Search

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal tract that is associated with malnutrition. Malnutrition is associated with poor clinical outcomes in patients with IBD and therefore early identification of those at risk for malnutrition is crucial. We aimed to evaluate how frequently nutrition screening occurs in a large, tertiary care outpatient IBD center and to initiate an intervention to improve malnutrition screening for patients with IBD.We used a traditional plan-do-study-act quality improvement technique to understand our current malnutrition screening practices and institute an intervention to improve screening. To do this, we utilized a modified Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (mMUST) and integrated this into the electronic health record. We then evaluated the intervention and the impact on IBD related clinical outcomes.Prior to the intervention, few patients with IBD were screened for malnutrition. However, the number of patients screened for malnutrition significantly improved with the study intervention and those who were identified as high-risk had increased nutrition follow up including serum micronutrient evaluations and referral to a dedicated registered dietician.This study demonstrated the feasibility and impact of a malnutrition screening program in ambulatory IBD patients. Those patients identified as high risk for malnutrition who engaged in nutrition care had improved clinical outcomes including reduced hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

Children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may respond differently to COVID-19 immunization as compared with healthy children or adults with IBD. Those younger than 12 years receive a lower vaccine dose than adults. We sought to describe the safety and humoral immune response to COVID-19 vaccine in children with IBD.We recruited children with IBD, ages 5-17 years, who received ≥ 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine by a direct-to-patient outreach and at select sites. Patient demographics, IBD characteristics, medication use, and vaccine adverse events were collected. A subset of participants had quantitative measurement of anti-receptor binding domain IgG antibodies after 2-part immunization.Our study population included 280 participants. Only 1 participant required an ED visit or hospitalization because of an adverse event. Of 99 participants who underwent anti-receptor binding domain IgG antibody measurement, 98 had a detectable antibody, with a mean antibody level of 43.0 μg/mL (SD 67) and a median of 22 μg/mL (interquartile range 12-38). In adjusted analyses, older age ( P = 0.028) and antitumor necrosis factor monotherapy compared with immunomodulators alone ( P = 0.005) were associated with a decreased antibody level. Antibody response in patients treated with antitumor necrosis factor combination vs monotherapy was numerically lower but not significant.Humoral immune response to COVID-19 immunization in children with IBD was robust, despite a high proportion of this pediatric cohort being treated with immunosuppressive agents. Severe vaccine-related AEs were rare. Overall, these findings provide a high level of reassurance that pediatric patients with IBD respond well and safely to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Background and Aims Integrated IBD care is effective but not routinely implemented. Validated methods that simultaneously address mind and body targets such as resilience may improve access and outcomes. We describe the development and implementation of the GRITTTM Method and its impact on resilience, health care resource utilization (HCRU) and opioid use in IBD. Methods Consecutive patients from an academic IBD center were evaluated for low resilience based on provider referral. Low resilience patients were invited to participate in the GRITTTM program. Primary outcome was % reduction in HCU. Secondary outcomes were change in resilience, corticosteroid and opioid use. Patients were allocated into 2 groups for analysis: GRITT Participants (GP) and Non-Participants (NP). Clinical data and HCU in the year prior to enrollment were collected at baseline and 12 months. One-way repeated measures MANCOVA evaluated group X time interactions for the primary outcome. Effect size was calculated for changes in resilience over time. Results Of 456 screened IBD patients 394 were eligible; 184 GP and 210 NP. GP had greater reduction in HCU than NP: 71% reduction in ED visits; 94% reduction in unplanned hospitalizations. There was a 49% reduction in opioid use and 73% reduction in corticosteroid use in GP. Resilience increased by 27.3 points (59%), yielding a large effect size (d=2.4). Conclusion Mind-body care that focuses on building resilience in the context of IBD care may be a novel approach to reduce unplanned health care utilization and opioid use but large, multi-center, randomized, controlled trials are needed.

Background Observational studies have described racial differences in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) genetics, clinical manifestations, and outcomes. Whether race impacts response to biologics in IBD is unclear. We conducted a post hoc analysis of phase 2 and 3 randomized clinical trials in ulcerative colitis to evaluate the effect of race on response to golimumab. Methods We analyzed pooled individual-level data from induction and maintenance trials of golimumab through the Yale Open Data Access Project. The primary outcome was clinical response. Secondary outcomes were clinical remission and endoscopic healing. Multivariable logistic regression was performed comparing White vs racial minority groups (Asian, Black, or other race), adjusting for potential confounders. Results There were 1006 participants in the induction (18% racial minority) and 783 participants in the maintenance (17% racial minority) trials. Compared with White participants, participants from racial minority groups had significantly lower clinical response (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.66), clinical remission (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.77), and endoscopic healing (aOR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.74) at week 6. Participants from racial minority groups also had significantly lower clinical remission (aOR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28-0.74) and endoscopic healing (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.96) at week 30. There were no racial differences in placebo response rates. Conclusions Ulcerative colitis participants from racial minority groups were less likely to achieve clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic healing with golimumab compared with White participants in induction and maintenance trials. Further studies are needed to understand the impact of race on therapeutic response in IBD.

