Farraye, Francis A.

Abstract Background Tixagevimab and cilgavimab (Evusheld) are 2 fully human monoclonal antibodies that received emergency-use authorization on December 21, 2021, for pre-exposure prophylaxis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients who are moderate–severely immunocompromised. The real-world efficacy of Evusheld in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is not known. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a multi-institutional database in patients with IBD who received Evusheld compared to patients with IBD who did not receive Evusheld (12.1.2021–10.28.2022). The primary outcome was to assess the risk of COVID-19 within 6 months. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed for demographic parameters, comorbid conditions, IBD medications, and history of COVID-19. Risk was expressed as adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Four hundred and eight patients (0.19%) with IBD received Evusheld (mean age 58.6 ± 15.4 years old, female 47.7%) during the study period. After PSM, there was no difference in the risk (aOR 0.88, 95% CI, 0.33–2.35) of COVID-19 in the Evusheld cohort compared to the IBD control cohort. No patients required ICU care or intubation/respiratory support or were deceased in the Evusheld cohort. Conclusions Our study did not show that Evusheld decreases the risk of COVID-19 in patients with IBD. Prevention of moderate–severe COVID-19 in these patients should focus on vaccination strategies and early COVID-19 therapies.

Background: Tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α) inhibitors and the α4β7 integrin antagonist, vedolizumab, have been investigated as treatment options for patients with steroid-refractory microscopic colitis. Aims: To evaluate the benefit of vedolizumab and TNF-α inhibitors in patients with steroid-refractory microscopic colitis. Methods: Retrospective studies and case series involving patients with steroid-refractory MC who either received vedolizumab, adalimumab, or infliximab were eligible for inclusion. Pooled proportional meta-analyses were used to calculate the rate of clinical remission at induction, clinical response, maintenance of remission, histologic remission, and overall medication related adverse effects. Statistical analysis was performed in R using the metafor and meta packages. Results: A total of 14 studies involving 164 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed a clinical remission rate of 63.5% [95% CI (0.483; 0.776), I 2 =43% P =0.08], 57.8% [95% CI (0.3895; 0.7571), I 2 =0%, P =0.7541], and 39.3% [95% CI (0.0814; 0.7492), I 2 =66%, P =0.02] for vedolizumab, infliximab, and adalimumab, respectively. The maintenance of remission rates were 65.9% [95% CI (0.389; 0.889), I 2 =67%, P =0.02], 45.3% [95% CI (0.1479; 0.7747), I 2 =0%, P =0.36] and 32.5% [95% CI (0.000; 0.8508), I 2 =53%, P =0.14] in patients who received vedolizumab, infliximab, and adalimumab, respectively. Rate of biological-related adverse events warranting discontinuation of therapy was 12.2%, 32.9%, and 23.0% for the vedolizumab, infliximab, and adalimumab groups, respectively. Conclusion: Vedolizumab and anti-TNF-α agents demonstrated a clinical benefit in the treatment of steroid-refractory microscopic colitis and with a tolerable safety profile. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to compare vedolizumab with TNF-α inhibitors and examine treatment effect on patients’ quality of life.

Abstract Background There is evidence that SARS-CoV2 infection can increase the risk of herpes zoster (HZ) in the general population. However, the risk in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is not known. Methods The TriNetX database was utilized to conduct a retrospective cohort study in patients with IBD after SARS-CoV2 infection and patients without a SARS-CoV2 infection (IBD control cohort). The primary outcome was to evaluate the risk of HZ between the 2 cohorts. One-to-one (1:1) propensity score matching was performed for demographic parameters, HZ risk factors and IBD medications between the 2 cohorts. Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results After propensity score matching, patients with IBD with a SARS-CoV2 infection were at an increased risk for HZ (aOR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.53-3.04) compared with IBD control cohort in the pre-COVID-19 vaccine era. There was no difference in the risk (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.44-1.75) of a composite outcome of HZ complications (hospitalization, post-herpetic neuralgia, and neurologic complications) between the 2 cohorts. The IBD SARS-CoV2 cohort was also at an increased risk for HZ (aOR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.48-6.24) compared with IBD control cohort in the postvaccine era. However, the risk of HZ in the postvaccine era was decreased (aOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.27-0.76) compared with IBD SARS-CoV2 cohort in the prevaccine era. Conclusions Our study showed that SARS-CoV2 infection is associated with an increased risk of HZ in patients with IBD.

