Search

Competing Interests: C.B. served as a consultant for AbbVie, Celtrion, Ferring, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, and Takeda. E.V.S. has served as speaker for AbbVie, Agave, AG Pharma, Alfasigma, Aurora Pharma, Cadigroup, Celltrion, Dr Falk, EG Stada Group, Fenix Pharma, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, JB Pharmaceuticals, Innovamedica/Adacyte, Malesci, MayolyBiohealth, Omega Pharma, Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, Sandoz, SILA, Sofar, Takeda, Tillots, and Unifarco; has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Agave, Alfasigma, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Diadema Farmaceutici, Dr Falk, Fenix Pharma, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, JB Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co, Nestlé, Reckitt Benckiser, Regeneron, Sanofi, SILA, Sofar, Synformulas, Takeda, and Unifarco; and has received research support from Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, SILA, Sofar, Unifarco, and Zeta Farmaceutici. M.M. has received lecture fees and has been an Advisory Board member for Takeda, Galapagos, Biogen, Aurora Pharma, and AbbVie. F.A.C. served as consultant and advisory board member for Mundipharma, AbbVie, MS&D, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, and Celgene; has received lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Ferring, Takeda, and Allergy Therapeutics; and has received unrestricted research grants from Giuliani, Sofar, MSD, Takeda, and AbbVie. G.B. served as speaker for AbbVie, Takeda, Galapagos, Lilly, and Janssen. A.V. has received lecture fees from and has been an advisory board member for Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Pfizer, Ferring, MSD, Zambon, AbbVie, and Celltrion. F.S. has served as a lecturer for Sanofi. F.F. received consulting fees from Amgen, AbbVie, and Galapagos and lecture fees from Janssen and Pfizer; has served as an advisory board member; and/or received lecture grants from AbbVie, Biogen, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda Pharmaceuticals. E.C. served as advisory board member for Takeda and AbbVie; and received lecture fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Galapagos, Ferring, Takeda. M.B.P. served as advisory board member and received lecture fee from MSD, AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda. A.A. has been an advisory board member for Galapagos and consultant for AbbVie, Galapagos, Pfizer, Takeda, and Janssen. M.C. served as a speaker or advisory board member for Takeda, MSD, AbbVie, Shire, Fresenius, and Janssen. B.B. has served as a speaker for AbbVie, Agave, Alfasigma, AG Pharma, Janssen, MSD, Procise, Sofar, Takeda, and Unifarco. S.S. has received consultancy and lecture fees and has been an advisory board member for AbbVie, Arena, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and Takeda. P.B. has participated on advisory boards for Janssen and Takeda. A.A. has received consulting and/or advisory board fees from AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Mylan, Nestlé, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, and Takeda; has received lecture and speaker bureau fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, and TiGenix; and has received research grants from Biogen, MSD, Pfizer, and Takeda. L.B. has received lecture fees, consultancy fees, or advisory board honoraria from Abbvie, Aliveda, Janssen, Noos, Pfizer, Pharmanutra, Takeda, and Zambon. S.D. received honoraria as a speaker, consultant, and/or advisory board member from AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Athos Therapeutics, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Enthera, Ferring, Gilead, Hospira, Inotrem, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sublimity Therapeutics, Takeda, TiGenix, UCB, and Vifor. G.F., M.M., G.B., A.M., C.C., M.C., L.C., V.C., A.S., and F.S.C. declare no conflict of interest.

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.)

Background: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a group of chronic multifactorial inflammatory disorders including two major entities: Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Preliminary evidence suggests that patients with IBD may be at increased risk of developing intestinal and extraintestinal cancers (EICs). Actually, little is known about the association between IBD and EICs, and there is ever-growing concern regarding the safety of immunomodulators and biological therapy, which may represent a risk factor for carcinogenesis., Aims: The aim of this review is to summarize the evidence regarding the association between IBD and EICs, the safety of immunomodulators and biological therapy and the management of immunomodulators and biologic agents in IBD patients with prior or current EICs., Results: IBD patients have a higher risk of developing different forms of extraintestinal solid organ tumors and hematological malignancies. Immunomodulators and biological therapy may increase the risk of developing some types of EICs and may be consciously used in patients with IBD and current or prior history of malignancy., Conclusions: Decisions regarding the use of immunomodulators or biological therapies should be made on an individual basis, considering a multidisciplinary approach involving oncologists.

