Search

Background and Aims Integrated IBD care is effective but not routinely implemented. Validated methods that simultaneously address mind and body targets such as resilience may improve access and outcomes. We describe the development and implementation of the GRITTTM Method and its impact on resilience, health care resource utilization (HCRU) and opioid use in IBD. Methods Consecutive patients from an academic IBD center were evaluated for low resilience based on provider referral. Low resilience patients were invited to participate in the GRITTTM program. Primary outcome was % reduction in HCU. Secondary outcomes were change in resilience, corticosteroid and opioid use. Patients were allocated into 2 groups for analysis: GRITT Participants (GP) and Non-Participants (NP). Clinical data and HCU in the year prior to enrollment were collected at baseline and 12 months. One-way repeated measures MANCOVA evaluated group X time interactions for the primary outcome. Effect size was calculated for changes in resilience over time. Results Of 456 screened IBD patients 394 were eligible; 184 GP and 210 NP. GP had greater reduction in HCU than NP: 71% reduction in ED visits; 94% reduction in unplanned hospitalizations. There was a 49% reduction in opioid use and 73% reduction in corticosteroid use in GP. Resilience increased by 27.3 points (59%), yielding a large effect size (d=2.4). Conclusion Mind-body care that focuses on building resilience in the context of IBD care may be a novel approach to reduce unplanned health care utilization and opioid use but large, multi-center, randomized, controlled trials are needed.

BACKGROUND: Disability in patients with medically refractory ulcerative colitis (UC) after total proctocolectomy (TPC) with ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is not well understood. The aim of this study was to compare disability in patients with IPAA vs medically managed UC, and identify predictors of disability. METHODS: This was a multi-center cross-sectional study performed at five academic institutions in New York City. Patients with medically or surgically treated UC were recruited. Clinical and socioeconomic data were collected and the inflammatory bowel disease disability index (IBD-DI) was administered to eligible patients. Predictors of moderate-severe disability (IBD-DI≥35) were assessed in univariable and multivariable models. RESULTS: A total of 94 patients with IPAA and 128 patients with medically managed UC completed the IBD-DI. Among patients with IPAA and UC, 35 (37.2%) and 30 (23.4%) had moderate-severe disability, respectively. Patients with IPAA had significantly greater IBD-DI scores compared to patients with medically managed UC (29.8 vs 17.9, p

Background & Aims We aimed to compare safety and effectiveness of vedolizumab to tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-antagonist therapy in ulcerative colitis in routine practice. Methods A multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study (May 2014 to December 2017) of ulcerative colitis patients treated with vedolizumab or TNF-antagonist therapy. Propensity score weighted comparisons for development of serious adverse events and achievement of clinical remission, steroid-free clinical remission, and steroid-free deep remission. A priori determined subgroup comparisons in TNF-antagonist–naive and –exposed patients, and for vedolizumab against infliximab and subcutaneous TNF-antagonists separately. Results A total of 722 (454 vedolizumab, 268 TNF antagonist) patients were included. Vedolizumab-treated patients were more likely to achieve clinical remission (hazard ratio [HR], 1.651; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.229-2.217), steroid-free clinical remission (HR, 1.828; 95% CI, 1.135-2.944), and steroid-free deep remission (HR, 2.819; 95% CI, 1.496-5.310) than those treated with TNF antagonists. Results were consistent across subgroup analyses in TNF-antagonist–naive and −exposed patients, and for vedolizumab vs infliximab and vs subcutaneous TNF-antagonist agents separately. Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in the risk of serious adverse events (HR, 0.899; 95% CI, 0.502-1.612) or serious infections (HR, 1.235; 95% CI, 0.608-2.511) between vedolizumab-treated and TNF-antagonist−treated patients. However, in TNF-antagonist−naive patients, vedolizumab was less likely to be associated with serious adverse events than TNF antagonists (HR, 0.192; 95% CI, 0.049-0.754). Conclusions Treatment of ulcerative colitis with vedolizumab is associated with higher rates of remission than treatment with TNF-antagonist therapy in routine practice, and lower rates of serious adverse events in TNF-antagonist−naive patients.

Background and Aims Age is a major prognostic factor for COVID-19 outcomes. The effect of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] activity on COVID-19 is unclear. We examined the relationship between IBD activity and COVID-19 severity according to age. Methods We included IBD patients diagnosed with COVID-19, reported to SECURE-IBD between March 13, 2020 and August 3, 2021. Clinical IBD activity was measured by physician global assessment [PGA]. COVID-19-related outcomes were [1] intensive care unit [ICU] admission, ventilation or death, and [2] hospitalization. Using generalized estimating equations, we determined adjusted odds ratios [aOR, 95% confidence interval] for moderate and severe PGA vs clinical remission/mild PGA, controlling for demographics, medications and COVID-19 diagnosis period. We performed stratified analyses by age [≤50 vs >50 years]. Results Among 6078 patients, adverse COVID-19 outcomes were more common with active IBD: ICU/ventilation/death in 3.6% [175/4898] of remission/mild, 4.9% [45/920] of moderate and 8.8% [23/260] of severe [p < 0.001]; and hospitalization in 13% [649/4898] of remission/mild, 19% [178/920] of moderate and 38% [100/260] of severe [p < 0.001]. Stratified by decade, effect sizes were larger for younger patients. In patients ≤50 years, severe PGA was independently associated with ICU/ventilation/death (aOR 3.27 [1.15–9.30]) and hospitalization (aOR 4.62 [2.83–7.55]). In contrast, severe PGA was not independently associated with COVID-19 outcomes in those older than 50 years. Conclusions Clinically active IBD may be a risk factor for severe COVID-19, particularly in younger patients. IBD disease control, including through medication compliance, and strategies to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 infection amongst patients with active IBD [e.g. distancing, immunization] are key to limit adverse COVID-19 outcomes.

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), including Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, are chronic, progressive, immune-mediated diseases of adults and children that have no cure. IBD can cause significant morbidity and lead to complications such as strictures, fistulas, infections, and cancer. In children, IBD can also result in growth impairment and pubertal delays. IBD is highly heterogenous, with severity ranging from mild to severe and symptoms ranging from mild to debilitating. Delay in IBD diagnosis, especially in Crohn’s disease, is common and associated with adverse outcomes. Early diagnosis and prompt institution of treatment are the cornerstones for improving outcomes and maximizing health. Early diagnosis requires a low threshold of suspicion and red flags to guide early specialist referral at the primary provider level. Although the armamentarium of IBD medications is growing, many patients will not respond to treatment, and the selection of first-line therapy is critical. Risk stratification of disease severity, based on clinical, demographic, and serologic markers, can help guide selection of first-line therapy. Clinical decision support tools, genomics, and other biomarkers of response to therapy and risk of adverse events are the future of personalized medicine. After starting appropriate therapy, it is important to confirm remission using objective end points (treat to target) with continued control of inflammation with adjustment of therapy using surrogate biomarkers (tight control). Lastly, IBD therapy extends far beyond medications, and other aspects of the overall health and wellbeing of the patient are critical. These include preventive health, nutrition, and psychobehavioral support addressing patients’ concerns around complementary therapy and medication adherence, prevention of disability, and ensuring open communication.

Severe and fulminant Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. While fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has proved to be a highly effective treatment for recurrent CDI, its efficacy in severe or fulminant CDI remains uncertain. To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis evaluating clinical outcomes and safety of FMT in severe and fulminant CDI. A systemic review with meta-analysis was performed through comprehensive search of Embase, Medline (Ovid), trial registers, and conference abstracts through January 2020. Studies on FMT in severe and fulminant CDI were included. Meta-analysis was done with random effects models given heterogeneity to estimate rates of cure, mortality, and colectomy. Publication bias was assessed using Egger’s test. Sixteen studies comprised of one randomized controlled trial, four cohort studies, and eleven case series were analyzed. In total, 676 patients underwent FMT for severe or fulminant CDI. The overall rate of clinical cure after single FMT was 61.3% (95% CI 43.2–78.0%) with 10.9% (95% CI 0.2–30.2%) of patients experiencing major adverse events. The overall pooled colectomy rate after FMT was 8.2% (95% CI 0.1–23.7%) with a pooled all-cause mortality rate after FMT of 15.6% (95% CI 7.8–25.0%). Low-quality data support the use of fecal microbiota transplantation in patients with severe and fulminant Clostridioides difficile infection.

