Search

Background and Aims: Pragmatic studies designed to test interventions in everyday clinical settings can successfully complement the evidence from registration and explanatory clinical trials. The European consensus project PRACTICE-IBD was developed to identify essential criteria and address key methodological issues needed to design valid, comparative, pragmatic studies in inflammatory bowel diseases [BDs]., Methods: Statements were issued by a panel of 11 European experts in IBD management and trial methodology, on four main topics: [I] study design; [II] eligibility, recruitment and organisation, flexibility; [III] outcomes; [IV] analysis. The consensus process followed a modified Delphi approach, involving two rounds of assessment and rating of the level of agreement [1 to 9; cut-off ≥7 for approval] with the statements by 18 additional European experts in IBD., Results: At the first voting round, 25 out of the 26 statements reached a mean score ≥7. Following the discussion that preceded the second round of voting, it was decided to eliminate two statements and to split one into two. At the second voting round, 25 final statements were approved: seven for study design; six for eligibility, recruitment and organisation, flexibility; eight for outcomes; and four for analysis., Conclusions: Pragmatic, randomised, clinical trials can address important questions in IBD clinical practice, and may provide complementary, high-level evidence, as long as they follow a methodologically rigorous approach. These 25 statements intend to offer practical guidance in the design of high-quality, pragmatic, clinical trials that can aid decision making in choosing a management strategy for IBDs., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.)

Background and Aims: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients might experience disease-related malnutrition (DRM), but prevalence and risk factors are not well defined. The primary aim of the study was to define the prevalence of DRM and micronutrient deficiency in IBD patients; the secondary aim was to assess variables related to DRM., Materials and Methods: A multicenter, cross-sectional study was performed including consecutive adult IBD patients during a period of 2 weeks. Nutritional status was assessed with the body mass index (BMI) and the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool. DRM was defined according to European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism guidelines., Results: Among the 295 enrolled patients, the prevalence of DRM was 23%, with no statistical difference between Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Compared with well-nourished patients, patients with DRM showed higher rate of hospitalization in the previous month, were more often receiving systemic steroids, and had lower hemoglobin, albumin, and prealbumin levels and higher median C-reactive protein levels. At univariate logistic regression, current hospitalization, hospitalization in the previous month, low serum albumin, low BMI, high C-reactive protein, high Crohn's Disease Activity Index, and female sex were variables related to DRM. At the multivariate logistic regression, low BMI, current hospitalization and hospitalization in the previous month were significantly associated with DRM. In 23% of IBD patients, a deficiency of at least 1 micronutrient was observed, with no difference between ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease., Conclusions: DRM and microelements malnutrition are frequent conditions in the IBD population. DRM seems to be associated with disease activity and hospitalization., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

(1) Background : Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is frequently associated to other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This study aims at assessing physicians' awareness of the issue and the current status of IMID management. (2) Methods : A web-based survey was distributed to all 567 physicians affiliated to IG-IBD. (3) Results : A total of 249 (43.9%) physicians completed the survey. Over 90% of the responding physicians were gastroenterology specialists, primarily working in public hospitals. About 51.0% of the physicians had access to an integrated outpatient clinic, where gastroenterologists collaborated with rheumatologists and 28.5% with dermatologists. However, for 36.5% of physicians, integrated ambulatory care was not feasible. Designated appointment slots for rheumatologists and dermatologists were accessible to 72.2% and 58.2% of physicians, respectively, while 20.1% had no access to designated slots. About 5.2% of physicians report investigating signs or symptoms of IMIDs only during the initial patient assessment. However, 87.9% inquired about the presence of concomitant IMIDs at the initial assessment and actively investigated any signs or symptoms during subsequent clinical examination. (4) Conclusions : While Italian physicians recognize the importance of IMIDs associated with IBD, organizational challenges impede the attainment of optimal multidisciplinary collaboration. Efforts should be directed toward enhancing practical frameworks to improve the overall management of these complex conditions.