Objectives: Comparative trials among biological drugs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) provided conflicting results. After patent expire of infliximab originator, adalimumab, infliximab biosimilar, golimumab and vedolizumab have been approved in Italy.We compared the efficacy of these four biologics in UC according to the concept of continuous clinical remission (CCR)., Methods: In a retrospective, multicentre study, all UC patients treated with adalimumab, infliximab biosimilar, golimumab or vedolizumab between 2014 and 2019 were included. All drugs were compared to each other according to the 1-year CCR rate, defined as Mayo partial score ≤2, with bleeding subscore = 0, without any relapse or optimization with dose escalation, topical treatments or steroid use after first clinical remission., Results: Four-hundred sixteen patients (adalimumab = 90, infliximab biosimilar = 105, golimumab = 79, vedolizumab = 142) were included. CCR was achieved in similar percentages among the groups (33%, 37%, 28%, 37%, respectively). All drugs were equivalent in biologic-naive patients, while vedolizumab was better than a second anti-TNFα in prior anti-TNFα agent failures. No differences were found according to type of adverse events or severe adverse events., Conclusions: Based on a strict definition of clinical remission, all biologics appear equally effective at 1 year. Changing to vedolizumab is more effective than switching to another anti-TNFα in TNFα failures., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Data regarding double switching from originator infliximab (IFX) to IFX biosimilars in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are lacking. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of switching from originator IFX to CT-P13 and subsequently to SB2 (double switch) in patients with IBD. Patients undergoing IFX-double switch in eight Centers in Lombardy (Italy) from November 2018 to May 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The IFX discontinuation rate, incidence and type of adverse events (AEs), and clinical remission rate were recorded. A comparison with a control group of patients with IBD single-switched from originator IFX to CT-P13 was performed, before and after an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-based propensity score analysis. Fifty-two double-switched patients with IBD were enrolled. The 24- and 52-week proportions of patients continuing on IFX therapy following the second switch (CTP13 → SB2) were 98% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94%-100%) and 90% (95% CI 81%-99%), respectively. Four patients experienced a total of five AEs, all graded 1-3 according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). No infusion reactions were observed. The 24-week and follow-up end clinical remission rates following the second switch were 94% and 88%, respectively. No differences were observed in the safety and efficacy outcomes by comparing the double-switch group with a single-switch group of 66 patients with IBD; all these results were confirmed by IPTW-adjusted analysis. The study suggests both the safety and efficacy of the double switch from originator IFX to CT-P13 and SB2 in patients with IBD is maintained. This strategy may be associated with potential cost implications., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background and Aim: Since the outbreak of COVID-19, concerns have been raised as to whether inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients under biologic therapy may be more susceptible to the disease. This study aimed to determine the incidence and outcomes of COVID-19 in a large cohort of IBD patients on biologic therapy., Methods: This observational retrospective multicenter study collected data about COVID-19 in IBD patients on biologic therapy in Italy, between February and May 2020. The main end-points were (i) to assess both the cumulative incidence and clinical outcome of COVID-19, according to different biologic agents and (ii) to compare them with the general population and a cohort IBD patients undergoing non-biologic therapies., Results: Among 1816 IBD patients, the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was 3.9 per 1000 (7/1816) with a 57% hospitalization rate and a 29% case-fatality rate. The class of biologic agents was the only risk factor of developing COVID-19 (P = 0.01). Non-gut selective agents were associated with a lower incidence of COVID-19 cases, related symptoms, and hospitalization (P < 0.05). Compared with the general population of Lombardy, an overall lower incidence of COVID-19 was observed (3.9 vs 8.5 per 1000, P = 0.03). Compared with 565 IBD patients on non-biologic therapies, a lower rate of COVID-19 symptoms was observed in our cohort (7.5% vs 18%, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Compared with the general population, IBD patients on biologic therapy are not exposed to a higher risk of COVID-19. Non-gut selective agents are associated with a lower incidence of symptomatic disease, supporting the decision of maintaining the ongoing treatment., (© 2021 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background and Aims: Restructuring activities have been necessary during the lockdown phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Few data are available on the post-lockdown phase in terms of health-care procedures in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care, and no data are available specifically from IBD units. We aimed to investigate how IBD management was restructured during the lockdown phase, the impact of the restructuring on standards of care and how Italian IBD units have managed post-lockdown activities., Methods: A web-based online survey was conducted in two phases (April and June 2020) among the Italian Group for IBD affiliated units within the entire country. We investigated preventive measures, the possibility of continuing scheduled visits/procedures/therapies because of COVID-19 and how units resumed activities in the post-lockdown phase., Results: Forty-two referral centres participated from all over Italy. During the COVID-19 lockdown, 36% of first visits and 7% of follow-up visits were regularly done, while >70% of follow-up scheduled visits and 5% of first visits were done virtually. About 25% of scheduled endoscopies and bowel ultrasound scans were done. More than 80% of biological therapies were done as scheduled. Compared to the pre-lockdown situation, 95% of centres modified management of outpatient activity, 93% of endoscopies, 59% of gastrointestinal ultrasounds and 33% of biological therapies. Resumption of activities after the lockdown phase may take three to six months to normalize. Virtual clinics, implementation of IBD pathways and facilities seem to be the main factors to improve care in the future., Conclusion: Italian IBD unit restructuring allowed quality standards of care during the COVID-19 pandemic to be maintained. A return to normal appears to be feasible and achievable relatively quickly. Some approaches, such as virtual clinics and identified IBD pathways, represent a valid starting point to improve IBD care in the post-COVID-19 era.

