Cross, Raymond

Introduction Targeted immunomodulators (eg, advanced therapies) effectively achieve symptomatic remission in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, ~25%–50% of patients with IBD achieving symptomatic remission with an advanced therapy may have continued endoscopically/radiologically active bowel inflammation, and it is uncertain whether changing alternative advanced therapies in asymptomatic patients with IBD will reduce bowel inflammation and achieve durable deep remission. Methods and analysis The QUality Outcomes Treating IBD to Target (QUOTIENT) study is an open-label, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial that aims to compare the efficacy and safety of switching to an alternative advanced therapy targeting endoscopic/radiological remission (treat-to-target) versus continuing the initial, or index, advanced therapy, in asymptomatic patients with IBD with moderate-to-severe endoscopic/radiological bowel inflammation. Enrolment is planned for ~250 participants in Canada/USA, randomised 1:1 to switching to alternative advanced therapy or continuing index advanced therapy, and then followed 104 weeks within routine clinical practice. Patient-reported outcomes measure efficacy and quality of life/treatment burden/safety. Primary endpoint is the time from randomisation to treatment failure. Ethics and dissemination The study is conducted in compliance with the protocol, ICH Good Clinical Practice, applicable regulatory requirements and appropriate review boards/independent ethics committees (approval numbers: Pro00077486; Pro00061437; STUDY00002062; 22-004171; i22-01269; IRB22-0890; IRB_00154397; 2000032384; SHIRB#2022.095-2; STUDY00007146; MMC#2024-18; REB#125290; 17784; Pro00142214; 20240660-01H), with documented written informed consent. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, scientific presentations, and publicly available Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) websites, including lay summaries. The Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation Education, Support, and Advocacy Department, and our patient advocacy stakeholder, will develop educational and marketing resources to communicate findings to a broad audience (>250 000 patients/caregivers/healthcare professionals). Trial registration number NCT05230173 .

Abstract Background Etrasimod is an oral, once daily (QD), selective sphingosine 1-phosphate1,4,5 receptor modulator for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). We assessed the benefit of etrasimod monotherapy and the impact of concomitant corticosteroids (CS) and/or 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA) therapy. Methods In ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12, patients with moderately to severely active UC were randomized 2:1 to etrasimod 2 mg QD or placebo for 52 and 12 weeks, respectively. Oral CS or 5-ASA were allowed at baseline. Patients in the monotherapy subgroup received etrasimod or placebo without concomitant CS and/or 5-ASA at baseline. Predefined primary (clinical remission) and key secondary efficacy endpoints aligned with those from both trials and were assessed at Week 12 and Week 52. Safety was assessed up to Week 52. Results Clinical remission rates at Weeks 12 and 52 were significantly higher for etrasimod compared with placebo in patients receiving monotherapy (Week 12: 26.2% vs 4.8%; Week 52: 35.7% vs 4.0%). Differences vs placebo were statistically significant for all predefined endpoints at both time points in patients receiving monotherapy or etrasimod with concomitant 5-ASA only (all P < .05); numerical differences, due to small sample sizes, vs placebo were observed for all endpoints in the CS only and CS + 5-ASA subgroups. Safety was consistent with the overall population. Conclusions Etrasimod monotherapy showed consistent efficacy and safety vs placebo; no apparent benefit was observed with concomitant CS and/or 5-ASA in patients receiving etrasimod. Clinical trial registration NCT03945188; NCT03996369.

Lay Summary In this prospective, multicenter observational study of highly refractory patients with Crohn’s disease of the pouch, risankizumab achieved the primary outcome of clinical remission in 50% and the more stringent secondary outcome of antibiotic- and steroid-free remission in 30.8% at 12 weeks.

AbstractChildren with very early onset inflammatory bowel disease (VEO‐IBD) may respond differently to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) immunization compared to healthy children or other patients with IBD. We recruited children with VEO‐IBD <6 years of age and younger following receipt of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) vaccine. Demographics, IBD characteristics, medication use, adverse events (AEs) and IBD exacerbations were collected. Blood draws (optional) were obtained for measurement of antireceptor binding domain (RBD) IgG antibodies following vaccination. Of 41 participants, none required emergency department visit or hospitalization due to AE, and only one experienced IBD exacerbation. Detectable antibody was present in 19/19 participants who provided blood sample; 6/7 participants (86%) had durable humoral response 12 months postvaccination. Children with VEO‐IBD experience robust humoral immune response to COVID‐19 immunization. Severe AEs were rare. These findings provide reassurance that children with VEO‐IBD respond well and safely to SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination.

Abstract Background and Aims Technological advances have provided innovative, adaptive, and responsive models of care for inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD]. We conducted a systematic review to compare e-health interventions with standard care in management of IBD. Methods We searched electronic databases for randomised, controlled trials [RCT] comparing e-health interventions with standard care for patients with IBD. Effect measures were standardised mean difference [SMD], odds ratio [OR], or rate ratio [RR], calculated using the inverse variance or Mantel–Haenszel statistical method and random-effects models. Version 2 of the Cochrane tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was appraised with the GRADE framework Results Fourteen RCTs [n = 3111; 1754 e-health and 1357 controls] were identified. The difference in disease activity scores (SMD 0.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.09-0.28) and clinical remission (odds ratio [OR] 1.12, 95% CI: 0.78-1.61) between e-health interventions and standard care were not statistically significant. Higher quality of life [QoL] [SMD 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.35) and IBD knowledge [SMD 0.23, 95% CI: 0.10-0.36] scores were noted in the e-health group, and self-efficacy levels [SMD -0.09, 95% CI: -0.22-0.05] were comparable. E-health patients had fewer office [RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.78-0.93] and emergency [RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51- 0.95] visits, with no statistically significant difference in endoscopic procedures, total health care encounters, corticosteroid use, and IBD related hospitalisation or surgery. The trials were judged to be at high risk of bias or to have some concerns for disease remission. The certainty of evidence was moderate or low. Conclusion E-health technologies may have a role in value-based care in IBD.