OBJECTIVE: There are limited data on the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on hospitalized patients with autoimmune and chronic inflammatory disease (AICID) compared with patients who do not have AICID. We sought to evaluate whether patients with AICID who have confirmed COVID-19 presenting to the hospital are at higher risk of adverse outcomes compared with those patients without AICID who are infected with COVID-19 and whether immunosuppressive medications impact this risk. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study with patients presenting to five hospitals in a large academic health system with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 infection. We evaluated the impact of having an AICID and class of immunosuppressive medication being used to treat patients with AICID (biologics, nonbiologic immunosuppressives, or systemic corticosteroids) on the risk of developing severe COVID-19 defined as requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) and/or death. RESULTS: A total of 6792 patients with confirmed COVID-19 were included in the study, with 159 (2.3%) having at least one AICID. On multivariable analysis, AICIDs were not significantly associated with severe COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9-1.8). Among patients with AICID, use of biologics or nonbiologic immunosuppressives did not increase the risk of severe COVID-19. In contrast, systemic corticosteroid use was significantly associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 (aOR 6.8, 95% CI: 2.5-18.4). CONCLUSION: Patients with AICID are not at increased risk of severe COVID-19 with the exception of those on corticosteroids. These data suggest that patients with AICID should continue on biologic and nonbiologic immunosuppression but limit steroids during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background While immunosuppression poses a theoretical increase in the risk of COVID‐19, the nature of this relationship is yet to be ascertained. Aims To determine whether immunosuppressed patients are at higher risk of COVID‐19 to help inform the management of patients receiving immunosuppressant therapies during the pandemic. Methods We performed a random‐effects meta‐analysis of data from studies that reported on the prevalence of immunosuppression among patient cohorts with COVID‐19. Results Sixty full‐text publications were identified. In total, six individual studies were included in the final analysis, contributing a total of 10 049 patients with COVID‐19 disease. The prevalence of immunosuppressed patients among the study cohorts with COVID‐19 ranged from 0.126% to 1.357%. In the pooled cohort a total of 64/10 049 (0.637%) patients with COVID‐19 disease was immunosuppressed. Observed to expected ratios were used to compare the prevalence of immunosuppression in cohorts with confirmed COVID‐19 disease to the background prevalence of immunosuppression in the general community. The observed to expected ratio of immunosuppression among patients with COVID‐19 illness, relative to the general community, was 0.12 (95% confidence interval: 0.05–0.27). Conclusions Compared to the general population, immunosuppressed patients were not at significantly increased risk of COVID‐19 infection. This finding provides support for current expert consensus statements, which have recommended the continuation of immunosuppressant therapy in the absence of COVID‐19.

Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD] are frequently treated with immunosuppressant medications. During the coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19] pandemic, recommendations for IBD management have included that patients should stay on their immunosuppressant medications if they are not infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2], but to temporarily hold these medications if symptomatic with COVID-19 or asymptomatic but have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. As more IBD patients are infected globally, it is important to also understand how to manage IBD medications during convalescence while an individual with IBD is recovering from COVID-19. In this review, we address the differences between a test-based versus a symptoms-based strategy as related to COVID-19, and offer recommendations on when it is appropriate to consider restarting IBD therapy in patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 or with clinical symptoms consistent with COVID-19. In general, we recommend a symptoms-based approach, due to the current lack of confidence in the accuracy of available testing and the clinical significance of prolonged detection of virus via molecular testing.

Summary Intake of specific dietary macro- and micronutrients has been implicated in modulating the risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)(Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;15:525-535). Recent epidemiological and pre-clinical studies have additionally examined the impact of non-nutritional dietary components on IBD. Ultra-processed foods (UPF), as defined by the NOVA classification, are foods of mainly industrial origin, often containing little or no whole foods but many ingredients including food additives such as artificial colors and flavors, stabilizers, emulsifiers, and preservatives(Public Health Nutr 2019;22:936-941). The objective of the study by Narula et al (BMJ 2021;374:n1554) was to examine the association between intake of UPF and the risk of developing IBD.

Background Tofacitinib is an oral, small molecule JAK inhibitor for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). We present an updated analysis of adjudicated malignancies in the tofacitinib UC clinical programme, including final data from the open-label, long-term extension (OLE) study (as of 24 Aug 2020). Methods Malignancies were evaluated from 3 randomised, placebo-controlled studies (2 Phase [P]3 induction studies [NCT01465763; NCT01458951]; 1 P3 maintenance study [NCT01458574]) and an OLE study (NCT01470612). Three cohorts were analysed: Induction (P3 induction studies), Maintenance (P3 maintenance study) and Overall (patients receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily [BID] in P3 or OLE studies; data from the previous data cut [May 2019] are also reported for comparison). Analysis was by predominant dose (PD) 5 or 10 mg BID, based on average daily dose Results 1124 patients were evaluated for malignancies (2809.4 patient-years of tofacitinib exposure; up to 7.8 years of treatment; median duration of 685.5 days). No malignancies (excluding NMSC) occurred in Induction Cohort patients. Malignancies (excluding NMSC) occurred in 1 Maintenance Cohort patient (who was receiving placebo) and in 25 Overall Cohort patients (IR 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56, 1.27]: PD tofacitinib 5 mg BID n=5, IR 0.63 [95% CI 0.20, 1.47]; PD tofacitinib 10 mg BID n=20, IR 0.95 [95% CI 0.58, 1.46]); 5 new cases since May 2019 (Table).1 NMSC events in the Induction and Maintenance Cohorts were previously reported (Table).1 NMSC events occurred in 21 Overall Cohort patients (IR 0.73 [95% CI 0.45, 1.12]): PD tofacitinib 5 mg BID n=5, IR 0.63 (95% CI 0.21, 1.48); PD tofacitinib 10 mg BID n=16, IR 0.77 (95% CI 0.44, 1.25); 2 new cases since May 2019 (Table).1 Conclusion There was no apparent clustering of types of malignancy, excluding NMSC. Malignancies (excluding NMSC) and NMSC IRs remained stable over time, being comparable to those previously reported in the tofacitinib UC clinical programme.1 In this analysis, malignancies (excluding NMSC) and NMSC IRs were similar to those in patients with UC treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors, as reported from claims data (IRs of 0.63 and 1.69, respectively).2 References

ObjectivesDevelop an individualised prognostic risk prediction tool for predicting the probability of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).Design and settingThis study developed and validated prognostic penalised logistic regression models using reports to the international Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease voluntary registry from March to October 2020. Model development was done using a training data set (85% of cases reported 13 March–15 September 2020), and model validation was conducted using a test data set (the remaining 15% of cases plus all cases reported 16 September–20 October 2020).ParticipantsWe included 2709 cases from 59 countries (mean age 41.2 years (SD 18), 50.2% male). All submitted cases after removing duplicates were included.Primary and secondary outcome measuresCOVID-19 related: (1) Hospitalisation+: composite outcome of hospitalisation, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation or death; (2) Intensive Care Unit+ (ICU+): composite outcome of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation or death; (3) Death. We assessed the resulting models’ discrimination using the area under the curve of the receiver operator characteristic curves and reported the corresponding 95% CIs.ResultsOf the submitted cases, a total of 633 (24%) were hospitalised, 137 (5%) were admitted to the ICU or intubated and 69 (3%) died. 2009 patients comprised the training set and 700 the test set. The models demonstrated excellent discrimination, with a test set area under the curve (95% CI) of 0.79 (0.75 to 0.83) for Hospitalisation+, 0.88 (0.82 to 0.95) for ICU+ and 0.94 (0.89 to 0.99) for Death. Age, comorbidities, corticosteroid use and male gender were associated with a higher risk of death, while the use of biological therapies was associated with a lower risk.ConclusionsPrognostic models can effectively predict who is at higher risk for COVID-19-related adverse outcomes in a population of patients with IBD. A free online risk calculator (https://covidibd.org/covid-19-risk-calculator/) is available for healthcare providers to facilitate discussion of risks due to COVID-19 with patients with IBD.