Objectives: COVID-19 has rapidly become a major health emergency worldwide. Patients with IBD are at increased risk of infection, especially when they have active disease and are taking immunosuppressive therapy. The characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with IBD remain unclear., Design: This Italian prospective observational cohort study enrolled consecutive patients with an established IBD diagnosis and confirmed COVID-19. Data regarding age, sex, IBD (type, treatments and clinical activity), other comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)), signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and therapies were compared with COVID-19 outcomes (pneumonia, hospitalisation, respiratory therapy and death)., Results: Between 11 and 29 March 2020, 79 patients with IBD with COVID-19 were enrolled at 24 IBD referral units. Thirty-six patients had COVID-19-related pneumonia (46%), 22 (28%) were hospitalised, 7 (9%) required non-mechanical ventilation, 9 (11%) required continuous positive airway pressure therapy, 2 (3%) had endotracheal intubation and 6 (8%) died. Four patients (6%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 while they were being hospitalised for a severe flare of IBD. Age over 65 years (p=0.03), UC diagnosis (p=0.03), IBD activity (p=0.003) and a CCI score >1 (p=0.04) were significantly associated with COVID-19 pneumonia, whereas concomitant IBD treatments were not. Age over 65 years (p=0.002), active IBD (p=0.02) and higher CCI score were significantly associated with COVID-19-related death., Conclusions: Active IBD, old age and comorbidities were associated with a negative COVID-19 outcome, whereas IBD treatments were not. Preventing acute IBD flares may avoid fatal COVID-19 in patients with IBD. Further research is needed., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CB received lecture fees from Takeda, AbbVie and Janssen. SS received lecture fees from Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and served as a consultant and a member of Advisory Boards for AbbVie and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. AV received lecture fees from Takeda and AbbVie and served as consultant for MSD, Pfizer and Janssen. MA received consulting fees from Nikkiso Europe and lecture fees from Janssen, Abbvie and Pfizer. CR reports personal fee from Abbvie, Janssen Cilag, MSD, Recordati, Takeda and Vifor. FC served as consultant and a member of advisory board for Mundipharma, AbbVie, MS&D, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Celgene and received lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Ferring, Takeda, Allergy Therapeutics and unrestricted research grants from Giuliani, Sofar, MSD, Takeda, AbbVie. FB served as a member of advisory board for Biogen and Janssen, Takeda, Celgene, Mundipharma, AbbVie and MSD. FC served as consultant and a member of advisory board for Mundipharma, AbbVie, MS&D, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Celgene and received lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Ferring, Takeda, Allergy Therapeutics. DGR served as consultant and received lecture fees from Janssen, Ferring, Errekappa. SD served as a speaker, consultant and advisory board member for Schering-Plough, Abbott (AbbVie) Laboratories, Merck, UCB Pharma, Ferring, Cellerix, Millenium Takeda, Nycomed, Pharmacosmos, Actelion, Alfa Wasserman, Genentech, Grunenthal, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, Vifor and Johnson and Johnson. MCF received fees as member of advisory boards and participation to sponsored symposia from AbbVie, Takeda, Jannsen-Cilag, Pfizer, Sandoz. AA served as a consultant for AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz and Takeda; MD served as a speaker, consultant and advisory board member for AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, Norgine, Pfizer, MSD, Celltrion, Roche, Gilead, Bioclinica, Ferring, SOFAR, Chiesi, Zambon. GF received consultancy fees from Ferring, MSD, AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, Amgen, Sandoz, Samsung Bioepis, Celltrion., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The gut microbiota is a complex and dynamic ecosystem with a strong influence on the host's health. Several factors can modify the gut's bacterial composition, often leading to the onset of intestinal dysbiosis. Therefore, it is essential not only to evaluate the quantitative bacterial changes occurring in the human microbiota but also to characterize relationships existing among all the microorganisms. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of bowel cleansing on the fecal microbiota network by highlighting differences between fecal microflora before and after colonoscopy, and luminal samples during colonoscopy. Fecal and luminal samples, previously analyzed by mean of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) for their bacterial abundance, were further processed by a method based on Artificial Neural Network (ANN) architecture. The bowel lavage had a strong effect on the intestinal microbiota network, leading to significant changes in the distribution of different bacterial hubs potentially involved in the microbiota homeostasis. Furthermore, the fecal and luminal microbiota showed a different bacterial network, characterized by distinct microbial hubs. In particular, the latter seemed to be rich in potentially pathogenic bacteria which, in physiological conditions, are counteracted by fecal microorganisms.

