Search

Introduction Knowledge about the cancer risk when initiating a biologic in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] patients with prior malignancy remains scarce, especially for vedolizumab. Our aim was to evaluate the rate of incident cancer in a cohort of IBD patients with prior non-digestive malignancy, according to the subsequent treatment given. Methods A multicentre retrospective study included consecutive IBD patients with prior non-digestive malignancy. Inclusion date corresponded to the diagnosis of index malignancy. Patients were categorized into different cohorts according to the first treatment [none, conventional immunosuppressant, anti-TNF, or vedolizumab] to which they were exposed after inclusion and before incident cancer [recurrent or new cancer]. Results Among the 538 patients {58% female; mean (standard deviation [SD]) age inclusion: 52 [15] years} analyzed, the most frequent malignancy was breast cancer [25%]. The first immunomodulator given after inclusion was a conventional immunosuppressant in 27% of patients, anti-TNF in 21%, or vedolizumab in 9%. With a median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up duration of 55 [23-100] months, 100 incident cancers were observed. Crude cancer incidence rates per 1000 person-years were 47.0 for patients receiving no immunomodulator, 36.6 in the anti-TNF cohort, and 33.6 in the vedolizumab cohort [ p = 0.23]. Incident-cancer free survival rates were not different between patients receiving anti-TNF and those receiving vedolizumab [ p = 0.56]. After adjustment, incidence rates were not different between patients receiving no immunomodulator, anti-TNF, or vedolizumab. Conclusions In this large multicentre cohort study, there was no difference of cancer incidence in those IBD patients with prior non-digestive malignancy, treated with vedolizumab or anti-TNF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Standard high-volume polyethylene glycol [PEG] bowel preparations [PEG-4L] are recommended for patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] undergoing colonoscopy. However, low-volume preparations [≤2 L of active volume] are often used in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the various bowel preparations for patients with IBD, including low-volume preparations. Methods We conducted a French prospective multicentre observational study over a period of 1 month. Patients aged 18–75 years with IBD with an indication of colonoscopy independent of the study were enrolled. The choice of the preparation was left to the investigators, as per their usual protocol. The patients' characteristics, disease, and colonoscopy characteristics were recorded, and they were given self-reported questionnaires. Results Twenty-five public and private hospitals enrolled 278 patients. Among them, 46 had a disease flare and 41 had bowel stenoses. Bowel preparations for colonoscopy were as follows: 42% received PEG-2L, 29% received sodium picosulfate [Pico], 15% received PEG-4L, and 14% had other preparations. The preparation did not reach the Boston's score efficacy outcome in the PEG-4L group in 51.2% of the patients [ p = 0.0011]. The preparation intake was complete for 59.5% in the PEG-4L group, compared with 82.9% in the PEG-2L group and 93.8% in the Pico group [ p < 0.0001]. Tolerability, as assessed by the patients' VAS, was significantly better for both Pico and PEG-2L compared with PEG-4L, and better for Pico compared with PEG-2L [ p = 0.008; p = 0.0003]. In multivariate analyses, low-volume preparations were independent factors of efficacy and tolerability. Adverse events occurred in 4.3% of the patients. Conclusions Preparations with PEG-2L and Pico were equally safe, with better efficacy and tolerability outcomes compared with PEG-4L preparations. The best efficacy/tolerance/safety profile was achieved with the Pico preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]