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]

Summary: Background: Curcumin and QingDai (QD, Indigo) have been shown to be effective for treating active ulcerative colitis (UC). Aim: To evaluate the real‐world experience with the Curcumin–QingDai (CurQD) herbal combination to induce remission in active UC. Methods: A retrospec‑tive multicentre adult cohort study from five tertiary academic centres (2018–2022). Active UC was defined as a Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI) ≥ 3. Patients were induced by CurQD. The primary outcome was clinical remission at weeks 8–12, defined as SCCAI ≤2 and a decrease ≥3 points from baseline. Secondary outcomes were clinical response (SCCAI decrease ≥3 points), corticosteroid‐free remission, faecal calprotectin (FC) response (reduction ≥50%), FC normalisation (FC ≤100 μg/g for patients with FC ≥300 μg/g at baseline), and safety. All outcomes were analysed for patients who were maintaining stable treatment. Results: Eighty‐eight patients were included; 50% were biologics/small molecules experienced, and 36.5% received ≥2 biologics/small molecules. Clinical remission was achieved in 41 (46.5%), and clinical response in 53 (60.2%). Median SCCAI decreased from 7 (IQR:5–9) to 2 (IQR:1–3); p < 0.0001. Of the 26 patients on corticosteroids at baseline, seven achieved corticosteroid‐free remission. Among 43 biologics/small molecules experienced patients, clinical remission was achieved in 39.5% and clinical response in 58.1%. FC normalisation and response were achieved in 17/29 and 27/33, respectively. Median FC decreased from 1000 μg/g (IQR:392–2772) at baseline to 75 μg/g (IQR:12–136) at the end of inductions (n = 30 patients with paired samples); p < 0.0001. No overt safety signals emerged. Conclusion: In this real‐world cohort, CurQD effectively induced clinical and biomarker remission in patients with active UC, including patients who were biologics/small molecules experienced. [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]

Summary: Background: Women with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) often receive biologics to maintain remission during pregnancy. Aims: To assess maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients with IBD treated with ustekinumab (UST) during pregnancy Methods: In a multicentre, prospective cohort study, we recruited women with IBD treated with UST during pregnancy between 2019 and 2021. Outcomes were compared among patients treated with UST, anti‐tumour necrosis factor α, (anti‐TNF) and non‐UST, non‐anti‐TNF therapies. UST‐treated patients were matched 1:2 to controls according to age, body mass index and parity. Newborns were followed up to 12 months. Results: We recruited 129 pregnant patients: UST 27; anti‐TNF 52; non‐UST, non‐anti‐TNF 50 (thiopurine or mesalazine 30, no therapy 20); Crohn's disease 25 (96.9%). Overall, pregnancy, neonatal and newborn outcomes were satisfactory, with no significant differences among patients treated with UST, anti‐TNF and non‐UST non‐anti‐TNF agents for obstetrical maternal complications [UST 3 (11.5%), anti TNF 12 (23.1%), non UST, non‐anti‐TNF 4 (8.2%), p = 0.095], pre‐term delivery [1 (4.3%), 9 (18.4%), 4 (5.7%), p = 0.133], low birth weight [1 (4.2%), 5 (10.2%), 4 (8.3%), p = 0.679], or first year newborn hospitalisation [2 (9.1%), 4 (8.2%), 3 (6.1%), p = 0.885]. Conclusion: Pregnant patients with IBD treated with UST demonstrated favourable pregnancy and neonatal outcomes that were comparable with those in patients treated with anti‐TNF or other therapy. Data are reassuring for patients with IBD and their physicians when considering UST during pregnancy. [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]