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the most common endoscopic procedure used to provide nutritional support., Aim: To prospectively evaluate the mortality and complication incidences after PEG insertion or replacement., Methods: All patients who underwent PEG insertion or replacement were included. Details on patient characteristics, ongoing therapies, comorbidities, and indication for PEG placement/replacement were collected, along with informed consent form signatures. Early and late (30-day) complications and mortality were assessed., Results: 950 patients (47.1% male) were enrolled in 25 centers in Lombardy, a region of Northern Italy. Patient mean age was 73 years. 69.5% of patients had ASA status 3 or 4. First PEG placement was performed in 594 patients. Complication and mortality incidences were 4.8% and 5.2%, respectively. The most frequent complication was infection (50%), followed by bleeding (32.1%), tube dislodgment (14.3%), and buried bumper syndrome (3.6%). At multivariable analysis, age (OR 1.08 per 1-year increase, 95% CI, 1.0-1.16, p = 0.010) and BMI (OR 0.86 per 1-point increase, 95% CI, 0.77-0.96, p = 0.014) were factors associated with mortality. PEG replacement was carried out in 356 patients. Thirty-day mortality was 1.8%, while complications occurred in 1.7% of patients., Conclusions: Our data confirm that PEG placement is a safe procedure. Mortality was not related to the procedure itself, confirming that careful patient selection is warranted., (Copyright © 2019 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Endoscopy has a key role in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It is helpful in the diagnosis, in case of relapse, refractoriness, before therapeutic changes, after surgery as well as in the assessment of mucosal healing and in the surveillance of colo-rectal cancer. IBD patients are intended to undergo several times the examination during their lifespan. Bowel preparation and sedation highly contribute to high-quality colonoscopy. Areas covered: Few studies addressed preparation and sedation in the field of IBD. In this review, we focused our attention on the available evidences about bowel preparation and sedation in patients with IBD. Expert commentary: In recent years, the goal of medical treatment in IBD is shifting from clinical improvement in symptoms towards mucosal healing. High-quality endoscopy will gain even more importance in the management of IBD. It is important to locate the most effective preparation and the best sedation in patient with IBD to perform a high-quality endoscopy.