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment targets include mucosal healing based on standardized endoscopic scoring systems. The rates and ease of use of these scoring systems in practice have not been well described. We aimed to assess the rates and factors associated with the use of IBD endoscopic scoring systems in practice from IBD LIVE attendees. Methods IBD Live is an international case-based conference focusing on the management of patients with IBD. We created a web-based survey consisting of 38 questions on the frequency and ease of use of various IBD endoscopic scores. This survey was emailed to the IBD Live listserv in March 2022 with a second email sent 14 days later. We included only respondents who are currently performing endoscopy. Continuous variables were analyzed using an unpaired student’s t-test. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test. Results There were 65 responses out of 170 (38.2% response rate) regular attendees. Eleven responses were excluded (4 with no response on the use of endoscopy scores, and 7 were not performing endoscopy). Of the respondents, 72.2% are from the United States, 70.4% are adult gastroenterologists, 53.9% in academic practice, and 40.7% in practice for ≥15 years. Of the endoscopy scores used ≥50% of the time, 74.1% were using the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore (MES), 72.3% using the Rutgeerts Score, 61.2% using the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease, and 28.6% using the Pouchitis Disease Activity Index. Attending IBD LIVE ≥ monthly (P = .028), attending an IBD conference at least every 2 years (P = .020), and having the scoring system incorporated into the endoscopy documentation software (P = .002) were associated with more consistent use of the MES. Attending IBD Live at least monthly (P = .026), having an IBD volume of ≥50% (P = .011), and attending an IBD conference at least every 2 years (P = .004) was associated with more frequent use of the Rutgeerts score. There were no factors that increased the use of other endoscopic scores. Conclusions The MES and the Rutgeerts score are more commonly used with much lower rates of use of endoscopic scores for Crohn’s disease and pouchitis. The use of these endoscopy scores is more common among those who regularly attend IBD conferences, have higher volume IBD practices, and have these scoring systems incorporated into endoscopy software. Further evaluation of barriers to use and ways to improve utilization of endoscopic scoring for Crohn’s disease and pouchitis is needed.

Abstract Background Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn’s disease (CD) are at increased risk of herpes zoster (HZ); however, relevant cost and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) data are limited. Methods We estimated HCRU (hospitalization, emergency department [ED], and outpatient visits) and costs in patients with UC or CD, with and without HZ, using administrative claims data (October 2015–February 2020). HCRU and costs (2020 US dollars) were compared at 1 month, 1 quarter, and 1 year after the index date, using propensity score adjustment and generalized linear models. Results In total, 20 948 patients were included: UC+/HZ+ (n = 431), UC+/HZ– (n = 10 285), CD+/HZ+ (n = 435), and CD+/HZ– (n = 9797). Patients with HZ had higher all-cause HCRU rates and all-cause total healthcare costs relative to those without HZ. In the first month, adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) for hospitalizations and ED visits for patients with UC and HZ compared with UC alone were 2.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.93–4.27) and 2.66 (95% CI,1.74–4.05), respectively; for those with CD and HZ, aIRRs were 3.34 (95% CI, 2.38–4.70) and 3.31 (95% CI, 2.32–4.71), respectively, compared with CD alone (all P < .001). Adjusted cost differences in UC and CD cohorts with HZ over the first month were $2189 and $3774, respectively, chiefly driven by higher inpatient costs. The incremental impact on HCRU and costs in cohorts with HZ predominantly occurred during the first quarter following diagnosis. Conclusions HZ is associated with increased HCRU and costs in patients with UC and CD, especially shortly after diagnosis.

Introduction and Aim: A growing body of evidence suggests a negative impact of obesity on the disease activity of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The primary aim of the study was to evaluate disease outcomes of IBD in patients after bariatric surgery (BS). Methods: Patients with IBD and morbid obesity who underwent BS were compared with patients with IBD and morbid obesity without BS in a retrospective, propensity-score matched cohort study using TriNetX, a multi-institutional database. The primary aim was to assess the 2-year risk of a composite of disease-related complications, which included intravenous steroid use or IBD-related surgery. Risk was expressed as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: In all, 482 patients (3.4%) with IBD and morbid obesity underwent BS (mean age 46.9±11.2 y old, mean BMI 42.1±7.72 kg/m2, Crohn’s disease 60%). After propensity-score matching, the BS cohort had a lower risk (aOR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17-0.56) of a composite of IBD-related complications compared with the control cohort. After propensity-score matching, the BS cohort with sleeve gastrectomy had a decreased risk (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.66) of a composite of IBD-related complications. There was no difference in the risk (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45–1.31) of a composite of IBD-related complications between the BS cohort with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) compared with the control cohort. Conclusion: Sleeve gastrectomy but not Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is associated with improved disease-specific outcomes in patients with IBD and morbid obesity.

