Ivanov, Marina

Abstract Background Immunosuppression is a recognized risk factor for severe and disseminated coccidioidomycosis; however, data describing outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) receiving advanced therapy, including biologics and small molecules, remain limited. We aim to describe the prevalence, clinical presentation, treatment patterns, and outcomes of coccidioidomycosis in IBD patients receiving advanced therapy at an endemic tertiary care center. Methods We performed a retrospective observational study of adult patients with IBD at Mayo Clinic Arizona diagnosed with coccidioidomycosis between 2023 and 2026. Patients were included if IBD diagnosis preceded coccidioidomycosis diagnosis and advanced therapy had been active for at least 4 weeks before infection. Cases were classified as proven, probable, or possible based on microbiologic, clinical, radiographic, and serologic criteria. Clinical outcomes included antifungal treatment duration, hospitalization related to coccidioidomycosis or IBD, IBD treatment modification after diagnosis, re-emergence of coccidioidomycosis symptoms, and IBD-related surgery. Results A total of 48 patients met inclusion criteria. Among 1083 tested IBD patients receiving advanced therapy, coccidioidomycosis positivity prevalence was 4.4% when including all serologically positive patients and 1.9% when restricted to proven or probable cases. The median age at coccidioidomycosis diagnosis was 40 years (range 19-87 years), and 30 (62.5%) of 48 had Crohn’s disease. Proven or probable infection was identified in 21 (43.8%) of 48 patients, while 14 (29.2%) of 48 patients were classified as possible. Antifungal therapy was prescribed in 32 (66.7%) of 48 patients, including all proven cases, 15 (88.2%) of 17 probable cases, 9 (64.3%) of 14 possible cases, and 3 (25.0%) of 12 nondiagnostic cases. Among proven/probable/possible cases, the median antifungal treatment duration was 174 days (range 8-831 days). Advanced IBD therapy was continued in 3 (75.0%) of 4 proven cases, 9 (52.9%) of 17 probable cases, 12 (85.7%) of 14 possible cases, and all nondiagnostic cases. Hospitalization occurred in 6 (12.5%) of 48 of the cohort, all of which were proven/probable cases. Most patients remained on advanced therapy after diagnosis, although tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors were the most interrupted or discontinued agents. Conclusions In this endemic tertiary care cohort, management decisions varied according to diagnostic certainty. Patients with proven or probable coccidioidomycosis were more likely to receive antifungal therapy and undergo advanced IBD therapy modification, whereas most patients with possible or nondiagnostic serologic findings remained on advanced therapy without major IBD-related complications. Prolonged antifungal treatment was common, highlighting the complexity of managing coccidioidomycosis in immunosuppressed patients with IBD.

Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is a medical emergency affecting up to 25% of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), with colectomy required in approximately 25–30% of cases during the initial admission. Intravenous corticosteroids remain the first-line therapy, though one-third of patients do not respond, necessitating rescue with infliximab or calcineurin inhibitors, which are both supported by randomized trials and guideline recommendations. Comparative studies and meta-analyses have shown similar efficacy between these agents, while sequential use is associated with higher adverse event rates and should be restricted to specialized centers. Recent data have refined infliximab use, with the PREDICT-UC trial showing no superiority of intensified dosing over standard regimens. Emerging therapies are under investigation: vedolizumab has been used as maintenance following calcineurin induction; ustekinumab has shown benefits in retrospective UC cohorts, particularly after cyclosporine; and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent the most recent addition. The randomized TACOS trial and the prospective TRIUMPH study demonstrated an improved short-term response with tofacitinib in steroid-refractory ASUC, and real-world reports suggest promising outcomes with upadacitinib. While infliximab and cyclosporine remain as standard rescue therapies, ongoing trials with novel agents are likely to broaden treatment options. This review summarizes the clinical features, initial management, and the role of advanced therapies in ASUC.

Objective: To review the pharmacologic and clinical profile of etrasimod in the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). Data sources: A PubMed search was conducted from inception to November 2023 using the keywords etrasimod, ulcerative colitis, and sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator. Information was also obtained from published abstracts and package insert. Study selection and data extraction: Phase 2 and 3 studies plus relevant literature on etrasimod pharmacologic and clinical profile were reviewed. Data synthesis: Per ELEVATE, 2 phase 3 studies, a higher proportion of patients with moderately to severely active UC achieved clinical remission in the induction and maintenance phase with etrasimod compared with placebo. In addition, a higher proportion of patients achieved secondary endpoints of clinical response, endoscopic improvement-histologic remission, corticosteroid-free remission, and endoscopic improvement with etrasimod vs placebo. Common adverse events include anemia and headache. Relevance to patient care and clinical practice in comparison with existing drugs: Etrasimod is now the second orally administered sphingosine-1-phosphate modulator approved for UC, providing patients with additional treatment options. Efficacy rates of this treatment are in line with other UC medication options. Similar to other sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators, various assessments are required at baseline and during treatment to ensure safe and appropriate use. Conclusion: Etrasimod is another possibility in the armamentarium of UC treatment, providing patients with more oral medication options. Prior to treatment initiation, several assessments relating to safety, drug interactions, and pharmacogenomics factors are advised.

Abstract Background Given the complexity of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care, utilization of multidisciplinary teams is recommended to optimize outcomes. There is a growing recognition that clinical pharmacists should be an integral part of this care model. We sought to define the roles of IBD clinical pharmacists in the United States. Methods A national multidisciplinary expert panel of 12 gastroenterologists and clinical pharmacists practicing in IBD clinics was assembled. We used the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness method, with a total of 281 statements generated based on a systematic literature review and expert opinion. Each statement was anonymously rated as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate in 2 rounds of voting. Results The number of publications evaluating the clinical pharmacists’ roles in IBD is limited, primarily focusing on thiopurine initiation and monitoring, medication adherence, and switching to biosimilars. Medication education; medication initiation and monitoring; therapeutic drug monitoring; biosimilar management; health maintenance review; and transitions of care were deemed by the panel to be appropriate roles for IBD clinical pharmacists. In considering real-world settings, IBD clinical pharmacists should practice clinically under a predefined scope and primarily focus on complex treatments (eg, immunomodulators, biologics, and small molecules). Clinical pharmacists should also be included in practice settings with IBD specialized physicians. Additionally, clinical pharmacists caring for patients with IBD should be residency trained and board certified. Conclusions This consensus defines IBD clinical pharmacists’ roles and provides a framework for embedded clinical pharmacists in IBD care.

AbstractPatients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at a high risk of developing invasive pneumococcal infection both before and after they are diagnosed. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices now endorses use of 2 new pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, PCV15 (Vaxneuvance) and PCV20 (Prevnar 20), for patients who have never received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or those with unknown vaccination history. Previous studies have shown that pneumococcal vaccination can decrease the risk of developing severe pneumococcal disease; therefore, it is important that patients with IBD receive pneumococcal vaccination. This report aims to inform clinicians who care for patients with IBD about the changes in immunization practices, as it pertains to pneumococcal vaccination and provides appropriate direction on administering vaccination series.