Background and Aims The aim of this study was to examine the risk of new-onset inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] following bariatric surgery. Methods We conducted a nationwide population-based prospective cohort study of the entire Danish population 18 to 60 years of age, alive, and residing in Denmark, from 1996 to 2018. Bariatric surgery was included as a time-dependent variable, and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios [HRs] of IBD. We used a model adjusting for age, sex, and birth cohort and a multifactor-adjusted model additionally including educational status and number of obesity-related comorbidities. Results We followed 3 917 843 individuals of whom 15 347 had a bariatric surgery, for development of new-onset IBD. During 106 420 person-years following bariatric surgery, 100 IBD events occurred [incidence rate 0.940/1000 person-years]. During 55 553 785 person-years without bariatric surgery, 35 294 events of IBD occurred [incidence rate 0.635/1000 person-years]. This corresponded to a multifactor-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] of 1.15 (95% confidence interval[CI], 0.94–1.40) for IBD. Multifactor-adjusted HRs of Crohn’s disease [CD] and ulcerative colitis [UC] were 1.85 [95% CI, 1.40–2.44] and 0.81 [95% CI, 0.61–1.08], respectively. Among women, the multifactor-adjusted HR for CD was 2.18 [95% CI, 1.64–2.90]. When limiting the study population to individuals with a diagnosis of overweight/obesity, bariatric surgery remained associated with increased risk of CD, multifactor-adjusted HR 1.59 [95% CI, 1.18–2.13]. Conclusions This nationwide cohort study shows that bariatric surgery is associated with increased risk of development of new-onset CD, but not of UC. The underlying mechanisms remain elusive.

Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on immunosuppressive and biologic therapies were largely excluded from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 messenger RNA vaccine trials.We evaluated adverse events (AE) after messenger RNA vaccination in 246 adults with IBD participating in a longitudinal vaccine registry.In general, AE frequency was similar to that reported in the general population. AEs were more common among younger patients and those with previous COVID-19. AEs were less common in individuals receiving advanced therapies with biologics or small-molecule inhibitors.Those with IBD and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases can be reassured that the AE risk is likely not increased, and may be reduced, while on advanced therapies.

Background The emotional health of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is critical to self-management, but has been difficult to elucidate in routine care. Patients are often unsure how to communicate their preferences and concerns to their providers in ways that could directly inform shared decision making. Photovoice is an established research methodology used to give vulnerable patients a voice through photographic expression, but has not been previously used in gastroenterology or in IBD. Objective To determine the acceptability and feasibility of using Photovoice in an IBD clinic. Patient involvement Patients with IBD took photos in response to open-ended prompts, participated in a focus group, and brainstormed ways to share their experience with clinicians. Methods Enrolled IBD patients received a digital camera, training on basic usage and 10 open-ended prompts related to management of their IBD. Participants completed one-hour in-depth interviews about their photos, which were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. Three analysts coded transcripts for themes using qualitative analysis software QSR NVivo 11. A subset of patients participated in a focus group about their Photovoice experience. Gastroenterologists were interviewed, using patient photos as prompts, to evaluate feasibility of using Photovoice in the clinic. Results Eleven patients completed the interviews, with five participating in the focus group. Patients shared and discussed a total of 118 photographs. We identified two major themes: disease burden and patient - provider communication. Five IBD physicians reviewed select patient photos and suggested ways to incorporate Photovoice into clinical practice. Discussion Photovoice may be a feasible methodology for patients with IBD and acceptable for providers to use in a clinical setting. Practical value Photovoice may help providers identify patient concerns and make their communication more patient-centred.

BACKGROUND: Colectomy risk after acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) has not been compared between Eastern and Western countries. We compared the 1-year colectomy risk after ASUC between Korea and the USA. METHODS: Data on patients admitted for ASUC to five tertiary referral hospitals in Korea and Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, the USA, between January 2015 and January 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. For comparability between groups, a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. The primary outcome was colectomy, and secondary outcomes were mortality, readmission, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) within 1-year of the index admission for ASUC. The risk of each outcome was compared using Cox proportional hazards model in pre-matched cohort and Kaplan–Meier analysis with log-rank test in post-matched cohort. RESULTS: 290 ASUC patients were included in the study (121 Korea, 169 the USA). After PSM, 56 patients were selected in each group with no significant differences in baseline variables. At 1 year after ASUC, colectomy was less common in Korea than in the USA [3 (5.4%) vs. 24 (42.9%), p < 0.001]. The cumulative colectomy risk was significantly higher in the USA than in Korea in pre-matched cohort [adjusted hazard ratio 7.89, 95% confidence interval 3.23 to 19.22] and in post-matched cohort (log-rank p < 0.001), while there was no difference in cumulative risk of mortality, readmission, and VTE. CONCLUSION: Colectomy risk within 1 year of ASUC is significantly higher in the USA than in Korea. We observed no differences in mortality, readmission, and VTE between the two groups.

Background: Concerns have been raised that the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, or more severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), may be higher in immunocompromised individuals receiving immunomodulatory therapies compared with immunocompetent individuals. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. To date, data on tofacitinib treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic are limited. Objectives: To summarize current understanding of the use of tofacitinib in adults during the COVID-19 pandemic, and discuss research questions that are yet to be addressed, to further inform the safe and effective use of tofacitinib in clinical practice. Methods: We conducted a review of the literature (as of February 2021), to summarize the expert recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ulcerative colitis in the context of COVID-19, and to assess the current data regarding the use of tofacitinib in adult patients during the pandemic. Results: Current recommendations for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ulcerative colitis state that tofacitinib treatment should be continued during the pandemic, except in cases of positive or presumed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. However, limited data are available; analyses of data from international rheumatology and gastroenterology registries have suggested that tofacitinib may not be associated with an increased risk of hospitalization or treatment switching in adults with COVID-19. Conclusions: Further assessment of tofacitinib use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or ulcerative colitis will be required to elucidate and establish the benefit:risk profile of tofacitinib during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

We have previously described a prognostic transcriptional signature in CD8 T cells that separates patients with IBD into two phenotypically distinct subgroups, termed IBD1 and IBD2. Here we sought to develop a blood-based test that could identify these subgroups without cell separation, and thus be suitable for clinical use in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC).Patients with active IBD were recruited before treatment. Transcriptomic analyses were performed on purified CD8 T cells and/or whole blood. Phenotype data were collected prospectively. IBD1/IBD2 patient subgroups were identified by consensus clustering of CD8 T cell transcriptomes. In a training cohort, machine learning was used to identify groups of genes ('classifiers') whose differential expression in whole blood recreated the IBD1/IBD2 subgroups. Genes from the best classifiers were quantitative (q)PCR optimised, and further machine learning was used to identify the optimal qPCR classifier, which was locked down for further testing. Independent validation was sought in separate cohorts of patients with CD (n=66) and UC (n=57).In both validation cohorts, a 17-gene qPCR-based classifier stratified patients into two distinct subgroups. Irrespective of the underlying diagnosis, IBDhi patients (analogous to the poor prognosis IBD1 subgroup) experienced significantly more aggressive disease than IBDlo patients (analogous to IBD2), with earlier need for treatment escalation (hazard ratio=2.65 (CD), 3.12 (UC)) and more escalations over time (for multiple escalations within 18 months: sensitivity=72.7% (CD), 100% (UC); negative predictive value=90.9% (CD), 100% (UC)).This is the first validated prognostic biomarker that can predict prognosis in newly diagnosed patients with IBD and represents a step towards personalised therapy.