Objective: An adequate bowel preparation is essential for a successful colonoscopy, but to date, only scarce information exists on the impact of the bowel cleansing on the gut microbiota, in particular, 1 month after the procedure., Patients and Methods: Through 16S rDNA Ion Torrent profiling of fecal samples of 10 patients, we evaluated changes that occurred in the gut microbiota composition immediately after a 4 liter polyethylene glycol-based (SELG Esse) bowel lavage and 1 month thereafter. We studied the gut microbiota at the phylum, class, and family level., Results: At the phyla level, we found a significant decrease in Firmicutes abundance and an increase in Proteobacteria abundance immediately after the colon cleansing and 1 month after the colonoscopy, whereas, at the class level, a significant increase in γ-Proteobacteria immediately after the colonoscopy was observed. Interestingly, 1 month after the endoscopic examination, this bacterial class was decreased 2.5-fold compared with samples before colonoscopy, as well as α-Proteobacteria. At the family level, a significant reduction in Lactobacillaceae and an increase in Enterobacteriaceae abundance were observed immediately after the colonoscopy, whereas 1 month after the bowel cleansing, these families were significantly lower compared with samples collected before the colonoscopy. Moreover, the abundance of Rikenellaceae and Eubacteriaceae has been observed to be significantly higher compared with samples collected before the bowel lavage. Finally, Streptococcaceae were increased 4.0-fold 1 month after the bowel lavage compared with fecal samples collected before the colonoscopy., Conclusion: We provide clear evidence that, in normal individuals, a high-volume polyethylene glycol bowel cleansing preparation has a long-lasting effect on the gut microbiota composition and homeostasis, in particular, with a decrease in the Lactobacillaceae abundance, a population of protective bacteria. Further studies are required to assess whether these changes have any metabolic, immunological, or clinical consequence.

Congenital dysfibrinogenemias are characterized by biosynthesis of a structurally abnormal fibrinogen molecule that exhibits reduced functional levels compared with the level of fibrinogen antigen. To date a large number of mutations have been identified in patients with dysfibrinogenemia. Mutations occurring at the thrombin cleavage site (Arg16-Gly17 in the mature alpha-chain) at the amino-terminal end of the fibrinogen alpha chain are a common cause of the disease. These mutations causing abnormal fibrin polymerization are associated with different phenotypes. Here, we report the identification of a novel heterozygous missense mutation of Glycine 17 (Gly17Asp) in a female patient with mild bleeding manifestations, and compare it with other previously reported mutations also resulting in abnormal knob A.

The following on proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and chemoprevention in relation to Barrett's esophagus includes commentaries on 48-h pH monitoring, pH-impedence, bile acid testing, dyspepsia, long/short segment Barrett's esophagus, nonerosive reflux disease (NERD), functional heartburn, dual-release delivery PPIs, immediate-release PPIs, long-term PPI use, prokinetic agents, obesity, baclofen, nocturnal acid breakthrough, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and new PPIs., (© 2011 New York Academy of Sciences.)