Background Tofacitinib is an oral, small-molecule JAK inhibitor for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). Using a novel electronic reporting tool, we aimed to prospectively describe the onset of tofacitinib efficacy during induction therapy in a real-world study. Methods Patient-reported outcome data (PROs) including the simple clinical colitis activity index (SCCAI), PRO Measurement Identification Systems (PROMIS) measures, and adverse events were collected daily for the first 14 days and at day 28 and 56. Paired t tests and P for trend were utilized to compare changes in SCCAI over time. Bivariate analyses and logistic regression models were performed to describe response (SCCAI Results Of all included patients (n = 96), 67% had failed ≥2 biologics, and 61.5% were on concomitant steroids. Starting at day 3, PROs showed significant and persistent decline of the mean SCCAI (−1.1, P < 000.1) including significantly lower SCCAI subscores for stool frequency (−0.3; P < .003), bleeding (−0.3; P < .0002) and urgency (−0.2; P < .001). Steroid-free remission at day 14, 28, and 56 was achieved in 25%, 30.2%, and 29.2% of patients, respectively. Neither prior biologics nor endoscopic severity were independently predictive of response or remission in multivariate models. Numeric improvements in all PROMIS measures (anxiety, depression, social satisfaction) were seen through day 56. Rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were low. Conclusions In this prospective real-world study, tofacitinib resulted in a rapid and persistent improvement in UC disease activity PROs. The safety findings were consistent with the established safety profile of tofacitinib.

Background Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at an increased risk of malnutrition. The goal of this study was to define the prevalence of malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies in recently diagnosed IBD patients and to compare the performance of existing malnutrition screening tools in identifying IBD patients at increased risk for malnutrition. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with recently diagnosed IBD (≤18 months disease duration). A diagnosis of malnutrition was made utilizing the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism malnutrition criteria. Serum micronutrient levels were included. The sensitivity of 5 malnutrition screening tools in identifying patients at moderate-high risk of malnutrition was determined based on the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism malnutrition definition. Descriptive statistics summarized the data and univariate analyses tested associations. Results A total of 182 patients were included for analysis; 65 (36%) met criteria for malnutrition. A total of 135 (74%) patients had ≥1 micronutrient level checked and 105 (78%) had ≥1 deficiency. Patients with prior surgery (odds ratio [OR], 4.5; P = .004), active Crohn’s disease (OR, 2.8; P = .03), and diarrhea (OR, 2.1; P = .02) were more likely to be malnourished. The Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool and Saskatchewan IBD Nutrition Risk Tool had the highest sensitivity (100%) in predicting those at moderate-high risk of malnutrition at the time of screening. Conclusions Patients with recently diagnosed IBD have a high prevalence of malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies. Both the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool and Saskatchewan IBD Nutrition Risk Tool can be used to identify those at increased risk of malnutrition. Future studies and screening tool development are necessary to identify those at risk of developing malnutrition to facilitate timely referral for nutritional evaluation and prevent disease related complications.

Background and Aims The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is largely unknown. We characterised the impact of COVID-19 on IBD care by conducting an analysis of US health care claims data. Methods We obtained de-identified, open-source, health insurance claims data, from January 2019 to December 2020, from the Symphony Health Integrated Dataverse for US adults with IBD, and measured the rates per 1000 patients of five outcomes: colonoscopies; new biologic or small molecule treatment initiations or treatment switches; new biologic or small molecule treatment initiations or treatment switches in patients who had a colonoscopy within the previous 60 days; IBD-related surgeries; and telehealth consultations. Results For 2019 and 2020, 1.32 million and 1.29 million patients with IBD, respectively, were included in the analysis. In March–April 2020, the rates of colonoscopies [17.39 vs 34.44], new biologic or small molecule treatment initiations or switches in patients who had a colonoscopy within the previous 60 days [0.76 vs 1.18], and IBD-related surgeries [2.33 vs 2.99] per 1000 patients were significantly decreased versus January–February 2020; significant year on year decreases versus 2019 were also observed. Telehealth utilisation increased in March 2020 and remained higher than in 2019 up to December 2020. Conclusions Reduction in colonoscopies and subsequent initiation/switching of treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic suggest lost opportunities for therapy optimisation which may have an impact on longer-term patient outcomes. Increased utilisation of telehealth services may have helped address gaps in routine clinical care.

BACKGROUND: Disability in patients with medically refractory ulcerative colitis (UC) after total proctocolectomy (TPC) with ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is not well understood. The aim of this study was to compare disability in patients with IPAA vs medically managed UC, and identify predictors of disability. METHODS: This was a multi-center cross-sectional study performed at five academic institutions in New York City. Patients with medically or surgically treated UC were recruited. Clinical and socioeconomic data were collected and the inflammatory bowel disease disability index (IBD-DI) was administered to eligible patients. Predictors of moderate-severe disability (IBD-DI≥35) were assessed in univariable and multivariable models. RESULTS: A total of 94 patients with IPAA and 128 patients with medically managed UC completed the IBD-DI. Among patients with IPAA and UC, 35 (37.2%) and 30 (23.4%) had moderate-severe disability, respectively. Patients with IPAA had significantly greater IBD-DI scores compared to patients with medically managed UC (29.8 vs 17.9, p