Background The optimal endoscopic target in early Crohn’s disease (CD) that limits long-term disease complications is unknown. Methods We analysed medical records from patients who had follow-up data since the end of CALM. Patients with Crohn’s disease endoscopic index of severity (CDEIS) scores at the end of CALM were included. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse outcomes reflecting CD progression: new internal fistula/abscess, stricture, perianal fistula/abscess, CD hospitalisation, or CD surgery since the end of CALM. We compared median CDEIS and per cent improvement from baseline CDEIS. Youden index analysis was used to identify optimal CDEIS cut-off score associated with CD progression. Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression methods were used to compare rates of progression by different CDEIS targets. Multivariable models were adjusted for age, prior surgery, and stricturing behaviour. Results 110 patients with median age 28 (IQR 22–38) years, disease duration 0.2 (0.1–0.5) years, and median follow up of 3.1 (1.9–4.4) years were included. Eleven per cent had a history of stricture, 5.5% history of surgery, and 52% were originally in the tight control arm of the CALM study. Median CDEIS score at end of CALM was 3 (0–5.4) and 32 (29%) patients had disease progression. Baseline median CDEIS score was similar between those with and without progression [10.9 (7.5–15.5) vs. 11.9 (8–17.5)]. Median CDEIS score at the end of CALM was higher among those with progression [1.3 (0–5.1) vs. 4.9 (3–9.1), p < 0.001)]. Patients within higher quartiles of CDEIS score had higher rates of progression over time (Figure 1). Patients without disease progression had a greater median decrease in CDEIS score from baseline to end of CALM [90% (60–100%) vs. 50% (30–80%), p < 0.001]. The optimal CDEIS score cut-off was 2 with sensitivity 84%, specificity 60% and NPV 90% for progression. Patients with CDEIS ≤ 2 had less progression over time compared with patients with > 50% improvement from baseline CDEIS (not reaching CDEIS ≤ 2) and those not meeting either endpoint (Figure 2). On adjusted analysis, CDEIS score ≤ 2 was associated with a decreased risk of progression (aHR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09–0.56). Conclusion In early CD, a CDEIS score ≤ 2 is optimal cut-off associated with a lower risk of disease progression.

Background Crohn’s disease recurrence after ileocolic resection is common and graded with the Rutgeerts score. There is controversy whether anastomotic ulcers represent disease recurrence and should be included in the grading system. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of anastomotic ulcers on Crohn’s disease recurrence in patients with prior ileocolic resections. Secondary aims included defining the prevalence of anastomotic ulcers, risk factors for development, and their natural history. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing an ileocolic resection between 2008 and 2017 at a large academic center, with a postoperative colonoscopy assessing the neoterminal ileum and ileocolic anastomosis. The primary outcome was disease recurrence defined as endoscopic recurrence (>5 ulcers in the neoterminal ileum) or need for another ileocolic resection among patients with or without an anastomotic ulcer in endoscopic remission. Results One hundred eighty-two subjects with Crohn’s disease and an ileocolic resection were included. Anastomotic ulcers were present in 95 (52.2%) subjects. No factors were associated with anastomotic ulcer development. One hundred eleven patients were in endoscopic remission on the first postoperative colonoscopy. On multivariable analysis, anastomotic ulcers were associated with disease recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 3.64; 95% CI, 1.21–10.95; P = 0.02). Sixty-six subjects with anastomotic ulcers underwent a second colonoscopy, with 31 patients (79.5%) having persistent ulcers independent of medication escalation. Conclusion Anastomotic ulcers occur in over half of Crohn’s disease patients after ileocolic resection. No factors are associated with their development. They are associated with Crohn’s disease recurrence and are persistent.

OBJECTIVES: In 2015, the Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE) program proposed shifting the therapeutic focus on ulcerative colitis (UC) toward altering the natural history of the disease course by regularly monitoring objective measurements of disease activity and tailoring treatment accordingly. The therapeutic paradigm shift was well received in the research community and is often cited. However, new evidence on optimal UC treatment targets continues to accumulate since the time of the STRIDE guidelines. This systematic review summarizes the evidence accrued since the STRIDE UC recommendations, discusses the barriers for adoption of treat-to-target approaches in clinical practice in UC, and suggests directions for future research. METHODS: We systematically reviewed MEDLINE for studies from the time of the STRIDE systematic review up to March 31, 2018, that assessed the potential treatment targets identified by the STRIDE recommendations. RESULTS: Each potential treatment target literature search returned > 200 articles, which were then reviewed by 2 independent investigators for relevant studies. Selected studies of clinical factors, patient-reported outcomes, endoscopy, histology, imaging, and biomarkers and implications on treatment targets are summarized. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that the relative weight given to different therapeutic targets in the development and improvement of UC treatments could be optimized, with an increased emphasis on endoscopic and histological targets over clinical or symptomatic targets. For this evolution to occur, however, new research has to demonstrate that the treat-to-target approach will deliver on the promise of better long-term outcomes compared with current approaches.

BACKGROUND: The older patient with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is particularly vulnerable to consequences of disease and therapy-related side effects but little is known about the best treatment options in this population. AIM: To compare safety and efficacy of tumor necrosis factor α antagonist (anti-TNF) or vedolizumab (VDZ) in patients with IBD ≥ 60 years of age. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative (UC) initiating anti-TNF or VDZ therapy at ≥ 60 years of age at 3 study sites. We examined occurrence of infection or malignancy within 1 year after therapy as our primary outcome. Our efficacy outcomes included clinical remission at 3, 6, and 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for relevant confounders estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The study included 131 anti-TNF and 103 VDZ initiated patients (age range 60 – 88 years). Approximately half had CD. At 1 year, there were no significant differences in safety profile between the two therapeutic classes. Infections were observed in 20% of anti-TNF treated and 17% of VDZ treated patients (p=0.54). Pneumonia was the most common infection in both groups. While more anti-TNF treated CD patients were in remission at 3 months compared to VDZ (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.18 – 6.76), this difference was not maintained at 6 and 12 months suggesting similar efficacy of both classes. CONCLUSIONS: Both anti-TNF and VDZ therapy were similarly effective and safe in elderly IBD patients.

Background and Aims Vedolizumab is an anti-α4β7 biologic approved for ulcerative colitis [UC] and Crohn’s disease [CD]. We aimed to examine the association of maintenance vedolizumab concentrations with remission. Methods We performed a cross-sectional multi-centre study of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] patients on maintenance vedolizumab. A homogeneous mobility shift assay [HMSA] was used to determine trough serum concentrations of vedolizumab and anti-drug antibodies [ATVs]. The primary outcome was corticosteroid-free clinical and biochemical remission defined as a composite of clinical remission, normalized C-reactive protein [CRP] and no corticosteroid use in 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes included corticosteroid-free endoscopic and deep remission. Vedolizumab concentrations were compared between patients in remission and with active disease. Logistic regression, adjusting for confounders, assessed the association between concentrations and remission. Results In total, 258 IBD patients were included [55% CD and 45% UC]. Patients in clinical and biochemical remission had significantly higher vedolizumab concentrations [12.7 µg/mL vs 10.1 µg/mL, p = 0.002]. Concentrations were also higher among patients in endoscopic and deep remission [14.2 µg/mL vs 8.5 µg/mL, p = 0.003 and 14.8 µg/mL vs 10.1 µg/mL, p = 0.01, respectively]. After controlling for potential confounders, IBD patients with vedolizumab concentrations >11.5 µg/mL were nearly 2.4 times more likely to be in corticosteroid-free clinical and biochemical remission. Only 1.6% of patients had ATVs. Conclusions In a large real-world cohort of vedolizumab maintenance concentrations, IBD patients with remission defined by objective measures [CRP and endoscopy] had significantly higher trough vedolizumab concentrations and immunogenicity was uncommon.