Background: In Italy, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection peaked in April and November 2020, defining two pandemic waves of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study compared the characteristics and outcomes of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and SARS-CoV-2 infections between pandemic waves., Methods: Observational longitudinal study of IBD patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with established diagnoses of IBD and of SARS-CoV-2 infection were consecutively enrolled in two periods: (i) first wave, from 1 March 2020 to 31 May 2020; and (ii) second wave, from 15 September to 15 December 2020., Results: We enrolled 937 IBD patients (219 in the first wave, 718 in the second wave). Patients of the first wave were older (mean ± SD: 46.3 ± 16.2 vs. 44.1 ± 15.4 years, p = 0.06), more likely to have ulcerative colitis (58.0% vs. 44.4%, p < 0.001) and comorbidities (48.9% vs. 38.9%; p < 0.01), and more frequently residing in Northern Italy (73.1% vs. 46.0%, p < 0.001) than patients of the second wave. There were no significant differences between pandemic waves in sex (male: 54.3% vs. 53.3%, p = 0.82) or frequency of active IBD (44.3% vs. 39.0%, p = 0.18). The rates of negative outcomes were significantly higher in the first than second wave: pneumonia (27.8% vs. 11.7%, p < 0.001), hospital admission (27.4% vs. 9.7%, p < 0.001), ventilatory support (11.9% vs. 5.4%, p < 0.003) and death (5.5% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.007)., Conclusion: Between the first and second SARS-CoV-2 pandemic waves, demographic, clinical and geographical features of IBD patients were different as were the symptoms and outcomes of infection. These differences are likely due to the different epidemiological situations and diagnostic possibilities between the two waves., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which includes Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), is a complex, immune-mediated, disorder which leads to several gastrointestinal and systemic manifestations determining a poor quality of life, disability, and other negative health outcomes. Our knowledge of this condition has greatly improved over the last few decades, and a comprehensive management should take into account both biological (i.e., disease-related, patient-related) and non-biological (i.e., socioeconomic, cultural, environmental, behavioral) factors which contribute to the disease phenotype. From this point of view, the so called 4P medicine framework, including personalization, prediction, prevention, and participation could be useful for tailoring ad hoc interventions in IBD patients. In this review, we discuss the cutting-edge issues regarding personalization in special settings (i.e., pregnancy, oncology, infectious diseases), patient participation (i.e., how to communicate, disability, tackling stigma and resilience, quality of care), disease prediction (i.e., faecal markers, response to treatments), and prevention (i.e., dysplasia through endoscopy, infections through vaccinations, and post-surgical recurrence). Finally, we provide an outlook discussing the unmet needs for implementing this conceptual framework in clinical practice., Competing Interests: ES has served as speaker for Abbvie, AGPharma, Alfasigma, EG Stada Group, Fresenius Kabi, Grifols, Janssen, Innovamedica, Malesci, Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, Sandoz, SILA, Sofar, Takeda, Unifarco; has served as consultant for Alfasigma, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Diadema Farmaceutici, Falk, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Merck & Co, Reckitt Benckiser, Regeneron, Sanofi, Shire, SILA, Sofar, Synformulas GmbH, Takeda, Unifarco; he received research support from Reckitt Benckiser, SILA, Sofar, Unifarco. DP has received speaker’s fee from Takeda, Pfizer, MSD, Janssen, MSD, and a grant from Amgen and Pfizer. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Lenti, Scribano, Biancone, Ciccocioppo, Pugliese, Pastorelli, Fiorino, Savarino, Caprioli, Ardizzone, Fantini, Tontini, Orlando, Sampietro, Sturniolo, Monteleone, Vecchi, Kohn, Daperno, D’Incà, Corazza and Di Sabatino.)

Introduction: The use of ustekinumab and vedolizumab as second-line therapies in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) in which tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (TNFi) failed is still debated. The aim of this study was to compare, in a large multicenter observational retrospective cohort, the effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab as second-line therapies, as assessed by clinical and objective outcomes including endoscopy and gastrointestinal imaging., Methods: Clinical response, remission, and steroid-free remission at weeks 26 and 52 were evaluated in a retrospective propensity score-weighted and propensity score-matched cohort of patients in which TNFi failed. Objective response and remission were evaluated by 1 or more techniques among endoscopy, magnetic resonance/computed tomography enteroclysis, and small bowel ultrasound., Results: A total of 470 patients with CD (239 treated with ustekinumab and 231 treated with vedolizumab) were included in the study. At week 26, clinical outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. At week 52, clinical remission (ustekinumab 42.5% vs vedolizumab 55.5%, P = 0.01) and steroid-free remission (ustekinumab 40.6% vs vedolizumab 51.1%, P = 0.038) rates were significantly higher in vedolizumab-treated patients. Three hundred two patients (hundred thirty-five treated with ustekinumab and hundred sixty-seven treated with vedolizumab) had an objective evaluation of disease activity at baseline and week 52. At week 52, objective response and remission rates were similar between the 2 groups. Clinical response at week 26 predicted steroid-free remission at week 52 in both ustekinumab-treated and vedolizumab-treated patients. Safety profiles were similar between the 2 groups., Discussion: In patients with CD in which TNFi failed, both ustekinumab and vedolizumab showed similar clinical effectiveness after 26 weeks of treatment. At 1 year, vedolizumab was associated with a higher rate of clinical remission when compared with ustekinumab. However, no difference was observed between the 2 groups when objective outcomes were investigated at this time point., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background: Older age and comorbidities are the main risk factors for adverse COVID-19 outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The impact of IBD medications is still under investigation., Aims: To assess risk factors for adverse outcomes of COVID-19 in IBD patients and use the identified risk factors to build risk indices., Methods: Observational cohort study. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors associated with pneumonia, hospitalisation, need for ventilatory support, and death., Results: Of the 937 patients (446 with ulcerative colitis [UC]) evaluated, 128 (13.7%) had asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, 664 (70.8%) had a favourable course, and 135 (15.5%) had moderate or severe COVID-19. In UC patients, obesity, active disease and comorbidities were significantly associated with adverse outcomes. In patients with Crohn's disease (CD), age, obesity, comorbidities and an additional immune-mediated inflammatory disease were identified as risk factors. These risk factors were incorporated into two indices to identify patients with UC or CD with a higher risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes. In multivariable analyses, no single IBD medication was associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but anti-TNF agents were associated with a lower risk of pneumonia in UC, and lower risks of hospitalisation and severe COVID-19 in CD., Conclusion: The course of COVID-19 in patients with IBD is similar to that in the general population. IBD patients with active disease and comorbidities are at greater risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes. IBD medications do not pose additional risks. The risk indices may help to identify patients who should be prioritised for COVID-19 re-vaccination or for therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)