Purpose of Review: Crohn’s Disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disease that can lead to progressive damage to the gastrointestinal tract and significant disability. Early, “top-down” biologic therapy is recommended in moderate-to-severe CD to induce remission and to prevent hospitalization and complications. However, an estimated 20–30% of patients with CD have a mild disease course and may not garner sufficient benefit from expensive, immunosuppressing agents to justify their risks. Herein, we review characteristics of patients with mild CD, the available options for disease treatment and monitoring, and future directions of research. Recent Findings: For ambulatory outpatients with low-risk, mild, ileal or ileocolonic CD, induction of remission with budesonide is recommended. For colonic CD, sulfasalazine is a reasonable choice, although other aminosalicylates have no role in the treatment of CD. No large, randomized trial has supported the use of antibiotics or antimycobacterials in the treatment of CD. Partial Enteral Nutrition and Crohn’s Disease Exclusion Diets may be appropriate for inducing remission in some adult patients, with trials ongoing. Select patients with mild-to-moderate CD may benefit from maintenance therapy with azathioprines or gut specific biologics, such as vedolizumab. The role of complementary and alternative medicine is not well defined. Summary: The identification, risk stratification, and monitoring of patients with mild CD can be a challenging clinical scenario. Some patients with low risk of disease progression may be appropriate for initial induction of remission with budesonide or sulfasalazine, followed by close clinical monitoring. Future research should focus on pre-clinical biomarkers to stratify disease, novel therapies with minimal systemic immune suppression, and validation of rigorous clinical monitoring algorithms.

BACKGROUND: Escalation to anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on thiopurine is a common clinical scenario. However, the impact of discontinuing thiopurine at escalation is unclear.AIM: To assess the impact of discontinuing versus continuing thiopurine therapy at anti-TNF initiation.METHODS: We used the Danish registries to establish a national cohort of patients with IBD on thiopurine therapy prior to initiating anti-TNF from 2003 to 2018. We compared patients discontinuing thiopurine therapy within 90 days of anti-TNF initiation to those continuing. Our primary outcome was a composite of any new oral corticosteroid use, IBD-related hospitalization, surgery or death. We used Cox regression models to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).RESULTS: Of the 10,352 anti-TNF exposed patients, 2,630 (1590 Crohn's disease (CD) and 1040 ulcerative colitis (UC)) received thiopurines prior to anti-TNF. After anti-TNF initiation, 979 patients discontinued thiopurines. Discontinuing thiopurines within 90 days of anti-TNF initiation, increased the risk of the primary outcome (aHR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.10-1.36), particularly for IBD-related hospitalization (aHR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.00-1.31) and oral corticosteroid use (aHR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.13-1.44). This increased risk of the primary outcome was seen in both CD (aHR: 1.17; 95% CI 1.02-1.34) and UC (aHR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.12-1.55).CONCLUSIONS: In a nationwide cohort study of IBD patients, we observed that discontinuing thiopurines after anti-TNF initiation was associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes, in particular an increase in hospitalizations. Further interventional studies exploring this common clinical scenario are required.

Background & Aims We aimed to compare safety and effectiveness of vedolizumab to tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-antagonist therapy in ulcerative colitis in routine practice. Methods A multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study (May 2014 to December 2017) of ulcerative colitis patients treated with vedolizumab or TNF-antagonist therapy. Propensity score weighted comparisons for development of serious adverse events and achievement of clinical remission, steroid-free clinical remission, and steroid-free deep remission. A priori determined subgroup comparisons in TNF-antagonist–naive and –exposed patients, and for vedolizumab against infliximab and subcutaneous TNF-antagonists separately. Results A total of 722 (454 vedolizumab, 268 TNF antagonist) patients were included. Vedolizumab-treated patients were more likely to achieve clinical remission (hazard ratio [HR], 1.651; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.229-2.217), steroid-free clinical remission (HR, 1.828; 95% CI, 1.135-2.944), and steroid-free deep remission (HR, 2.819; 95% CI, 1.496-5.310) than those treated with TNF antagonists. Results were consistent across subgroup analyses in TNF-antagonist–naive and −exposed patients, and for vedolizumab vs infliximab and vs subcutaneous TNF-antagonist agents separately. Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in the risk of serious adverse events (HR, 0.899; 95% CI, 0.502-1.612) or serious infections (HR, 1.235; 95% CI, 0.608-2.511) between vedolizumab-treated and TNF-antagonist−treated patients. However, in TNF-antagonist−naive patients, vedolizumab was less likely to be associated with serious adverse events than TNF antagonists (HR, 0.192; 95% CI, 0.049-0.754). Conclusions Treatment of ulcerative colitis with vedolizumab is associated with higher rates of remission than treatment with TNF-antagonist therapy in routine practice, and lower rates of serious adverse events in TNF-antagonist−naive patients.

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination is recommended for all individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including those on immunosuppressive therapies; however, little is known about vaccine safety and efficacy in these patients or the impact of vaccination on IBD disease course. Methods We evaluated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine–related adverse events (AEs) and the effect of vaccination on IBD disease course among participants in the PREVENT-COVID (Partnership to Report Effectiveness of Vaccination in populations Excluded from iNitial Trials of COVID) study, a prospective, observational cohort study. Localized and systemic reactions were assessed via questionnaire. Disease flare was defined by worsening IBD symptoms and change in IBD medications. Outcomes were stratified by vaccine type and IBD medication classes. Results A total of 3316 individuals with IBD received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccine. Injection site tenderness (68%) and fatigue (46% dose 1, 68% dose 2) were the most commonly reported localized and systemic AEs after vaccination. Severe localized and systemic vaccine-related AEs were rare. The mRNA-1273 vaccine was associated with significantly greater severe AEs at dose 2 (localized 4% vs 2%, systemic 15% vs 10%; P < .001 for both). Prior COVID-19 infection, female sex, and vaccine type were associated with severe systemic reactions to dose 1, while age Conclusions Our findings provide reassurance that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine is safe and well tolerated among individuals with IBD, which may help to combat vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine confidence.