Background and Aim One of the most impacted regions by the pandemic globally, Latin America is facing socioeconomic and health‐care challenges that can potentially affect disease outcomes. Recent data suggest that inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients do not have an increased risk of the development of COVID‐19 complications. However, the impact of COVID‐19 on IBD patients living in least developed areas remains to be fully elucidated. This study aims to describe the outcomes of IBD patients diagnosed with COVID‐19 in countries from Latin America based on data from the SECURE‐IBD registry. Methods Patients from Latin America enrolled in the SECURE‐IBD registry were included. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. The studied outcomes were (i) a composite of need for intensive care unit admission, ventilator use, and/or death (primary outcome) and (ii) a composite of any hospitalization and/or death (secondary outcome). Multivariable regression was used to identify risk factors of severe COVID‐19. Results During the study period, 230 cases (Crohn's disease: n = 115, ulcerative colitis: n = 114, IBD‐unclassified [IBD‐U]: n = 1) were reported to the SECURE‐IBD database from 13 different countries. Primary outcome was observed in 17 (7.4%) patients, and the case fatality rate was 1.7%. In the adjusted multivariable model, the use of systemic corticosteroids (odds ratio [OR] 10.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.44–34.99) was significantly associated with the primary outcome. Older age (OR 1.03; 95% CI: 1.00–1.05), systemic corticosteroids (OR 9.33; 95% CI: 3.84–22.63), and the concomitant presence of one (OR 2.14; 95% CI: 0.89–5.15) or two (OR 10.67; 95% CI: 1.74–65.72) comorbidities were associated with the outcome of hospitalization or death. Conclusion Inflammatory bowel disease patients with COVID‐19 in Latin America appear to have similar outcomes to the overall global data. Risk factors of severe COVID‐19 are similar to prior reports.

Background The impact of immune-modifying therapies on outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19] is variable. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of vedolizumab [VDZ], a gut-selective anti-integrin, on COVID-19 outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] patients. Methods Using data from the Surveillance of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for IBD [SECURE-IBD], an international registry of IBD patients with confirmed COVID-19, we studied the impact of VDZ on COVID-19 hospitalization and severe COVID-19 [intensive care unit stay, mechanical ventilation and/or death]. Results Of 3647 adult patients on any IBD medication in the registry, 457 [12.5%] patients were on VDZ. On multivariable analyses using backward selection of covariates, VDZ use was not associated with hospitalization or severe COVID-19 when compared with patients on all other medications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71, 1.1 and aOR 0.95; 95% CI 0.53, 1.73, respectively). On comparing VDZ monotherapy to anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] monotherapy, the odds for hospitalization, but not severe COVID-19, were higher [aOR CI 1.39; 95% CI 1.001, 1.90 and aOR 2.92; 95% CI 0.98, 8.71, respectively]. In an exploratory analysis, VDZ monotherapy, compared to anti-TNF monotherapy, was associated with new-onset gastrointestinal symptoms at the time of COVID-19, especially among patients whose IBD was in remission. Conclusions COVID-19 outcomes among IBD patients on VDZ are comparable to those on all other therapies. Hospitalization, but not severe COVID-19, is more likely with VDZ monotherapy than with anti-TNF monotherapy. Overall, VDZ appears to be safe in IBD patients with COVID-19.

Inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD] are a heterogeneous spectrum with two extreme phenotypes, Crohn's disease [CD] and ulcerative colitis [UC], which both represent numerous phenotypical variations. Hence, we should no longer approach all IBD patients similarly, but rather aim to rethink clinical classifications and modify treatment algorithms to usher in a new era of precision medicine in IBD. This scientific ECCO workshop aims to provide a state-of-the-art overview on prognostic and predictive markers, shed light on key questions in biomarker development, propose best practices in IBD biomarker development [including trial design], and discuss the potential for multi-omic data integration to help drive further advances to make precision medicine a reality in IBD. ispartof: JOURNAL OF CROHNS & COLITIS vol:15 issue:9 pages:1431-1442 ispartof: location:England status: published

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pouchitis is a common complication of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who have had colectomy. Pouchitis has been considered a single entity despite a broad array of clinical and endoscopic patterns. We developed a novel classification system based on the pattern of inflammation observed in pouches and evaluated the contributing factors and prognosis of each phenotype. METHODS: We identified 426 patients (384 with UC) treated with proctocolectomy and IPAA who subsequently underwent pouchoscopies at the University of Chicago between June 1997 and December 2019. We retrospectively reviewed 1,359 pouchoscopies and classified into 7 main pouch phenotypes: (1) normal, (2) afferent limb involvement (AL), (3) inlet involvement, (4) diffuse, (5) focal inflammation of the pouch body, (6) cuffitis, and (7) pouch with fistulas noted after 6 months from ileostomy takedown. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess factors contributing to each phenotype. Pouch survival was estimated by log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Significant contributing factors for AL involvement were BMI ≥25 and hand-sewn anastomosis; for inlet involvement was male gender; for diffuse inflammation were extensive colitis and preoperative use of anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs; for cuffitis were stapled anastomosis and preoperative Clostridioides difficile infection. Inlet stenosis, diffuse inflammation, and cuffitis significantly increased the risk of pouch excision. Diffuse inflammation was independently associated with pouch excision (HR 2.69; 95% CI 1.34–5.41; P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: We describe 7 unique IPAA phenotypes with different contributing factors and outcomes, and propose a new classification system for pouch management and future interventional studies.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on biologic therapy may lose response to anti-tumor necrosis factor agents (anti-TNFs) due to the development of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs). A history of anti-TNF ADA increases the risk of developing ADA to subsequent anti-TNFs; however, it is not known whether ADA to anti-TNFs increases the risk of ADA development to vedolizumab (VDZ) or ustekinumab (UST). We aimed to investigate whether prior history of ADA to anti-TNF increases the risk of ADA to VDZ and UST. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients at a tertiary care IBD center over the course of four years who had previous anti-TNF drug and ADA level data during maintenance treatment and subsequent VDZ or UST drug and antibody levels, all collected as standard of care. The primary outcome was the rate of ADA development to VDZ and UST in patients with and without prior anti-TNF immunogenicity. Descriptive statistics summarized the data and univariate tested associations. RESULTS: Of the 152 IBD patients analyzed, 41 (27%) had a history of previous anti-TNF ADA with 22 (53.7%) having simultaneously undetectable anti-TNF drug levels. There was no significant difference in the rates of ustekinumab and vedolizumab ADA development between patients with prior ADA and patients without prior ADA (1/41 [2.7%] vs 1/111 [0.9%]; p = 0.54). There was also no difference in concomitant immunomodulator use with ustekinumab or vedolizumab initiation in patients with or without prior ADA (13/41 [31.7%] vs 31/111 [27.9%], p = 0.84). Neither patient who developed ADA to VDZ or UST was on concomitant immunomodulator at drug initiation, and both patients had detectable drug levels at the time of antibody detection. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that prior immunogenicity to anti-TNF agents does not confer an increased risk of immunogenicity to ustekinumab or vedolizumab. Our data support the use of vedolizumab or ustekinumab as monotherapy for the treatment of IBD.

