Search

Background & Aims: We assessed Modified Multiplier Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (MM-SES-CD) and Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD) thresholds that are best associated with low likelihood of long-term disease progression., Methods: Data from 61 patients with early Crohn's disease (CD) who participated in the CALM long-term extension study were used as the derivation cohort and validated using the McMaster inflammatory bowel disease database (n = 99). The primary outcome was disease progression (new internal fistula/abscess, stricture, perianal fistula or abscess, CD-related hospitalization or surgery) since the end of the CALM trial. Optimal MM-SES-CD and SES-CD thresholds were determined using the maximum Youden index. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses compared threshold scores of remission definitions on disease progression., Results: In the derivation cohort, based on the maximum Youden index, the optimal thresholds associated with a low likelihood of disease progression were MM-SES-CD <22.5 and SES-CD <4. A significantly greater proportion of patients with a MM-SES-CD ≥22.5 had disease progression as compared with patients in the derivation cohort with MM-SES-CD <22.5 (10/17 [58.8%] vs 3/44 [6.8%]; P < .001). Similarly, a significantly greater number of patients with SES-CD ≥ 4 had disease progression compared with those with a SES-CD <4 (11/25 [44.0%] vs 2/36 [5.6%]; P < .001). Compared with other clinical or endoscopic remission definitions, which demonstrated poor to fair accuracy, MM-SES-CD <22.5 performed the best for predicting disease progression (area under the curve = 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.94; P < .001). These thresholds were confirmed in the validation cohort., Conclusion: Achievement of MM-SES-CD <22.5 or SES-CD <4 in patients with ileocolonic or colonic CD is associated with low risk of disease progression and may be suitable targets in clinical trials and practice for endoscopic healing., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: We assessed the effectiveness of switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) treated with or without intensified intravenous regimen., Methods: In this multicenter observational study, IBD patients in clinical remission (partial Mayo score ≤2 or Harvey-Bradshaw index ≤4) were switched to a unique dose of subcutaneous infliximab (120 mg every other week). Pharmacological and biological data were collected at baseline, visit 1 (4-8 weeks postswitch), visit 2 (8-16 weeks postswitch), and visit 3 (16-24 weeks postswitch). Relapse was defined as clinical relapse or fecal calprotectin increase ≥150 μg/g compared with baseline., Results: Among 184 eligible patients, 72.3% (n = 133 of 184) agreed to switch to subcutaneous infliximab. At visit 3, a relapse occurred in 10.2% (n = 6 of 59), 7.3% (n = 3 of 38), 16.7% (n = 3 of 18), and 66.7% (n = 10 of 15) (P < .001) of patients receiving 5 mg/kg every 8 weeks, 10 mg/kg every 8 weeks, 10 mg/kg every 6 weeks, and 10 mg/kg every 4 weeks, respectively. Dose escalation to 240 mg every other week led to recapture clinical remission in 93.3% (n = 14 of 15). Infliximab serum levels increased after the switch (P < .0001) except for patients receiving 10 mg/kg every 4 weeks. In multivariable analysis, 10 mg/kg every 4 weeks regimen (odds ratio, 12.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-98.4; P = .017) and fecal calprotectin >250 μg/g at baseline (odds ratio, 5.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-27.6; P = .042) had a higher risk of relapse as well as reduced (41.7%) or stable (36.8%) infliximab serum levels between baseline and visit 1 compared with increased serum levels (12.7%) (P = .020 and P = .019, respectively). Patients' acceptability (10-point scale) was improved by the switch (6.9 ± 1.6 vs 8.6 ± 1.4; P < .0001). No severe adverse event was reported., Conclusions: Switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab 120 mg every other week is safe and well accepted, leading to a low risk of relapse in IBD patients except for those receiving 10 mg/kg every 4 weeks requiring 240 mg every other week., (Copyright © 2023 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: There is debate over whether patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) treated with biologics that are not tumor necrosis factor antagonists (such as vedolizumab or ustekinumab) should receive concomitant treatment with immunomodulators. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of concomitant immunomodulator therapy vs vedolizumab or ustekinumab monotherapy., Methods: In a systematic search of publications, through July 31, 2019, we identified 33 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 27 cohort studies) of patients with IBD treated with vedolizumab or ustekinumab. The primary outcome was clinical benefit, including clinical remission, clinical response, or physician global assessment in patients who did vs did not receive combination therapy with an immunomodulator. Secondary outcomes were endoscopic improvement and safety. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and estimated odds ratio (OR) and 95% CIs., Results: Overall, combination therapy was not associated with better clinical outcomes in patients receiving vedolizumab (16 studies: OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-1.05; I2=13.9%; Q test P = .17) or ustekinumab (15 studies: OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.87-1.38; I2 = 11%; Q test P = .28). Results were consistent in subgroup analyses, with no difference in clinical remission or response in induction vs maintenance studies or in patients with Crohn's disease vs ulcerative colitis in studies of vedolizumab. Combination therapy was not associated with better endoscopic outcomes in patients receiving vedolizumab (3 studies: OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.48-2.68; I2 = 0; Q test P=.96) or ustekinumab (2 studies: OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.21-1.16; I2 = 47%; Q test P = .17). Combination therapy was not associated with an increase in adverse events during vedolizumab therapy (4 studies: OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.75-1.84; I2 = 0; Q test P = .110)., Conclusions: In a meta-analysis of data from studies of patients with IBD, we found that combining vedolizumab or ustekinumab with an immunomodulator is no more effective than monotherapy in induction or maintenance of remission., (Copyright © 2021 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Mucosal healing (MH) has been associated with good outcomes of patients with Crohn's disease (CD). It is not clear what levels of endoscopic healing, based on CD endoscopic index score (CDEIS), associate with different courses of disease progression. We assessed long-term outcomes of patients with CD according to different levels of MH., Methods: We performed a retrospective study of 84 patients with CD and MH who received biologic therapy (80% with infliximab) from 2008 through 2015 at 2 university hospitals in France and compared outcomes of patients with CD endoscopic index scores (CDEISs) of 0 vs CDEISs greater than 0 but less than 4. Patients were followed until treatment failure or through June 2016. The primary outcome measure was treatment failure, defined by the need for biologic optimization, initiation of corticosteroids, or a Harvey-Bradshaw score above 4 associated with change in treatment, CD-related hospitalization, and/or intestinal resection., Results: After a median follow-up time of 4.8 years (interquartile range, 2.1-7.2), 27 patients (32%) had treatment failure and 3 patients (3.6%) underwent an intestinal resection. Rates of treatment failure were 25% in patients with a CDEIS of 0 and 48% in patients with CDEISs greater than 0 but less than 4 (P = .045). Median times to treatment failure were 21 months (interquartile range, 5-43 months) in patients with a CDEIS of 0 and 13 months (interquartile range, 3.6-35 months) in patients with CDEISs greater than 0 but less than 4 (P = .047). None of the patients with a CEDIS of 0 underwent intestinal resection whereas 11% patients with CDEISs greater than 0 but less than 4 required intestinal resection (P = .031). Patients with a CDEIS of 0 also had a significant lower rate of CD-related hospitalizations than patients with CDEISs greater than 0 but less than 4 (3.5% vs 18%; P = .013). In multivariate analysis, CDEISs greater than 0 but less than 4 (vs CDEIS = 0) was the only factor associated with treatment failure (hazard ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.8; P = .02)., Conclusions: Complete endoscopic healing (CDEIS = 0) is associated with better long-term outcomes than partial endoscopic healing (CDEIS = 1-4) in patients with CD, as well as fewer surgeries and hospitalizations and an overall decreased risk of treatment failure., (Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Little is known about the effects of discontinuing mesalamine therapy for patients with Crohn's disease (CD) who initiate therapy with an anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agent. We analyzed data from 2 national population cohorts to compare outcomes of patients with CD already on mesalamine therapy who started treatment with an anti-TNF agent and then either stopped or continued mesalamine., Methods: The primary outcome was any adverse clinical event, defined as a composite of new corticosteroid use or CD-related hospitalization or surgery. We collected data from the Truven MarketScan (IBM, Armonk, NY) health claims database in the United States and the Danish health registers. Our analysis included patients with CD who started anti-TNF therapy after at least 90 days of oral mesalamine therapy. Patients were classified as stopping mesalamine if therapy was discontinued within 90 days of starting anti-TNF. We performed multivariable Cox regression models controlling for demographics, clinical factors, and health care utilization. Adjusted hazard ratios with 95% CIs were calculated, comparing stopping mesalamine with continuing mesalamine., Results: A total of 3178 patients with CD were included in our final analysis (2960 in the United States and 218 in Denmark). Stopping mesalamine after initiating anti-TNF therapy was not associated with an increased risk of adverse clinical events in the US cohort (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.03; P = .13) or in the Danish cohort (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.68-1.87; P = .63). Similar results were obtained from sensitivity analyses of concomitant immunomodulator use and duration of mesalamine treatment before initiation of anti-TNF therapy., Conclusions: In a retrospective analysis of 2 national databases, we found that stopping mesalamine therapy for patients with CD who were starting anti-TNF therapy did not increase their risk of adverse clinical events. These results should be validated in a prospective study., (Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)