Background: The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) has been associated with gastrointestinal inflammation and fibrosis, suggesting that RAAS blockade may be beneficial in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Using retrospective analysis, we aimed to compare the disease course of patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) taking two commonly prescribed classes of RAAS-blocking agents. Study: Patients with CD initiated on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) between 2000 and 2016 were enrolled. Data on clinical, radiologic, and procedural surrogate markers of inflammatory bowel disease were collected in the subsequent 3, 5, and 10 years and compared with matched controls using univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Compared with controls, patients taking ARBs had fewer instances of corticosteroid use (1.06 vs 2.88, P < 0.01) at 10 years. Patients taking ACEIs had an overall worse disease course, with more imaging studies (3.00 vs 1.75, P = 0.03) and endoscopic procedures (2.70 vs 1.78, P = 0.01) at 5 years, and more imaging studies (6.19 vs 3.50, P < 0.01), endoscopic procedures (5.91 vs 3.78, P < 0.01), and gastrointestinal operations (0.59 vs 0.18, P < 0.02) at 10 years. Results remained significant on multivariate analysis, adjusting for CD characteristics and the use of other antihypertensive medications. Conclusions: Our study provides insight into the long-term use of RAAS-blocking agents in patients with CD, suggesting that differences exist among commonly prescribed medication classes. While ACEIs were associated with an overall worse disease course at 5 and 10 years, patients taking ARBs were noted to have fewer instances of corticosteroid use at 10 years. Future large-scale studies are needed to further explore this association.

AbstractBackground and AimAlthough fidaxomicin is an effective first‐line treatment for Clostridioides difficile infection, it has not been well studied in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of fidaxomicin for the treatment of C. difficile infection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.MethodsThis was a multicenter retrospective study of adults with inflammatory bowel disease and C. difficile infection treated with fidaxomicin with at least 3 months of follow up. The primary outcomes were treatment response, defined as resolution of C. difficile infection‐attributed diarrhea and/or negative C. difficile infection stool test, and time to C. difficile infection recurrence after fidaxomicin.ResultsThirty‐three patients (median age 42 years; 60.6% female) were included. Most patients had ulcerative colitis (26, 78.8%), were receiving treatment with a biologic or small molecule medication (19, 57.6%), and had a prior episode of C. difficile infection (26, 78.8%, median 2 episodes, range 0–15). Fidaxomicin led to resolution of C. difficile infection in 20 (60.6%) patients, with 6/20 (30.0%) developing a recurrence at a median of 55 days. Most patients who failed to respond to fidaxomicin underwent fecal microbiota transplantation (10/13, 76.9%) with resolution.ConclusionsIn this cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel disease and C. difficile infection, 60.6% responded to treatment with fidaxomicin. Of those who did not respond, fecal microbiota transplantation was an effective therapy.

SummaryBackgroundThere is limited real‐world data on comparative effectiveness of different biologic or small molecule agents as second‐line therapies in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) with prior exposure to a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a multi‐institutional database to assess the efficacy of tofacitinib, vedolizumab and ustekinumab in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) with prior exposure to a TNFi. Failure of medical therapy was defined as a composite outcome of intravenous steroids or colectomy within 2 years. One‐to‐one propensity score matching was performed for demographics, disease extent, mean haemoglobin, C‐reactive protein, albumin and calprotectin, prior IBD medications and steroid use between cohorts.ResultsAmong 2141 patients with UC and prior exposure to TNFi, 348 (16.2%), 716 (33.4%) and 1077 (50.3%) were switched to tofacitinib, ustekinumab and vedolizumab, respectively. After propensity‐score matching, there was no difference in the composite outcome (aOR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.55–1.07) but higher risk of colectomy (aOR: 2.69, 95% CI: 1.31–5.50) in the tofacitinib cohort than the vedolizumab cohort. There was no difference in the risk of composite outcome (aOR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.89–1.86) but higher risk of colectomy (aOR: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.24–5.58) in the tofacitinib cohort than the ustekinumab cohort. The vedolizumab cohort had a higher risk of composite outcome (aOR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.29–2.16) than the ustekinumab cohort.ConclusionUstekinumab might be the preferred second‐line therapy over tofacitinib and vedolizumab in patients with UC that were previously exposed to a TNFi.

Lay Summary It is unknown if immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy increases risk of pouch-related complications in patients with inflammatory bowel disease after ileal-pouch anal anastomosis. In our study, pembrolizumab therapy was not associated with significant gastrointestinal immune-related adverse events or pouch-related complications.