Background Incidentally diagnosed terminal ileitis [IDTI] has been reported among asymptomatic persons undergoing non-diagnostic colonoscopy. The purpose of our study was to determine the prevalence and long-term outcomes of asymptomatic terminal ileitis. Methods We performed a systematic review using three biomedical databases [Medline, Embase, and Web of Science] and relevant scientific meeting abstracts. We identified observational studies that reported the prevalence of IDTI in adults undergoing screening or polyp surveillance colonoscopy and/or the long-term outcomes of such lesions. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to determine the pooled prevalence rate of IDTI. The progression of IDTI to overt Crohn’s disease [CD] was also described. Results Of 2388 eligible studies, 1784 were screened after excluding duplicates, 84 were reviewed in full text, and 14 studies were eligible for inclusion. Seven studies reported the prevalence of IDTI in 44 398 persons undergoing non-diagnostic colonoscopy, six studies reported follow-up data, and one study reported both types of data. The pooled prevalence rate of IDTI was 1.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1–21.8%) with significant heterogeneity [I2 = 99.7]. Among patients who had undergone non-diagnostic colonoscopy and had follow-up data [range 13–84 months reported in five studies], progression to overt CD was rare. Conclusions IDTI is not uncommon on non-diagnostic colonoscopies. Based on limited data, the rate of its progression to overt CD seems low, and watchful waiting is likely a reasonable strategy. Further long-term follow-up studies are needed to inform the natural history of incidental terminal ileitis, factors that predict progression to CD, and therapeutic implications.

Background The Montreal classification categorizes patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) based on their macroscopic disease extent. Independent of endoscopic extent, biopsies through all colonic segments should be retrieved during index colonoscopy. However, the prognostic value of histological inflammation at diagnosis in the inflamed and uninflamed regions of the colon has never been assessed. Methods This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of newly diagnosed patients with treatment-naïve proctitis and left-sided UC. Biopsies from at least 2 colonic segments (endoscopically inflamed and uninflamed mucosa) were retrieved and reviewed by 2 pathologists. Histological features in the endoscopically inflamed and uninflamed mucosa were scored using the Nancy score. The primary outcomes were disease complications (proximal disease extension, need for hospitalization or colectomy) and higher therapeutic requirements (need for steroids or for therapy escalation). Results Overall, 93 treatment-naïve patients were included, with a median follow-up of 44 months (range, 2-329). The prevalence of any histological inflammation above the endoscopic margin was 71%. Proximal disease extension was more frequent in patients with histological inflammation in the endoscopically uninflamed mucosa at diagnosis (21.5% vs 3.4%, P = 0.04). Histological involvement above the endoscopic margin was the only predictor associated with an earlier need for therapy escalation (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-13.0); P = 0.04) and disease complications (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-20.9; P = 0.04). Conclusions The presence of histological inflammation in the endoscopically uninflamed mucosa at the time of diagnosis was associated with worse outcomes in limited UC.

Structured AbstractImportanceRisk calculators can facilitate shared medical decision-making1. Demographics, comorbidities, medication use, geographic region, and other factors may increase the risk for COVID-19-related complications among patients with IBD2,3.ObjectivesDevelop an individualized prognostic risk prediction tool for predicting the probability of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in patients with IBD.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis study developed and validated prognostic penalized logistic regression models4 using reports to Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) from March–October 2020. Model development was done using a training data set (85% of cases reported March 13 – September 15, 2020), and model validation was conducted using a test data set (the remaining 15% of cases plus all cases reported September 16–October 20, 2020).Main Outcomes and MeasuresCOVID-19 related:Hospitalization+: composite outcome of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or deathICU+: composite outcome of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or deathDeathWe assessed the resulting models’ discrimination using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves and reported the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsWe included 2709 cases from 59 countries (mean age 41.2 years [s.d. 18], 50.2% male). A total of 633 (24%) were hospitalized, 137 (5%) were admitted to the ICU or intubated, and 69 (3%) died. 2009 patients comprised the training set and 700 the test set.The models demonstrated excellent discrimination, with a test set AUC (95% CI) of 0.79 (0.75, 0.83) for Hospitalization+, 0.88 (0.82, 0.95) for ICU+, and 0.94 (0.89, 0.99) for Death. Age, comorbidities, corticosteroid use, and male gender were associated with higher risk of death, while use of biologic therapies was associated with a lower risk.Conclusions and RelevancePrognostic models can effectively predict who is at higher risk for COVID-19-related adverse outcomes in a population of IBD patients. A free online risk calculator (https://covidibd.org/covid-19-risk-calculator/) is available for healthcare providers to facilitate discussion of risks due to COVID-19 with IBD patients. The tool numerically and visually summarizes the patient’s probabilities of adverse outcomes and associated CIs. Helping physicians identify their highest-risk patients will be important in the coming months as cases rise in the US and worldwide. This tool can also serve as a model for risk stratification in other chronic diseases.Key PointsQuestionHow well can a multivariable risk model predict the risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, or death due to COVID-19 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)?FindingsMultivariable prediction models developed using data from an international voluntary registry of IBD patients and available for use online (https://covidibd.org/) have very good discrimination for predicting hospitalization (Test set AUC 0.79) and excellent discrimination for ICU admission (Test set AUC 0.88) and death (Test set AUC 0.94). The models were developed with a training sample of 2009 cases and validated in an independent test sample of 700 cases comprised of a random sub-sample of cases and all cases entered in the registry during a one-month period after model development.MeaningThis risk prediction model may serve as an effective tool for healthcare providers to facilitate conversations about COVID-19-related risks with IBD patients.

Background & aims: The Lémann Index is a tool measuring cumulative structural bowel damage in Crohn's disease (CD). We reported on its validation and updating. Methods: This was an international, multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional observational study. At each center, 10 inclusions, stratified by CD duration and location, were planned. For each patient, the digestive tract was divided into 4 organs, upper tract, small bowel, colon/rectum, anus, and subsequently into segments, explored systematically by magnetic resonance imaging and by endoscopies in relation to disease location. For each segment, investigators retrieved information on previous surgical procedures, identified predefined strictures and penetrating lesions of maximal severity (grades 1-3) at each organ investigational method (gastroenterologist and radiologist for magnetic resonance imaging), provided segmental damage evaluation ranging from 0.0 to 10.0 (complete resection). Organ resection-free cumulative damage evaluation was then calculated from the sum of segmental damages. Then investigators provided a 0- 10 global damage evaluation from the 4-organ standardized cumulative damage evaluations. Simple linear regressions of investigator damage evaluations on their corresponding Lémann Index were studied, as well as calibration plots. Finally, updated Lémann Index was derived through multiple linear mixed models applied to combined development and validation samples. Results: In 15 centers, 134 patients were included. Correlation coefficients between investigator damage evaluations and Lémann Indexes were >0.80. When analyzing data in 272 patients from both samples and 27 centers, the unbiased correlation estimates were 0.89, 0, 97, 0, 94, 0.81, and 0.91 for the 4 organs and globally, and stable when applied to one sample or the other. Conclusions: The updated Lémann Index is a well- established index to assess cumulative bowel damage in CD that can be used in epidemiological studies and disease modification trials.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. A prior meta-analysis suggested that up to 17.6% of COVID-19 patients have GI symptoms. Data are conflicting on the association of GI symptoms with COVID-19 outcomes, with some reports suggesting worse prognosis among those with GI symptoms while others finding improved outcomes. There are limited data on COVID-19 and GI symptoms among inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. A single-center study of 80 IBD patients with COVID-19 observed that they were more likely to present with abdominal pain and diarrhea than non-IBD controls. In addition, a prior systematic review on just over 400 patients found nearly one-quarter of IBD patients with COVID-19 had diarrhea.6 Using a large, international database, we aimed to describe new onset GI symptoms and their association with clinical outcomes in patients with IBD who develop COVID-19.