Aim There are limited data on the impact of 2 vs 3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The primary aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine based on number of administered doses in patients with IBD. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a multi-institutional database to compare patients with IBD who received 1, 2, or 3 doses of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 to unvaccinated IBD patients (1.1.2020-7.26.2022) to assess the risk of COVID-19 after 1:1 propensity score matching. We also evaluated the impact of vaccine on a composite of severe COVID-19 outcomes including hospitalization, intubation, intensive care unit care, acute kidney injury, or mortality. Results After propensity score matching, vaccinated patients with 2 (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-0.9) and 3 doses (aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9) were found to have a lower risk of COVID-19 compared with unvaccinated patients. Vaccinated patients with IBD had a lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes (aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9) compared with unvaccinated patients. There was no difference in the risk of COVID-19 in IBD patients with 2 compared with 3 doses (aOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.7-1.3). However, IBD patients with 2 doses were at an increased risk for hospitalization due to COVID-19 (aOR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.02-3.11) compared with those that received 3 doses. Conclusion Vaccinated patients with IBD had a lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with unvaccinated patients. A third dose of COVID-19 vaccine compared with 2 doses decreases the risk of hospitalization but not breakthrough infection in patients with IBD.

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may take medications that affect their immune system, altering their ability to fight infection or making them less responsive to vaccines. Many of these patients were excluded from original studies regarding COVID-19, which creates a challenge for gastroenterologists to use evidence-based medicine to guide their management. We reviewed the available literature regarding patients with IBD and COVID-19 outcomes and response to vaccinations. Of all IBD patients, 0.3-24% acquired COVID-19 infection and 7-67% of those patients required hospitalization. Many studies have analyzed the effects of COVID-19 on patients with IBD. Observational studies suggest most IBD patients are not at higher risk from COVID-19 infection and that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective and recommended. However, patients being treated with a TNF-α inhibitor with an immunomodulator and patients being treated with steroids should be monitored closely and efforts should be made to wean patients off of systemic steroids if possible. Patients treated with these regimens had lower antibody responses to vaccination and were at higher risk of acquiring severe COVID-19 infection. Antibody responses were robust after the second dose of mRNA vaccines with 85-100% of individuals showing seroconversion, albeit with lower levels of antibodies compared to the general population.

Background and Aims Age is a major prognostic factor for COVID-19 outcomes. The effect of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] activity on COVID-19 is unclear. We examined the relationship between IBD activity and COVID-19 severity according to age. Methods We included IBD patients diagnosed with COVID-19, reported to SECURE-IBD between March 13, 2020 and August 3, 2021. Clinical IBD activity was measured by physician global assessment [PGA]. COVID-19-related outcomes were [1] intensive care unit [ICU] admission, ventilation or death, and [2] hospitalization. Using generalized estimating equations, we determined adjusted odds ratios [aOR, 95% confidence interval] for moderate and severe PGA vs clinical remission/mild PGA, controlling for demographics, medications and COVID-19 diagnosis period. We performed stratified analyses by age [≤50 vs >50 years]. Results Among 6078 patients, adverse COVID-19 outcomes were more common with active IBD: ICU/ventilation/death in 3.6% [175/4898] of remission/mild, 4.9% [45/920] of moderate and 8.8% [23/260] of severe [p < 0.001]; and hospitalization in 13% [649/4898] of remission/mild, 19% [178/920] of moderate and 38% [100/260] of severe [p < 0.001]. Stratified by decade, effect sizes were larger for younger patients. In patients ≤50 years, severe PGA was independently associated with ICU/ventilation/death (aOR 3.27 [1.15–9.30]) and hospitalization (aOR 4.62 [2.83–7.55]). In contrast, severe PGA was not independently associated with COVID-19 outcomes in those older than 50 years. Conclusions Clinically active IBD may be a risk factor for severe COVID-19, particularly in younger patients. IBD disease control, including through medication compliance, and strategies to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 infection amongst patients with active IBD [e.g. distancing, immunization] are key to limit adverse COVID-19 outcomes.

Background Anxiety and depression are comorbid disorders with IBD and are associated with poor outcomes. Resilience is an innate but modifiable trait that may improve the symptoms of psychological disorders. Increasing resilience may decrease the severity of these comorbid disorders, which may improve IBD outcomes. The aim of this study was to describe the association between resilience, anxiety, and depression in IBD patients. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study of IBD patients. Patients completed a questionnaire consisting of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), a measure of resilience, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Primary outcome was severity of anxiety and depression in patients with high resilience. Multivariable linear regression analysis evaluated the association between severity of anxiety and depression and level of resilience. Results A sample of 288 patients was analyzed. Bivariable linear regression analysis showed a negative association between resilience and anxiety (Pearson rho = −0.47; P < .0001) and between resilience and depression (Pearson rho = −0.53; P < .0001). Multivariable linear regression indicated that high resilience is independently associated with lower anxiety and that for every 1-unit increase in CD-RISC, the GAD-7 score decreased by 0.04 units (P = .0003). Unlike anxiety, the association between resilience and depression did not remain statistically significant on multivariable analysis. Conclusions High resilience is independently associated with lower anxiety in IBD patients, and we report a quantifiable decrease in anxiety score severity for every point of increase in resilience score. These findings suggest that IBD patients with higher resilience may have better coping mechanisms that buffer against the development of anxiety.

