Barnes, Edward L

SummaryBackground and aimsExtra‐intestinal manifestations (EIMs) are a common complication of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), affecting up to half of the patients. Despite their high prevalence, information on standardised definitions, diagnostic strategies, and treatment targets is limited.MethodsAs a starting point for a national EIM study network, an interdisciplinary expert panel of 12 gastroenterologists, 4 rheumatologists, 3 ophthalmologists, 6 dermatologists, and 4 patient representatives was assembled. Modified Delphi consensus methodology was used. Fifty‐four candidate items were derived from the literature review and expert opinion focusing on five major EIMs (erythema nodosum, pyoderma gangrenosum, uveitis, peripheral arthritis, and axial arthritis) were rated in three voting rounds.ResultsFor use in a clinical practice setting and as part of the creation of a prospective registry of patients with EIMs, the panel developed definitions for erythema nodosum, pyoderma gangrenosum, uveitis, peripheral arthritis, and axial arthritis; identified the appropriate and optimal subspecialists to diagnose and manage each; provided methods to monitor disease course; offered guidance regarding monitoring intervals; and defined resolution and recurrence.ConclusionsConsensus criteria for appropriate and optimal means of diagnosing and monitoring five EIMs have been developed as a starting point to inform clinical practice and future trial design. Key findings include straightforward diagnostic criteria, guidance regarding who can appropriately and optimally diagnose each, and monitoring options that include patient and physician‐reported outcomes. These findings will be used in a national multicenter study network to optimise the management of EIMs.

SummaryBackgroundThe impact of combination therapy on disease‐related morbidity in patients with established Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) remains to be well‐defined.AimTo examine the effect of combination therapy on disease outcomes in CD and UC.MethodsUsing a multicenter prospective cohort, we classified CD and UC patients as being on monotherapy with anti‐TNF or on combination with an immunomodulator. The primary outcome was a composite of new IBD‐related surgery, hospitalisations, penetrating complications, need for corticosteroids or new biological at 1 year. Multivariable regression models adjusted for potential confounders.ResultsWe included 707 patients with CD (45% combination therapy) and 164 with UC (38% combination therapy). Combination therapy was not associated with reduction in the composite outcome in either CD (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.63‐1.22) or UC (OR: 1.45, 95% CI: 0.63‐3.38). However, while no difference was noted in those with nonstricturing, nonpenetrating CD, a significant reduction in the likelihood of the outcome was seen in those with stricturing or penetrating CD (30% vs 39%, OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37‐0.90). A stronger effect was also observed in those with disease duration <5 years (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.14‐0.87) compared to those with a longer duration (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.45‐1.27). A similar reduction in occurrence of composite outcome was noted with infliximab and with other anti‐TNF biologics.ConclusionThe benefit of combination immunomodulator‐biological therapy is stronger in those with complicated Crohn's disease, particularly early on in their disease course.