Faleck, David M.

Abstract Background and study aims In patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), endoscopically visible lesions with distinct borders can be considered for endoscopic resection. The role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for these lesions is not well defined because of a paucity of data. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of colorectal ESD of dysplastic lesions in patients with IBD across centers in the United States. Patients and methods This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with IBD who were referred for ESD of dysplastic colorectal lesions at nine centers. The primary endpoints were the rates of en bloc resection and complete (R0) resection. The secondary endpoints were the rates of adverse events and lesion recurrence. Results A total of 45 dysplastic lesions (median size 30mm, interquartile range [IQR] 23 to 42 mm) in 41 patients were included. Submucosal fibrosis was observed in 73 %. En bloc resection was achieved in 43 of 45 lesions (96 %) and R0 resection in 34 of 45 lesions (76 %). Intraprocedural perforation occurred in one patient (2.4 %) and was treated successfully with clip placement. Delayed bleeding occurred in four patients (9.8 %). No severe intraprocedural bleeding or delayed perforation occurred. During a median follow-up of 18 months (IQR 13 to 37 months), local recurrence occurred in one case (2.6 %). Metachronous lesions were identified in 11 patients (31 %). Conclusions ESD, when performed by experts, is safe and effective for large, dysplastic colorectal lesions in patients with IBD. Despite the high prevalence of submucosal fibrosis, en bloc resection was achieved in nearly all patients with IBD undergoing ESD. Careful endoscopic surveillance is necessary to monitor for local recurrence and metachronous lesions after ESD.

Abstract Background Vedolizumab effectiveness estimates immediately after Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) are limited by use in refractory populations. We aimed to compare treatment patterns and outcomes of vedolizumab in 2 time frames after FDA approval. Methods We used 2 data sets for time trend analysis, an academic multicenter vedolizumab consortium (VICTORY) and the Truven MarketScan database, and 2 time periods, May 2014–June 2015 (Era 1) and July 2015–June 2017 (Era 2). VICTORY cumulative 12-month clinical remission, corticosteroid-free remission, and mucosal healing rates, and Truven 12-month hospitalization and surgery rates, were compared between Eras 1 and 2 using time-to-event analyses. Results A total of 3661 vedolizumab-treated patients were included (n = 1087 VICTORY, n = 2574 Truven). In both cohorts, CD and UC patients treated during Era 2 were more likely to be biologic naïve. Compared with Era 1, Era 2 CD patients in the VICTORY consortium had higher rates of clinical remission (31% vs 40%, P = 0.03) and mucosal healing (42% vs 58%, P < 0.01). These trends were not observed for UC. In the Truven database, UC patients treated during Era 2 had lower rates of inflammatory bowel disease–related hospitalization (22.4% vs 9.6%, P < 0.001) and surgery (17.2% vs 9.4%, P = 0.008), which was not observed for CD. Conclusion Since FDA approval, remission and mucosal healing rates have increased for vedolizumab-treated CD patients, and vedolizumab-treated UC patients have had fewer hospitalizations and surgeries. This is likely due to differences between patient populations treated immediately after drug approval and those treated later.

Abstract Background We quantified loss of response (LOR) to vedolizumab (VDZ) in clinical practice and assessed the effectiveness of VDZ dose intensification for managing LOR. Methods Retrospective review (May 2014–December 2016) of a prospectively maintained inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) registry. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine rates of LOR to VDZ . Independent predictors of LOR were identified using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression. Success of recapturing response (>50% reduction in symptoms from baseline) and remission (complete resolution of symptoms) after dose intensification was quantified. Results Cumulative rates for VDZ LOR were 20% at 6 months and 35% at 12 months, with slightly lower rates in Crohn’s disease than in ulcerative colitis (6 months 15% vs 18% and 12 months 30% vs 39%, P = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, LOR to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist before VDZ use was associated with an increased risk for LOR to VDZ [hazard ratio (HR) 1.93; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25–2.97] in all patients. For Crohn’s disease patients specifically, higher baseline C-reactive protein concentration was associated with increased risk for LOR to VDZ (HR 1.01 per mg/dL increase, 95% CI 1.01–1.02). Shortening of VDZ infusion interval from 8 to every 4 or 6 weeks recaptured response in 49% and remission in 18% of patients. Conclusions LOR to a TNF antagonist before VDZ use and higher baseline C-reactive protein are important predictors of VDZ LOR. Treatment response can be recaptured in almost half of these patients with VDZ infusion interval shortening.