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), including Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, are chronic, progressive, immune-mediated diseases of adults and children that have no cure. IBD can cause significant morbidity and lead to complications such as strictures, fistulas, infections, and cancer. In children, IBD can also result in growth impairment and pubertal delays. IBD is highly heterogenous, with severity ranging from mild to severe and symptoms ranging from mild to debilitating. Delay in IBD diagnosis, especially in Crohn’s disease, is common and associated with adverse outcomes. Early diagnosis and prompt institution of treatment are the cornerstones for improving outcomes and maximizing health. Early diagnosis requires a low threshold of suspicion and red flags to guide early specialist referral at the primary provider level. Although the armamentarium of IBD medications is growing, many patients will not respond to treatment, and the selection of first-line therapy is critical. Risk stratification of disease severity, based on clinical, demographic, and serologic markers, can help guide selection of first-line therapy. Clinical decision support tools, genomics, and other biomarkers of response to therapy and risk of adverse events are the future of personalized medicine. After starting appropriate therapy, it is important to confirm remission using objective end points (treat to target) with continued control of inflammation with adjustment of therapy using surrogate biomarkers (tight control). Lastly, IBD therapy extends far beyond medications, and other aspects of the overall health and wellbeing of the patient are critical. These include preventive health, nutrition, and psychobehavioral support addressing patients’ concerns around complementary therapy and medication adherence, prevention of disability, and ensuring open communication.

On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization declared the 2019 novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 [SARS-CoV-2]) epidemic a global pandemic. Physicians, scientists, and patients scrambled to gain an understanding of the implications of this dire situation, and societies and organizations tried to provide guidance of best practices and precautions. In the inflammatory bowel disease community (IBD), the International Organization for the study of IBD (IOIBD) convened their expert members and performed a RAND panel assessment to develop recommendations for patients and providers. Others developed an international open registry to collect data about patients with IBD who developed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), the Surveillance Epidemiology of COVID-19 Under Research Exclusion (SECURE-IBD), in order to collect evidence on how COVID-19 impacted IBD patients. To date, SECURE-IBD has amassed 3,493 cases with outcomes3 and published initial analyses. In addition, there were multiple articles published with individual or multi-center experiences, city or regional experiences, and many case reports about IBD or immunemediated disease outcomes. Separately, there was significant activity by translational and basic scientists working to define and describe the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are important for protection from COVID-19; however, patients with immune-mediated conditions and patients taking immunosuppressive medications, including patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), were excluded from studies demonstrating the safety and efficacy of these vaccines. This article provides an overview of the research and recommendations currently published on vaccines against COVID-19 in adult populations with IBD, including studies evaluating effects of commonly used medications. COVID-19 vaccines are strongly recommended for patients with IBD. Messenger RNA (mRNA) and adenovirus vector vaccines are safe in patients with IBD, and reports of severe reactions or IBD flares are rare. Studies assessing antibody response, T-cell immunity, and real-world experience demonstrate positive outcomes for mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines in patients with IBD, although mRNA vaccines may have a slight advantage. Studies assessing inactive COVID-19 vaccines are still needed. Immunosuppressive therapies used in IBD, especially tumor necrosis factor antagonists, combination therapy, and corticosteroids, may reduce antibody responses and durability, but the impact on infection, hospitalizations, and death requires further evaluation. Educating patients with this evidence-based information will likely help to reduce concerns and vaccine hesitancy.

Severe and fulminant Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. While fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has proved to be a highly effective treatment for recurrent CDI, its efficacy in severe or fulminant CDI remains uncertain. To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis evaluating clinical outcomes and safety of FMT in severe and fulminant CDI. A systemic review with meta-analysis was performed through comprehensive search of Embase, Medline (Ovid), trial registers, and conference abstracts through January 2020. Studies on FMT in severe and fulminant CDI were included. Meta-analysis was done with random effects models given heterogeneity to estimate rates of cure, mortality, and colectomy. Publication bias was assessed using Egger’s test. Sixteen studies comprised of one randomized controlled trial, four cohort studies, and eleven case series were analyzed. In total, 676 patients underwent FMT for severe or fulminant CDI. The overall rate of clinical cure after single FMT was 61.3% (95% CI 43.2–78.0%) with 10.9% (95% CI 0.2–30.2%) of patients experiencing major adverse events. The overall pooled colectomy rate after FMT was 8.2% (95% CI 0.1–23.7%) with a pooled all-cause mortality rate after FMT of 15.6% (95% CI 7.8–25.0%). Low-quality data support the use of fecal microbiota transplantation in patients with severe and fulminant Clostridioides difficile infection.

