Search

Background: The link between ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is well-established, with concurrent prevalence estimates ranging from 5–10%. However, there are still significant gaps in our understanding, and a comprehensive treatment guideline for these co-diagnosed patients has yet to be established. Our objective was to explore patterns of treatment alterations following the diagnosis of AS in patients previously diagnosed with IBD, and vice versa. Additionally, we sought to determine how these modifications influence clinical outcomes in both conditions. Methods: This retrospective data-based cohort study included patients with coexisting IBD and AS that were diagnosed between the years 2009–2022 and were followed by the gastroenterology and the rheumatology units of the Sheba Medical Center, Israel. The data were extracted from the electronic health record and included demographic information, medication history, treatment modification at the time of second diagnosis, and the characteristics and activity of both IBD and AS at the index time and at the 3-month mark. Results: The study included a total of 68 patients, with a male predominance (40 patients, 59%). The median age was 43 years (IQR 31–55) and 78% had Crohn's disease (CD). The median duration between the diagnosis of the first disease to the second one was 4 years (IQR 1–9.5). A significant proportion of patients (85%) underwent treatment modification at their second diagnosis. Out of the total cohort, 28% initiated biological therapy, 17.6% switched their biologic regimen, and 16.2% discontinued NSAIDS. Patients who underwent biologic modifications at time of the second diagnosis (the initiation/switch/augmentation of a concurrent regimen) experienced significantly higher rates of clinical improvement in either IBD or AS at the 90-day follow-up compared to patients who did not (68% vs. 32%, p = 0.004), and biologic modification was found to be an independent predictor for clinical improvement (OR 3.69, CI 1.08–12.58, p = 0.037). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that biologic therapy modification at the time of the second diagnosis was associated with a higher rate of improvement in AS/IBD at the 90-day follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The effectiveness of anti-TNF or ustekinumab (UST) as a second-line biologic after vedolizumab (VDZ) failure has not yet been described. Aims and Methods: In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, We aim to investigate the effectiveness of anti-TNF and UST as second-line therapy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) who failed VDZ as a first-line treatment. The primary outcome was clinical response at week 16–22. Secondary outcomes included the rates of clinical remission, steroid-free clinical remission, CRP normalization, and adverse events. Results: Fifty-nine patients who failed on VDZ as a first-line treatment for CD were included; 52.8% patients received anti-TNF and 47.2% UST as a second-line therapy. In initial period (Week 16–22), the clinical response and remission rate was similar between both groups: 61.2% vs. 68%, p = 0.8 and 48.3% vs. 56%, p = 0.8 on anti-TNF and UST therapy, respectively. Furthermore, in the maintenance period the rate was similar: 75% vs. 82.3%, p = 0.8 and 62.5% vs. 70.5%, p = 0.8, respectively. Of the patients, 12 out of the 59 stopped the therapy, without a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.6). Conclusion: Second-line biological therapy after VDZ failure therapy was effective in >60% of the patients with CD. No differences in effectiveness were detected between the use of anti-TNF and UST as a second line. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impact of COVID-19 on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients under pharmacological immunosuppression is still not clearly understood. We investigated the incidence of COVID-19 and the impact of immunosuppression and containment measures on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large IBD cohort, from a multicenter cohort from 21st of February to 30th of June, 2020. Ninety-seven patients with IBD (43 UC, 53 CD, one unclassified IBD) and concomitant COVID-19 over a total of 23,879 patients with IBD were enrolled in the study. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with IBD vs. the general population was 0.406% and 0.402% cases, respectively. Twenty-three patients (24%) were hospitalized, 21 (22%) had pneumonia, four (4%) were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit, and one patient died. Lethality in our cohort was 1% compared to 9% in the general population. At multivariable analysis, age > 65 years was associated with increased risk of pneumonia and hospitalization (OR 11.6, 95% CI 2.18–62.60; OR 5.1, 95% CI 1.10–23.86, respectively), treatment with corticosteroids increased the risk of hospitalization (OR 7.6, 95% CI 1.48–40.05), whereas monoclonal antibodies were associated with reduced risk of pneumonia and hospitalization (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.04–0.52; OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.10–0.90, respectively). The risk of COVID-19 in patients with IBD is similar to the general population. National lockdown was effective in preventing infection in our cohort. Advanced age and treatment with corticosteroids impacted negatively on the outcome of COVID-19, whereas monoclonal antibodies did not seem to have a detrimental effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]