patients with and without combined remission within the first year of treatment., Methods: We prospectively collected vedolizumab trough levels in 51 consecutive patients (28 Crohn's disease (CD) and 23 ulcerative colitis (UC)) before all infusions up to week 22, and at weeks 38 and 54, with concentrations measured after study completion. Centrally read endoscopy was performed at a median of 46 weeks. The primary outcome was combined endoscopic (CD: Simple endoscopic score for CD (SES-CD) < 4 without ulceration; UC: Mayo endoscopic subscore ≤ 1) and clinical remission (CD: resolution of abdominal pain; UC: resolution of rectal bleeding; both: resolution of altered bowel habit)., Results: Median vedolizumab trough levels at weeks 6 (25.7 vs 15.6 µg/mL; P  = 0.015) and 22 (15.1 vs 4.9 µg/mL; P  = 0.001) were higher in patients with combined remission. A threshold of 22 µg/mL at week 6 (area under the curve (AUC) 0.733; 95% confidence interval 0.567-0.899) and 8 µg/mL at week 22 (AUC 0.819; 95% confidence interval 0.692-0.946) predicted combined remission., Conclusion: Early vedolizumab trough levels predicted combined endoscopic and clinical remission highlighting their possible use in clinical practice.

Background: Combination treatment with azathioprine for 6-12 months is the preferred strategy for starting infliximab due to improved pharmacokinetics. However, optimised infliximab monotherapy with proactive dose escalations in case of low trough levels is a safer but under-studied alternative., Aim: To compare the clinical success and infliximab consumption of combination vs optimised monotherapy strategies., Methods: We studied the clinical success and infliximab consumption of both strategies in 149 patients (94 Crohn's disease; 55 ulcerative colitis) starting infliximab and undergoing intensive drug monitoring assisted treatment optimisation., Results: The drug retention rates were similar for optimised monotherapy and combination treatment after induction (96% vs 97%, P = 0.73), after the first year (90% vs 83%, P = 0.23) and at the end of follow-up (74% vs 75%, P = 0.968). Similarly, no differences were observed for steroid use at year 1 (5% vs 14%, P = 0.08) or mucosal healing at the end of follow-up (64% vs 67%, P = 0.8). Higher infliximab consumption (7.6 mg/kg q8 weeks [interquartile range (IQR): 5.9-10.3] vs 6.4 mg/kg q8 weeks [IQR: 5.2-8.0], P = 0.019) combined with lower trough levels (1.7 µg/mL [IQR: 0.3-6.6] vs 5.0 µg/mL [2.5-8.7], P = 0.012) resulted in almost 3-fold higher drug-to-trough ratio (3.9 vs 1.5) in monotherapy compared to combination strategy at year 1. At the end of follow-up, when azathioprine had been discontinued for a median of 14 [IQR: 3-33] months, these differences disappeared., Conclusions: In this study, optimised infliximab monotherapy was as clinically effective as combination therapy but was associated with significantly higher infliximab consumption. The infliximab-sparing effect disappeared after azathioprine withdrawal., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Intussusception is a rare cause of small bowel obstruction in adults, up to 30% of cases are caused by small bowel malignancy. Intestinal leiomyosarcoma is an extremely rare malignant mesenchymal tumour. An 80-year-old male presented with small bowel obstruction. Abdominal ultrasonography and a subsequent CT scan showed small bowel obstruction due to ileo-ileal intussusception. The patient underwent an emergency exploratory laparotomy, which confirmed prior findings on imaging. The affected segment of the ileum was resected and a primary entero-enteral anastomosis was created. Histopathological analysis revealed a 4.8 cm leiomyosarcoma. The patient remains without evidence of disease 12 months after initial presentation. Radical surgical resection remains the treatment of choice for leiomyosarcoma, with no convincing evidence supporting adjuvant treatment. Tumours smaller than 5 cm appear to have a more favourable prognosis.

BACKGROUND We tested the concept of improving arterial wall characteristics by treatment with a very low-dose combination of fluvastatin and valsartan (low-flu/val) in stable, post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS We enrolled 36 post-MI middle-aged males in the treatment (n=20) or control (n=16) group receiving low-flu/val (10 mg/20 mg) or placebo, respectively. The parameters of endothelial function (flow-mediated dilatation (FMD), reactive hyperemia index), and arterial stiffness (carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cf-PWV), local carotid PWV, and beta stiffness coefficient) were measured before and after 30 days of therapy, and 10 weeks later. RESULTS Treatment with low-flu/val improved FMD from 3.1±1.3% to 4.8±1.5% (p<0.001; by 54.8%) and cf-PWV from 7.8±1.1 to 6.7±1.5 m/s (p<0.01; by 14.1%) without affecting either lipids or blood pressure. In the treatment group, FMD and/or cf-PWV significantly improved in 17 patients, but the improvements did not correlate. The benefits obtained were still detectable 10 weeks after complete treatment cessation. No changes were obtained in the control group. No other vascular parameters changed. CONCLUSIONS Low-flu/val added "on top of" optimal therapy substantially improves endothelial function and arterial stiffness in post-MI patients. Since these improved parameters are well-known predictors of future coronary events, such treatment could decrease cardiovascular risk. Further studies are therefore warranted.

Introduction: The diagnosis and management of upper gastrointestinal tract submucosal tumours can be challenging due to the difficulties with adequate pre-operative characterization and tissue sampling., Presentation of the Case: A 61-year-old female patient underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy because of epigastric pain and episodic vomiting. A submucosal tumour was found along the greater curvature in the antrum. On endoscopic ultrasound, the mass was suspected to be a gastrointestinal stromal tumour. The patient was referred for laparoscopic excision. The final histopathological examination confirmed an ectopic pancreas, not a gastrointestinal stromal tumour as thought preoperatively., Discussion: Despite an adequate pre-operative diagnostic workup with endoscopic ultrasonography, the lesion was misdiagnosed as a gastrointestinal stromal tumour and surgery was performed to excise an ectopic pancreas, essentially a benign lesion., Conclusion: The case highlights the absence of firm diagnostic criteria to differentiate submucosal gastric lesions., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite optimum treatment, patients who experience myocardial infarction are still at high risk for future events., Objective: We evaluated the effect of 30 days of treatment with combination of low, subtherapeutic doses of fluvastatin and valsartan on arterial stiffness in patients after myocardial infarction, a therapy that has not been used yet., Methods: Fourteen male patients with a history of myocardial infarction were enrolled into a pilot double-blind randomized controlled study. They were allocated to receive 10 mg fluvastatin and 20 mg valsartan or placebo for 30 days in addition to their regular pharmacotherapy. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity was measured on inclusion, after 30 days, and after 3 months., Results: Mean (SD) carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity decreased significantly in the treatment group after 30 days and persisted at lower values after 3 months (from 8.4 [1.5] m/sec to 7.3 [1.1] m/sec to 7.2 [0.8] m/sec; P < 0.05). The 95% CI for decrease after 30 days in the treatment group was 0.5-1.6. Only nonsignificant changes were observed in the control group. Serum lipid levels and arterial blood pressure did not change significantly in any group., Conclusions: The treatment resulted in a significant and sustained improvement of arterial stiffness in male patients with a history of myocardial infarction, which highlights the need for further study of this new approach.