OBJECTIVE: There are limited data on the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on hospitalized patients with autoimmune and chronic inflammatory disease (AICID) compared with patients who do not have AICID. We sought to evaluate whether patients with AICID who have confirmed COVID-19 presenting to the hospital are at higher risk of adverse outcomes compared with those patients without AICID who are infected with COVID-19 and whether immunosuppressive medications impact this risk. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study with patients presenting to five hospitals in a large academic health system with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 infection. We evaluated the impact of having an AICID and class of immunosuppressive medication being used to treat patients with AICID (biologics, nonbiologic immunosuppressives, or systemic corticosteroids) on the risk of developing severe COVID-19 defined as requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) and/or death. RESULTS: A total of 6792 patients with confirmed COVID-19 were included in the study, with 159 (2.3%) having at least one AICID. On multivariable analysis, AICIDs were not significantly associated with severe COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9-1.8). Among patients with AICID, use of biologics or nonbiologic immunosuppressives did not increase the risk of severe COVID-19. In contrast, systemic corticosteroid use was significantly associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 (aOR 6.8, 95% CI: 2.5-18.4). CONCLUSION: Patients with AICID are not at increased risk of severe COVID-19 with the exception of those on corticosteroids. These data suggest that patients with AICID should continue on biologic and nonbiologic immunosuppression but limit steroids during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background While immunosuppression poses a theoretical increase in the risk of COVID‐19, the nature of this relationship is yet to be ascertained. Aims To determine whether immunosuppressed patients are at higher risk of COVID‐19 to help inform the management of patients receiving immunosuppressant therapies during the pandemic. Methods We performed a random‐effects meta‐analysis of data from studies that reported on the prevalence of immunosuppression among patient cohorts with COVID‐19. Results Sixty full‐text publications were identified. In total, six individual studies were included in the final analysis, contributing a total of 10 049 patients with COVID‐19 disease. The prevalence of immunosuppressed patients among the study cohorts with COVID‐19 ranged from 0.126% to 1.357%. In the pooled cohort a total of 64/10 049 (0.637%) patients with COVID‐19 disease was immunosuppressed. Observed to expected ratios were used to compare the prevalence of immunosuppression in cohorts with confirmed COVID‐19 disease to the background prevalence of immunosuppression in the general community. The observed to expected ratio of immunosuppression among patients with COVID‐19 illness, relative to the general community, was 0.12 (95% confidence interval: 0.05–0.27). Conclusions Compared to the general population, immunosuppressed patients were not at significantly increased risk of COVID‐19 infection. This finding provides support for current expert consensus statements, which have recommended the continuation of immunosuppressant therapy in the absence of COVID‐19.

Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a complex disease with variable presentation, progression, and response to therapies. Current disease classification is based on subjective clinical phenotypes. The peripheral blood immunophenome can reflect local inflammation, and thus we measured 39 circulating immune cell types in a large cohort of IBD and control subjects and performed immunotype:phenotype associations. Methods We performed fluorescence-activated cell sorting or CyTOF analysis on blood from 728 Crohn’s disease, 464 ulcerative colitis, and 334 non-IBD patients, with available demographics, endoscopic and clinical examinations and medication use. Results We observed few immune cell types commonly affected in IBD (lowered natural killer cells, B cells, and CD45RA– CD8 T cells). Generally, the immunophenome was distinct between ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Within disease subtype, there were further distinctions, with specific immune cell types associating with disease duration, behavior, and location. Thiopurine monotherapy altered abundance of many cell types, often in the same direction as disease association, while anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) monotherapy demonstrated an opposing pattern. Concomitant use of an anti-TNF and thiopurine was not synergistic, but rather was additive. For example, thiopurine monotherapy use alone or in combination with anti-TNF was associated with a dramatic reduction in major subclasses of B cells. Conclusions We present a peripheral map of immune cell changes in IBD related to disease entity and therapies as a resource for hypothesis generation. We propose the changes in B cell subsets could affect antibody formation and potentially explain the mechanism behind the superiority of combination therapy through the impact of thiopurines on pharmacokinetics of anti-TNFs., Graphical abstract

Approximately 20% of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who undergo total proctocolectomy (TPC) with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) develop chronic pouch inflammation (CPI).

Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD] are frequently treated with immunosuppressant medications. During the coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19] pandemic, recommendations for IBD management have included that patients should stay on their immunosuppressant medications if they are not infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2], but to temporarily hold these medications if symptomatic with COVID-19 or asymptomatic but have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. As more IBD patients are infected globally, it is important to also understand how to manage IBD medications during convalescence while an individual with IBD is recovering from COVID-19. In this review, we address the differences between a test-based versus a symptoms-based strategy as related to COVID-19, and offer recommendations on when it is appropriate to consider restarting IBD therapy in patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 or with clinical symptoms consistent with COVID-19. In general, we recommend a symptoms-based approach, due to the current lack of confidence in the accuracy of available testing and the clinical significance of prolonged detection of virus via molecular testing.

