Search

Background: Ustekinumab is approved for ulcerative colitis (UC)., Aims: To assess the durability of ustekinumab in patients with UC and its short-term effectiveness, durability and tolerability in clinical practice., Methods: Retrospective, multicentre study of patients who had received their first ustekinumab dose at least 16 weeks before inclusion. Patients were followed until treatment discontinuation or last visit. Only patients with active disease at the start of ustekinumab treatment were considered in the effectiveness analysis. Patients who stopped ustekinumab before their last visit were considered not to be in subsequent remission., Results: We included 620 patients; 155 (25%) discontinued ustekinumab during follow-up (median 12 months). Rate of discontinuation was 20% per patient-year of follow-up. Anaemia at baseline (hazard ratio, HR 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-2.1), steroids at baseline (HR 1.5; 95% CI 1.06-2.08) and more severe clinical activity at baseline (HR 1.5; 95% CI 1.09-2.06) were associated with higher risk of discontinuation. At the end of induction, 226 (40%) patients were in steroid-free clinical remission. Moderate-severe vs mild disease activity at baseline (odds ratio [OR] 0.3; 95% CI 0.2-0.5), male sex (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.4-0.8), and increased number of previous biologics (OR 0.6; 95% CI 0.6-0.8) were associated with lower likelihood of steroid-free clinical remission at week 16. One hundred and seventy-six patients (28%) had at least one adverse event. We observed no negative impact of ustekinumab on extraintestinal manifestations and/or immune-mediated diseases., Conclusions: Ustekinumab durability in UC was relatively high, and treatment was effective in highly refractory patients. The safety profile was consistent with previous studies., (© 2024 The Author(s). Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Limited data are available on the outcome of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in patients with solid organ transplantation (SOT). We describe the natural history of pre-existing IBD and de novo IBD after SOT., Methods: This was a retrospective, multicenter study that included patients with pre-existing IBD at the time of SOT and patients with de novo IBD after SOT. The primary outcome was IBD progression, defined by escalation of medical treatment, surgical therapy, or hospitalization due to refractory IBD. Risk factors were identified using multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis., Results: A total of 177 patients (106 pre-existing IBD and 71 de novo IBD) were included. Most patients with pre-existing IBD (92.5%) were in remission before SOT. During follow-up, 32% of patients with pre-existing IBD had disease progression, with a median time between SOT and IBD progression of 2.2 (interquartile range, 1.3-4.6) years. In the de novo cohort, 55% of patients had disease progression with a median time to flare of 1.9 (interquartile range, 0.8-3.9) years after diagnosis. In the pre-existing IBD cohort, active IBD at the time of SOT (hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-2.84; P = .012) and the presence of extraintestinal manifestations (hazard ratio, 3.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-6.54; P = .003) were predictive factors for IBD progression., Conclusions: One-third of patients with pre-existing IBD and about half of patients with de novo IBD have disease progression after SOT. Active IBD at the time of SOT and the presence of extraintestinal manifestations were identified as risk factors for IBD progression., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We report the case of a 48-year-old woman who was admitted to hospital because of the worsening of a pain condition she had suffered for the last 3 months. Her personal history was notable for personality disorder under treatment with antidepressants/antipsychotic drugs, and an uncomplicated bariatric gastric bypass surgery procedure in 2015.

Introduction: The objective of this study was to assess the durability, short-term and long-term effectiveness, and safety of tofacitinib in ulcerative colitis (UC) in clinical practice., Methods: This is a retrospective multicenter study including patients with UC who had received the first tofacitinib dose at least 8 weeks before the inclusion. Clinical effectiveness was based on partial Mayo score., Results: A total of 408 patients were included. Of them, 184 (45%) withdrew tofacitinib during follow-up (mean = 18 months). The probability of maintaining tofacitinib was 67% at 6 m, 58% at 12 m, and 49% at 24 m. The main reason for tofacitinib withdrawal was primary nonresponse (44%). Older age at the start of tofacitinib and a higher severity of clinical activity were associated with tofacitinib withdrawal. The proportion of patients in remission was 38% at week 4, 45% at week 8, and 47% at week 16. Having moderate-to-severe vs mild disease activity at baseline and older age at tofacitinib start were associated with a lower and higher likelihood of remission at week 8, respectively. Of 171 patients in remission at week 8, 83 (49%) relapsed. The probability of maintaining response was 66% at 6 m and 54% at 12 m. There were 93 adverse events related to tofacitinib treatment (including 2 pulmonary thromboembolisms [in patients with risk factors] and 2 peripheral vascular thrombosis), and 29 led to tofacitinib discontinuation., Discussion: Tofacitinib is effective in both short-term and long-term in patients with UC. The safety profile is similar to that previously reported., (Copyright © 2023 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

(1) Scant information is available concerning the characteristics that may favour the acquisition of COVID-19 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess these differences between infected and noninfected patients with IBD. (2) This nationwide case−control study evaluated patients with inflammatory bowel disease with COVID-19 (cases) and without COVID-19 (controls) during the period March−July 2020 included in the ENEIDA of GETECCU. (3) A total of 496 cases and 964 controls from 73 Spanish centres were included. No differences were found in the basal characteristics between cases and controls. Cases had higher comorbidity Charlson scores (24% vs. 19%; p = 0.02) and occupational risk (28% vs. 10.5%; p < 0.0001) more frequently than did controls. Lockdown was the only protective measure against COVID-19 (50% vs. 70%; p < 0.0001). No differences were found in the use of systemic steroids, immunosuppressants or biologics between cases and controls. Cases were more often treated with 5-aminosalicylates (42% vs. 34%; p = 0.003). Having a moderate Charlson score (OR: 2.7; 95%CI: 1.3−5.9), occupational risk (OR: 2.9; 95%CI: 1.8−4.4) and the use of 5-aminosalicylates (OR: 1.7; 95%CI: 1.2−2.5) were factors for COVID-19. The strict lockdown was the only protective factor (OR: 0.1; 95%CI: 0.09−0.2). (4) Comorbidities and occupational exposure are the most relevant factors for COVID-19 in patients with IBD. The risk of COVID-19 seems not to be increased by immunosuppressants or biologics, with a potential effect of 5-aminosalicylates, which should be investigated further and interpreted with caution.

