Pasha, Shabana

Abstract Background While biologic and small molecule therapies have expanded treatment options for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC), prior research revealed that only 26% of patients in routine practice would have qualified for pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) due to stringent eligibility criteria. This study aimed to evaluate contemporary clinical trial eligibility for UC patients in a tertiary care setting based on more recently approved therapies. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with moderate to severe UC (total Mayo score ≥6) seen between January 2022 and February 2023. Inclusion and exclusion criteria from seven phase III RCTs conducted between 2012 and 2022 (eg, VARSITY, UNIFI, OCTAVE, LUCENT) were applied to determine patient eligibility and identify reasons for ineligibility. Results Of 150 patients (mean age 44.9 years; 55.7% male), only 42.7% were eligible for at least one RCT. The most common exclusion factor was current or prior medication use, followed by anemia, dysplasia, and disease extent. Trial eligibility did not significantly differ by age, gender, or disease duration. Conclusions Despite modest improvements since 2012, over half of real-world UC patients remain ineligible for current RCTs. Expanding inclusion criteria, especially regarding prior medication exposure, and adopting more inclusive trial designs may enhance external validity. Addressing disparities in trial access and participation remains essential to ensuring equitable representation and improving clinical applicability of RCT findings.

Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) may require solid organ transplants (SOTs) for multiple reasons, making its prevalence slightly higher than the general population. Although immunosuppression used in SOT may help control IBD-related inflammation, many patients still require additional immunosuppressive medications. We aim to assess the effectiveness and safety of the combination of SOT-related immunosuppression and IBD medications in patients with liver, kidney, or heart transplantation. We conducted a clinical review using PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar databases for our search. We included data from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case series, and case reports to assess the safety, effectiveness, and side effect profile of immunomodulators, biologic therapies, and small molecules in patients with SOT. Our review encompassed 25 liver, 6 kidney, and 1 heart transplant studies involving patients with IBD. Common liver transplant immunosuppressants included tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclosporine, and steroids. Anti-TNF agents, widely used in all SOT types, showed no significant safety issues, though infections and malignancies were noted. Patients with liver transplant on tacrolimus responded well to anti-integrins and ustekinumab without major complications. For kidney transplants, cyclosporine and tacrolimus were prevalent, and their combination with anti-TNF or ustekinumab was generally safe, with rare reports of malignancy or infection. Hence, the use of anti-TNF, anti-integrin agents, and ustekinumab appears to be safe in patients with SOT, regardless of their transplant related immunosuppression. More studies are needed in patients with kidney and heart transplants and in patients treated with small molecules for their IBD.