Lay Summary We demonstrate low rates of breakthrough coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and mild course of illness following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination in a large cohort of inflammatory bowel disease patients. Residence in southern United States and lower median anti-receptor binding antibody level were associated with development of COVID-19.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients are known to benefit from care delivered in a specialized, interdisciplinary setting. We aimed to evaluate the impact of this model on health outcomes, quality metrics, and health care resource utilization (HRU) in IBD patients insured with Medicaid.In July 2017, IBD patients at our tertiary hospital were transitioned from a fellows' general gastroenterology (GI) clinic to a fellows' interdisciplinary IBD clinic. IBD patients were included if they were insured with Medicaid, had at least 1 visit in the general GI clinic between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017, and at least 1 visit between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018 in the IBD clinic. Characteristics related to patients' IBD course, overall health care maintenance, and HRU were compared.A total of 170 patients (51% male, mean age 39 y) were included. After the transition to the IBD clinic, use of corticosteroids (37% vs. 25%; P=0.004) and combination therapy were significantly lower (55% vs. 38%; P=0.0004), although use of high-dose biologics numerically increased (58.5% vs. 67%; P=0.05). Posttransition, patients showed significantly lower levels of mean C-reactive protein (P=0.04). After the transition, patients attended significantly fewer outpatient GI visits (P=0.0008) but were more often seen by other health care specialists (P=0.0003), and experienced a numeric decrease in HRU with fewer emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and surgeries.Care in an interdisciplinary, IBD specialty setting is associated with significantly decreased corticosteroid use, decreased C-reactive protein levels, and improved access to ancillary services in Medicaid patients.

Summary Intake of specific dietary macro- and micronutrients has been implicated in modulating the risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)(Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;15:525-535). Recent epidemiological and pre-clinical studies have additionally examined the impact of non-nutritional dietary components on IBD. Ultra-processed foods (UPF), as defined by the NOVA classification, are foods of mainly industrial origin, often containing little or no whole foods but many ingredients including food additives such as artificial colors and flavors, stabilizers, emulsifiers, and preservatives(Public Health Nutr 2019;22:936-941). The objective of the study by Narula et al (BMJ 2021;374:n1554) was to examine the association between intake of UPF and the risk of developing IBD.

We evaluated the real-world effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab (UST) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD).This study used a retrospective, multicenter, multinational consortium of UST-treated CD patients. Data included patient demographics, disease phenotype, disease activity, treatment history, and concomitant medications. Cumulative rates of clinical, steroid-free, endoscopic, and radiographic remissions were assessed using time-to-event analysis, and clinical predictors were assessed by using multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses. Serious infections and adverse events were defined as those requiring hospitalization or treatment discontinuation.A total of 1,113 patients (51.8% female, 90% prior antitumor necrosis factor exposure) were included, with a median follow-up of 386 days. Cumulative rates of clinical, steroid-free, endoscopic, and radiographic remissions at 12 months were 40%, 32%, 39%, and 30%, respectively. Biologic-naive patients achieved significantly higher rates of clinical and endoscopic remissions at 63% and 55%, respectively. On multivariable analyses, prior antitumor necrosis factor (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.99) and vedolizumab exposure (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.88) were independently associated with lower likelihoods of achieving endoscopic remission. In patients who experienced loss of remission, 77 of 102 (75%) underwent dose optimization, and 44 of 77 (57%) achieved clinical response. An additional 152 of 681 patients (22.3%) were dose-optimized because of primary nonresponse incomplete response to UST, of whom 40.1% (61 of 152) responded. Serious infections occurred in 3.4% of patients while other noninfectious adverse events (lymphoma [n = 1], arthralgia [n = 6], rash [n = 6], headache [n = 3], hepatitis [n = 3], hair loss [n = 3], neuropathy [n = 1], and vasculitis [n = 1]) occurred in 2.4% of patients.UST represents a safe and effective treatment option for CD, with 40% of patients from a highly refractory cohort achieving clinical remission by 12 months. The greatest treatment effect of UST was seen in biologic-naive patients, and dose escalation may recapture clinical response.

Background Cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have emerged in discrete waves. We explored temporal trends in the reporting of COVID-19 in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Methods The Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) is an international registry of IBD patients diagnosed with COVID-19. The average percent changes (APCs) were calculated in weekly reported cases of COVID-19 during the periods of March 22 to September 12, September 13 to December 12, 2020, and December 13 to July 31, 2021. Results Across 73 countries, 6404 cases of COVID-19 were reported in IBD patients. COVID-19 reporting decreased globally by 4.2% per week (95% CI, −5.3% to −3.0%) from March 22 to September 12, 2020, then climbed by 10.2% per week (95% CI, 8.1%-12.3%) from September 13 to December 12, 2020, and then declined by 6.3% per week (95% CI, −7.8% to −4.7%). In the fall of 2020, weekly reporting climbed in North America (APC, 11.3%; 95% CI, 8.8-13.8) and Europe (APC, 17.7%; 95% CI, 12.1%-23.5%), whereas reporting was stable in Asia (APC, −8.1%; 95% CI, −15.6-0.1). From December 13, 2020, to July 31, 2021, reporting of COVID-19 in those with IBD declined in North America (APC, −8.5%; 95% CI, −10.2 to −6.7) and Europe (APC, −5.4%; 95% CI, −7.2 to −3.6) and was stable in Latin America (APC, −1.5%; 95% CI, −3.5% to 0.6%). Conclusions Temporal trends in reporting of COVID-19 in those with IBD are consistent with the epidemiological patterns COVID-19 globally.