We aim to describe the incidence and source of contagion of COVID-19 in patients with IBD, as well as the risk factors for a severe course and long-term sequelae. This is a prospective observational study of IBD and COVID-19 included in the ENEIDA registry (53,682 from 73 centres) between March-July 2020 followed-up for 12 months. Results were compared with data of the general population (National Centre of Epidemiology and Catalonia). A total of 482 patients with COVID-19 were identified. Twenty-eight percent were infected in the work environment, and 48% were infected by intrafamilial transmission, despite having good adherence to lockdown. Thirty-five percent required hospitalization, 7.9% had severe COVID-19 and 3.7% died. Similar data were reported in the general population (hospitalisation 19.5%, ICU 2.1% and mortality 4.6%). Factors related to death and severe COVID-19 were being aged ≥ 60 years (OR 7.1, 95% CI: 1.8-27 and 4.5, 95% CI: 1.3-15.9), while having ≥2 comorbidities increased mortality (OR 3.9, 95% CI: 1.3-11.6). None of the drugs for IBD were related to severe COVID-19. Immunosuppression was definitively stopped in 1% of patients at 12 months. The prognosis of COVID-19 in IBD, even in immunosuppressed patients, is similar to that in the general population. Thus, there is no need for more strict protection measures in IBD.

(1) Aims: To assess the incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Spain, to describe the main epidemiological and clinical characteristics at diagnosis and the evolution of the disease, and to explore the use of drug treatments. (2) Methods: Prospective, population-based nationwide registry. Adult patients diagnosed with IBD-Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC) or IBD unclassified (IBD-U)-during 2017 in Spain were included and were followed-up for 1 year. (3) Results: We identified 3611 incident cases of IBD diagnosed during 2017 in 108 hospitals covering over 22 million inhabitants. The overall incidence (cases/100,000 person-years) was 16 for IBD, 7.5 for CD, 8 for UC, and 0.5 for IBD-U; 53% of patients were male and median age was 43 years (interquartile range = 31-56 years). During a median 12-month follow-up, 34% of patients were treated with systemic steroids, 25% with immunomodulators, 15% with biologics and 5.6% underwent surgery. The percentage of patients under these treatments was significantly higher in CD than UC and IBD-U. Use of systemic steroids and biologics was significantly higher in hospitals with high resources. In total, 28% of patients were hospitalized (35% CD and 22% UC patients, p < 0.01). (4) Conclusion: The incidence of IBD in Spain is rather high and similar to that reported in Northern Europe. IBD patients require substantial therapeutic resources, which are greater in CD and in hospitals with high resources, and much higher than previously reported. One third of patients are hospitalized in the first year after diagnosis and a relevant proportion undergo surgery.

Background: Antibiotic resistance is the main cause for Helicobacter pylori therapy failure. Frequently, empirical regimens have been recommended in patients with various H. pylori eradication failures. In patients with H. pylori-resistant to various families of antibiotics, the treatment guided by antimicrobial susceptibility testing allows the achievement of good eradication rates., Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of susceptibility-guided antimicrobial treatment for H. pylori infection in patients with resistance to one or various families of antibiotics., Methods: A total of 3170 consecutive patients infected by H. pylori during 2013-2017 were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility. 66.6% patients showed resistance to one antimicrobial, 18.9% to two, and 2.4% to three families of antibiotics. A cohort of 162 H. pylori-positive patients were enrolled in this study. Forty-three with single H. pylori resistance to clarithromycin (CLR) were treated with omeprazole (PPI), amoxicillin (AMX), and levofloxacin (LVX)-OAL (31 subjects) or omeprazole, AMX, and metronidazole (MTZ)-OAM (12 patients) and 77 patients with dual H. pylori resistance (51 to CLR and MTZ, 12 to CLR plus LVX, and 14 to MTZ plus LVX) received OAL or OBTM (PPI, bismuth subcitrate, tetracycline, and MTZ), OAM, and OAC, respectively. Other 42 patients with triple H. pylori resistance (CLR, LVX, and MTZ) were treated with PPI, AMX, and rifabutin-OAR (18 subjects), PPI, AMX, and doxycycline-OAD (8), OADB (7), OBTM (6), and ODBR (3). All subjects received standard doses for 10 days. Eradication rate was confirmed by 13 C-UBT. Adverse events were assessed by a questionnaire., Results: Intention-to-treat analysis demonstrates that eradication rates using triple therapies in patients with H. pylori resistance to one and to two families of antibiotics were 93% and 94.8%, respectively. In subjects with H. pylori-resistant to three families of antibiotics, cure rate was higher in naïve patients treated with OAR-10 days compared to those treated with bismuth-containing quadruple therapies (90% vs 75%). Adverse events were limited (18 of 162, 11.1%), all of them mild-moderate., Conclusions: The implementation of susceptibility-guided triple therapy for 10 days leads to eradication rate ≥95% in naïve patients with H. pylori resistance to one or two families of antimicrobials. In naïve patients with H. pylori resistance to three families, OAR treatment achieved a 90% of eradication., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)