Background Comorbidities increase the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization and mortality. As many comorbidities are common in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), we sought to investigate the effects of comorbidities in these patients on infection severity. Aim To evaluate association between individual comorbidities and COVID-19 infection severity among patients with IBD. Methods Data were obtained from SECURE-IBD, an international registry created to evaluate COVID-19 outcomes in patients with IBD. We used multivariable regression to analyze associations between eleven non-IBD comorbidities and a composite primary outcome of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death. Comorbidities were first modeled individually, adjusting for potential confounders. Next, to determine the independent effect of comorbidities, we fit a model including all comorbidities as covariates. Results We analyzed 2,035 patients from 58 countries (mean age 42.7 years, 50.6% male). A total of 538 patients (26.4%) experienced severe COVID-19. All comorbidities but a history of stroke and obesity were associated with severe infection in our initial analysis, with adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.9 to 3.7. In a model including all comorbidities significantly associated with the composite outcome in the initial analysis, as well as other confounders, most comorbidities remained significant, with the highest risk in chronic kidney disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Conclusion Many non-IBD comorbidities are associated with a two to threefold increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalization or death among patients with IBD. These data can be used to risk-stratify and guide treatment and lifestyle decisions during the ongoing pandemic.

Background: Among patients with limited ulcerative colitis (UC), 30% ultimately extend to pancolitis and are at increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes. Risk of endoscopic extension has been found to correlate with clinical features such as early age of onset. Aims: We sought to determine whether histologic features correlate with disease extension. Methods: The study population consisted of 40 patients with UC from two large academic centers diagnosed between 2006 and 2017. Eligible cases had a diagnosis of endoscopically limited UC (Montreal E1 or E2) at baseline and ≥ 2 subsequent endoscopic examinations with biopsies. Severity of inflammation was scored using both the Mount Sinai Activity Index and Nancy Histological Index. Results: Patients were divided into two cohorts: those who progressed to pancolitis (Montreal E3) were defined as “Extenders” (n = 21), whereas “Non-extenders” (n = 19) were cases without progression in the follow-up period. The median follow-up time was 58.4months. The histologic scores in the endoscopically involved mucosa of the index biopsies were not associated with subsequent extension of disease, overall. However, among extender cohort, the index histology scores correlated with biopsy scores at extension (r = 0.455, P = 0.044) and index severity was associated with a shorter time to extension (r = − 0.611, P = 0.003). Furthermore, female patients had a shorter time to extension (P = 0.013). Conclusions: Histological severity of limited UC is not an independent predictor of extension in UC. However, among patients who subsequently extend, severe inflammation at baseline correlates with shorter progression time and severe inflammation when extension occurs. Patients with limited UC but severe histologic inflammation may warrant more frequent endoscopic surveillance.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Background And Aims Disease extent varies in ulcerative colitis (UC) from proctitis to left-sided colitis to pancolitis and is a major prognostic factor. When the extent of UC is limited there is often a sharp demarcation between macroscopically involved and uninvolved areas and what defines this or subsequent extension is unknown. We characterized the demarcation site molecularly and determined genes associated with subsequent disease extension. Methods We performed RNA sequence analysis of biopsy specimens from UC patients with endoscopically and histologically confirmed limited disease, of which a subset later extended. Biopsy specimens were obtained from the endoscopically inflamed upper (proximal) limit of disease, immediately adjacent to the uninvolved colon, as well as at more proximal, endoscopically uninflamed colonic segments. Results Differentially expressed genes were identified in the endoscopically inflamed biopsy specimens taken at each patient's most proximal diseased site relative to healthy controls. Expression of these genes in the more proximal biopsy specimens transitioned back to control levels abruptly or gradually, the latter pattern supporting the concept that disease exists beyond the endoscopic disease demarcation site. The gradually transitioning genes were associated with inflammation, angiogenesis, glucuronidation, and homeodomain pathways. A subset of these genes in inflamed biopsy specimens was found to predict disease extension better than clinical features and were responsive to biologic therapies. Network analysis revealed critical roles for interferon signaling in UC inflammation and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 14 (PARP14) was a predicted key driver gene of extension. Higher PARP14 protein levels were found in inflamed biopsy specimens of patients with limited UC that subsequently extended. Conclusion Molecular predictors of disease extension reveal novel strategies for disease prognostication and potential therapeutic targeting.

ObjectiveWe sought to evaluate COVID-19 clinical course in patients with IBD treated with different medication classes and combinations.DesignSurveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) is a large, international registry created to monitor outcomes of IBD patients with confirmed COVID-19. We used multivariable regression with a generalised estimating equation accounting for country as a random effect to analyse the association of different medication classes with severe COVID-19, defined as intensive care unit admission, ventilator use and/or death.Results1439 cases from 47 countries were included (mean age 44.1 years, 51.4% men) of whom 112 patients (7.8%) had severe COVID-19. Compared with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist monotherapy, thiopurine monotherapy (adjusted OR (aOR) 4.08, 95% CI 1.73 to 9.61) and combination therapy with TNF antagonist and thiopurine (aOR 4.01, 95% CI 1.65 to 9.78) were associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19. Any mesalamine/sulfasalazine compared with no mesalamine/sulfasalazine use was associated with an increased risk (aOR 1.70, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.29). This risk estimate increased when using TNF antagonist monotherapy as a reference group (aOR 3.52, 95% CI 1.93 to 6.45). Interleukin-12/23 and integrin antagonists were not associated with significantly different risk than TNF antagonist monotherapy (aOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.12 to 8.06 and aOR 2.42, 95% CI 0.59 to 9.96, respectively).ConclusionCombination therapy and thiopurines may be associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19. No significant differences were observed when comparing classes of biologicals. These findings warrant confirmation in large population-based cohorts.MKH should be changed to MDK for co-last author line

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic due to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to unprecedented loss of life and health on a global scale. COVID-19 outcomes are more severe among those with comorbid conditions, which raises concerns for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), especially given the increased infection risk with immunosuppression used for IBD therapy.

Although age is often used as a clinical risk stratification tool, recent data have suggested that adverse outcomes are driven by frailty rather than chronological age. In this nationwide cohort study, we assessed the prevalence of frailty, and factors associated with 30-day readmission and mortality among hospitalized IBD patients. Using the Nationwide Readmission Database, we examined all patients with IBD hospitalized from 2010 to 2014. Based on index admission, we defined IBD and frailty using previously validated ICD codes. We used univariable and multivariable regression to assess risk factors associated with all-cause 30-day readmission and 30-day readmission mortality. From 2010 to 2014, 1,405,529 IBD index admissions were identified, with 152,974 (10.9%) categorized as frail. Over this time period, the prevalence of frailty increased each year from 10.20% (27,594) in 2010 to 11.45% (33,507) in 2014. On multivariable analysis, frailty was an independent predictor of readmission (aRR 1.16, 95% CI: 1.14–1.17), as well as readmission mortality (aRR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02–1.23) after adjusting for relevant clinical factors. Frailty also remained associated with readmission after stratification by IBD subtype, admission characteristics (surgical vs. non-surgical), age (patients ≥ 60 years old), and when excluding malnutrition, weight loss, and fecal incontinence as frailty indicators. Conversely, we found older age to be associated with a lower risk of readmission. Frailty, independent of age, comorbidities, and severity of admission, is associated with a higher risk of readmission and mortality among IBD patients, and is increasing in prevalence. Given frailty is a potentially modifiable risk factor, future studies prospectively assessing frailty within the IBD patient population are needed.