Background Tofacitinib is an oral, small molecule JAK inhibitor for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). We present an updated analysis of adjudicated malignancies in the tofacitinib UC clinical programme, including final data from the open-label, long-term extension (OLE) study (as of 24 Aug 2020). Methods Malignancies were evaluated from 3 randomised, placebo-controlled studies (2 Phase [P]3 induction studies [NCT01465763; NCT01458951]; 1 P3 maintenance study [NCT01458574]) and an OLE study (NCT01470612). Three cohorts were analysed: Induction (P3 induction studies), Maintenance (P3 maintenance study) and Overall (patients receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily [BID] in P3 or OLE studies; data from the previous data cut [May 2019] are also reported for comparison). Analysis was by predominant dose (PD) 5 or 10 mg BID, based on average daily dose Results 1124 patients were evaluated for malignancies (2809.4 patient-years of tofacitinib exposure; up to 7.8 years of treatment; median duration of 685.5 days). No malignancies (excluding NMSC) occurred in Induction Cohort patients. Malignancies (excluding NMSC) occurred in 1 Maintenance Cohort patient (who was receiving placebo) and in 25 Overall Cohort patients (IR 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56, 1.27]: PD tofacitinib 5 mg BID n=5, IR 0.63 [95% CI 0.20, 1.47]; PD tofacitinib 10 mg BID n=20, IR 0.95 [95% CI 0.58, 1.46]); 5 new cases since May 2019 (Table).1 NMSC events in the Induction and Maintenance Cohorts were previously reported (Table).1 NMSC events occurred in 21 Overall Cohort patients (IR 0.73 [95% CI 0.45, 1.12]): PD tofacitinib 5 mg BID n=5, IR 0.63 (95% CI 0.21, 1.48); PD tofacitinib 10 mg BID n=16, IR 0.77 (95% CI 0.44, 1.25); 2 new cases since May 2019 (Table).1 Conclusion There was no apparent clustering of types of malignancy, excluding NMSC. Malignancies (excluding NMSC) and NMSC IRs remained stable over time, being comparable to those previously reported in the tofacitinib UC clinical programme.1 In this analysis, malignancies (excluding NMSC) and NMSC IRs were similar to those in patients with UC treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors, as reported from claims data (IRs of 0.63 and 1.69, respectively).2 References

Background Crohn’s disease recurrence after ileocolic resection is common and graded with the Rutgeerts score. There is controversy whether anastomotic ulcers represent disease recurrence and should be included in the grading system. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of anastomotic ulcers on Crohn’s disease recurrence in patients with prior ileocolic resections. Secondary aims included defining the prevalence of anastomotic ulcers, risk factors for development, and their natural history. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing an ileocolic resection between 2008 and 2017 at a large academic center, with a postoperative colonoscopy assessing the neoterminal ileum and ileocolic anastomosis. The primary outcome was disease recurrence defined as endoscopic recurrence (>5 ulcers in the neoterminal ileum) or need for another ileocolic resection among patients with or without an anastomotic ulcer in endoscopic remission. Results One hundred eighty-two subjects with Crohn’s disease and an ileocolic resection were included. Anastomotic ulcers were present in 95 (52.2%) subjects. No factors were associated with anastomotic ulcer development. One hundred eleven patients were in endoscopic remission on the first postoperative colonoscopy. On multivariable analysis, anastomotic ulcers were associated with disease recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 3.64; 95% CI, 1.21–10.95; P = 0.02). Sixty-six subjects with anastomotic ulcers underwent a second colonoscopy, with 31 patients (79.5%) having persistent ulcers independent of medication escalation. Conclusion Anastomotic ulcers occur in over half of Crohn’s disease patients after ileocolic resection. No factors are associated with their development. They are associated with Crohn’s disease recurrence and are persistent.

Biologic therapies have greatly advanced the medical care of patients with Crohn's disease (CD); however, up to 50% of patients have no response and up to 80% fail to achieve remission.

ObjectivesDevelop an individualised prognostic risk prediction tool for predicting the probability of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).Design and settingThis study developed and validated prognostic penalised logistic regression models using reports to the international Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease voluntary registry from March to October 2020. Model development was done using a training data set (85% of cases reported 13 March–15 September 2020), and model validation was conducted using a test data set (the remaining 15% of cases plus all cases reported 16 September–20 October 2020).ParticipantsWe included 2709 cases from 59 countries (mean age 41.2 years (SD 18), 50.2% male). All submitted cases after removing duplicates were included.Primary and secondary outcome measuresCOVID-19 related: (1) Hospitalisation+: composite outcome of hospitalisation, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation or death; (2) Intensive Care Unit+ (ICU+): composite outcome of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation or death; (3) Death. We assessed the resulting models’ discrimination using the area under the curve of the receiver operator characteristic curves and reported the corresponding 95% CIs.ResultsOf the submitted cases, a total of 633 (24%) were hospitalised, 137 (5%) were admitted to the ICU or intubated and 69 (3%) died. 2009 patients comprised the training set and 700 the test set. The models demonstrated excellent discrimination, with a test set area under the curve (95% CI) of 0.79 (0.75 to 0.83) for Hospitalisation+, 0.88 (0.82 to 0.95) for ICU+ and 0.94 (0.89 to 0.99) for Death. Age, comorbidities, corticosteroid use and male gender were associated with a higher risk of death, while the use of biological therapies was associated with a lower risk.ConclusionsPrognostic models can effectively predict who is at higher risk for COVID-19-related adverse outcomes in a population of patients with IBD. A free online risk calculator (https://covidibd.org/covid-19-risk-calculator/) is available for healthcare providers to facilitate discussion of risks due to COVID-19 with patients with IBD.