Background Micronutrient deficiencies are common in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). To date, the literature has focused on vitamin D, vitamin B12, and iron deficiencies. Methods We report a case series of 20 patients with IBD and vitamin C deficiency treated at a single tertiary care center. Results Sixteen (80%) patients had symptoms of clinical scurvy, including arthralgia, dry brittle hair, pigmented rash, gingivitis, easy bruising, and/or brittle nails. Eighteen patients underwent a nutritional assessment, 10 (56%) patients reported complete avoidance of fruits and vegetables, and 3 (17%) reported reduced intake of fruits and vegetables. Conclusions Vitamin C deficiency should be considered in IBD patients, particularly those with reduced fruit/vegetable intake, as it can lead to significant signs and symptoms., Lay Summary Nutritional deficiencies are common in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This case series of patients with vitamin C deficiency and IBD highlights the signs/symptoms of vitamin C deficiency and the need for appropriate dietary counseling in patients with IBD.

Background Stress and depression are risk factors for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) exacerbations. It is unknown if resilience, or one’s ability to recover from adversity, impacts disease course. The aim of this study was to examine the association between resilience and IBD disease activity, quality of life (QoL), and IBD-related surgeries. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study of IBD patients at an academic center. Patients completed the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale questionnaire, which measures resilience (high resilience score ≥ 35). The primary outcome was IBD disease activity, measured by Mayo score and Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI). The QoL and IBD-related surgeries were also assessed. Multivariate linear regression was conducted to assess the association of high resilience with disease activity and QoL. Results Our patient sample comprised 92 patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and 137 patients with Crohn disease (CD). High resilience was noted in 27% of patients with UC and 21.5% of patients with CD. Among patients with UC, those with high resilience had a mean Mayo score of 1.54, and those with low resilience had a mean Mayo score of 4.31, P < 0.001. Among patients with CD, those with high resilience had a mean HBI of 2.31, and those with low resilience had a mean HBI of 3.95, P = 0.035. In multivariable analysis, high resilience was independently associated with lower disease activity in both UC (P < 0.001) and CD (P = 0.037) and with higher QoL (P = 0.016). High resilience was also associated with fewer surgeries (P = 0.001) among patients with CD. Conclusions High resilience was independently associated with lower disease activity and better QoL in patients with IBD and fewer IBD surgeries in patients with CD. These findings suggest that resilience may be a modifiable factor that can risk-stratify patients with IBD prone to poor outcomes.

The safety and efficacy of tofacitinib in Crohn's disease (CD) has been studied in 2 phase II trials in patients with moderate-to-severe CD with no new safety signals observed, but no significant difference from placebo in the primary efficacy endpoint of clinical response.1-3 However, post hoc analyses and smaller studies have observed clinical and biologic response to tofacitinib in patients with CD.2,4,5 There is a paucity of real-world effectiveness and safety data for tofacitinib in non-Food and Drug Administration label usage in patients with CD and patients with inflammatory bowel disease-unclassified (IBD-U).

Background & Aims Adverse events (AEs) including reactivation of herpes zoster (HZ) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) have been reported from clinical trials of tofacitinib in ulcerative colitis (UC). We investigated the incidence rates of AEs in a real-world study of UC patients given tofacitinib. Methods We collected data from 260 patients with UC in the Tofacitinib Real-world Outcomes in Patients with ulceratIve colitis and Crohn’s disease consortium study, performed at 6 medical centers in the United States. Patients were followed up for a median of 6 months (interquartile range, 2.7–11.5 mo). AEs were captured using a standardized data collection instrument before study initiation and at weeks 8, 16, 26, 39, and 52. Serious AEs were defined as life-threatening or resulting in a hospitalization, disability, or discontinuation of therapy. Logistic regression was performed to examine risk factors for AEs. Results AEs occurred in 41 patients (15.7%); most were infections (N = 13; 5.0%). The incidence rate of any AE was 27.2 (95% CI, 24.4–30.7 per 100 patient-years of follow-up evaluation). Fifteen were serious AEs (36.6% of AEs), and tofacitinib was discontinued for 12 patients (4.6% of cohort). The incidence rates of serious AEs was 10.0 (95% CI, 8.9–11.2 per 100 patient-years of follow-up evaluation). Five patients developed HZ infection and 2 developed VTE (all receiving 10 mg tofacitinib, twice per day). Conclusions Real-world safety signals for tofacitinib are similar to those for clinical trials, with AEs reported from almost 16% of patients. HZ infection and VTE occurred in patients receiving 10 mg tofacitinib twice per day. These results support dose de-escalation after induction therapy, to reduce the risk of AEs.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing body of evidence showing that earlier use of biologics improves clinical outcomes in Crohn’s disease (CD). AIM: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of early biologic use in the treatment of CD. METHODS: PubMed and Embase databases were searched for English language papers and conference abstracts published through April 30, 2019. Studies were selected for inclusion if patients initiated biologics within 2 years of a CD diagnosis or if earlier biologics use (top-down) was compared to a conventional step-up strategy. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to compare clinical remission (CR), relapse and endoscopic healing rates between early biologic treatment (2 years of disease duration or conventional step-up treatment strategy). RESULTS: A total of 3,069 records were identified, of which 47 references met the selection criteria for systematic review. A total of 18,471 patients were studied, with a median follow-up of 64 weeks (range 10–416). Meta-analysis found that early use of biologics was associated with higher rates of clinical remission (OR 2.10 [95% CI: 1.69–2.60], n=2763, P

Noninvasive tests to measure endoscopic activity in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) have limitations. We aimed to develop a test to identify patients in remission, based on endoscopic analysis, and monitor CD activity based on serum levels of proteins.We developed a test to measure 13 proteins in blood (ANG1, ANG2, CRP, SAA1, IL7, EMMPRIN, MMP1, MMP2, MMP3, MMP9, TGFA, CEACAM1, and VCAM1), called the endoscopic healing index [EHI], using samples from 278 patients with CD from a multinational training cohort. We validated the test using 2 independent cohorts of patients with CD: 116 biologic-naive patients with early-stage CD (validation cohort 1) and 195 biologic-exposed patients with chronic CD (validation cohort 2). The ability of the test to identify patients with active disease vs patients in remission (defined as a simple endoscopic score for CD of ≤2 and ≤1 in each segment, or a total CD endoscopic index of severity score3) was assessed by using area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) analysis. The diagnostic accuracy of the test was compared with that of measurement of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin.The EHI scores range from 0 to 100 units; higher scores indicate more severe CD activity, based on endoscopy findings. The EHI identified patients in remission with an AUROC of 0.962 in validation cohort 1 (95% confidence interval, 0.942-0.982) and an AUROC of 0.693 in validation cohort 2 (95% confidence interval, 0.619-0.767), regardless of CD location or phenotype. A cutoff value of 20 points identified patients in remission with the highest level of sensitivity (97.1% in validation cohort 1 and 83.2% in validation cohort 2), with specificity values of 69.0% and 36.6%, respectively. A cutoff value of 50 points identified patients in remission with the highest level of specificity (100% in validation cohort 1 and 87.8% in validation cohort 2), with sensitivity values of 37.3% and 30.0%, respectively. The EHI identified patients in remission with a significantly higher AUROC value than the test for CRP (0.876, P.001 in validation cohort 1 and 0.624, P = .109 in validation cohort 2). In analysis of patients with available FC measurements, the AUROC value for the EHI did not differ significantly from that of measurement of FC (AUROC, 0.950 for EHI vs AUROC, 0.923 for FC; P = .147 in validation cohort 1 and AUROC, 0.803 for EHI vs AUROC, 0.854 for FC; P = .298 in validation cohort 2).We developed an index called the EHI to identify patients with CD in endoscopic remission based on blood levels of 13 proteins. The EHI identified patients with resolution of endoscopic disease activity, with good overall accuracy, although with variation between the 2 cohorts assessed. The EHI AUROC values were comparable to measurement of FC and higher than measurement of serum CRP. The test might be used in practice to assess endoscopic activity in patients with CD.