Citations

Lay Summary Biosimilar medications have the potential to significantly reduce the cost of treatment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Observational studies have shown similar efficacy and safety of biosimilars to biologic reference products. Shared decision-making is crucial to the successful implementation of these agents.

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.

INTRODUCTION: Although an additional coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine dose for immunocompromised persons has been recommended in some countries, further data to guide vaccination strategies for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are urgently needed. We sought to identify factors affecting initial humoral immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines among patients with IBD. METHODS: In this prospective cohort of SARS-CoV-2 immunized patients with IBD, we evaluated associations between participant age, sex, vaccine type, medication use, and the presence of a detectable antireceptor binding domain antibody and quantitative antibody level. RESULTS: In total, 1,909 participants were included (1,123, 692, and 94 received BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S, respectively) of whom 96% achieved a positive antibody response. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with lack of antibody response were older age ( P = 0.043), BNT162b2 vs mRNA-1273 (odds ratio [OR] 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0–3.9), and combination therapy with anti-TNF and 6MP, azathioprine, or methotrexate (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.4–7.3). The use of 5-aminosalicylate or sulfasalazine (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1–0.8) and ustekinumab (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.05–0.8) was associated with decreased odds of lacking antibody response. DISCUSSION: Most patients with IBD mount an initial response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination; however, older patients and those treated with anti-TNF and immunomodulator have blunted responses and may benefit the most from an additional vaccine dose. Patients treated with other classes of immunosuppressive medications have more robust initial immune responses to vaccination. These data should inform key decisions about patient selection for additional coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine doses in patients with IBD.

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination is recommended for all individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including those on immunosuppressive therapies; however, little is known about vaccine safety and efficacy in these patients or the impact of vaccination on IBD disease course. Methods We evaluated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine–related adverse events (AEs) and the effect of vaccination on IBD disease course among participants in the PREVENT-COVID (Partnership to Report Effectiveness of Vaccination in populations Excluded from iNitial Trials of COVID) study, a prospective, observational cohort study. Localized and systemic reactions were assessed via questionnaire. Disease flare was defined by worsening IBD symptoms and change in IBD medications. Outcomes were stratified by vaccine type and IBD medication classes. Results A total of 3316 individuals with IBD received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccine. Injection site tenderness (68%) and fatigue (46% dose 1, 68% dose 2) were the most commonly reported localized and systemic AEs after vaccination. Severe localized and systemic vaccine-related AEs were rare. The mRNA-1273 vaccine was associated with significantly greater severe AEs at dose 2 (localized 4% vs 2%, systemic 15% vs 10%; P < .001 for both). Prior COVID-19 infection, female sex, and vaccine type were associated with severe systemic reactions to dose 1, while age <50 years, female sex, vaccine type, and antitumor necrosis factor and vedolizumab use were associated with severe systemic reactions to dose 2. Overall rates (2%) of IBD flare were low following vaccination. Conclusions Our findings provide reassurance that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine is safe and well tolerated among individuals with IBD, which may help to combat vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine confidence.

Abstract Background Clinical and molecular subcategories of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are needed to discover mechanisms of disease and predictors of response and disease relapse. We aimed to develop a study of a prospective adult research cohort with IBD (SPARC IBD) including longitudinal clinical and patient-reported data and biosamples. Methods We established a cohort of adults with IBD from a geographically diverse sample of patients across the United States with standardized data and biosample collection methods and sample processing techniques. At enrollment and at time of lower endoscopy, patient-reported outcomes (PRO), clinical data, and endoscopy scoring indices are captured. Patient-reported outcomes are collected quarterly. The quality of clinical data entry after the first year of the study was assessed. Results Through January 2020, 3029 patients were enrolled in SPARC, of whom 66.1% have Crohn’s disease (CD), 32.2% have ulcerative colitis (UC), and 1.7% have IBD-unclassified. Among patients enrolled, 990 underwent colonoscopy. Remission rates were 63.9% in the CD group and 80.6% in the UC group. In the quality study of the cohort, there was 96% agreement on year of diagnosis and 97% agreement on IBD subtype. There was 91% overall agreement describing UC extent as left-sided vs extensive or pancolitis. The overall agreement for CD behavior was 83%. Conclusion The SPARC IBD is an ongoing large prospective cohort with longitudinal standardized collection of clinical data, biosamples, and PROs representing a unique resource aimed to drive discovery of clinical and molecular markers that will meet the needs of precision medicine in IBD.

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of biologics is a rapidly evolving field. We aimed to provide a consensus statement regarding the clinical utility of TDM for biologics in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). A modified Delphi method was applied to develop consensus statements. A comprehensive literature review was performed regarding TDM of biologic therapies in IBD, and 45 statements were subsequently formulated on the potential application of TDM in IBD. The statements, along with literature, were then presented to a panel of 10 gastroenterologists with expertise in IBD and TDM who anonymously rated them on a scale of 1–10 (1 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree). An expert consensus development meeting was held virtually to review, discuss, refine, and reformulate statements that did not meet criteria for agreement or that were ambiguous. During the meeting, additional statements were proposed. Panelists then confidentially revoted, and statements rated ≥7 by 80% or more of the participants were accepted. During the virtual meeting, 8 statements were reworded, 7 new statements were proposed, and 19 statements were rerated. Consensus was finally reached in 48/49 statements. The panel agreed that reactive TDM should be used for all biologics for both primary nonresponse and secondary loss of response. It was recommended that treatment discontinuation should not be considered for infliximab or adalimumab until a drug concentration of at least 10–15 μg/mL was achieved. Consensus was also achieved regarding the utility of proactive TDM for anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy. It was recommended to perform proactive TDM after induction and at least once during maintenance. Consensus was achieved in most cases regarding the utility of TDM of biologics in IBD, specifically for reactive and proactive TDM of anti–tumor necrosis factors.

Abstract Background The increasing incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), has fuelled the need for innovative models of care. We aimed to compare effectiveness of e-health interventions (virtual clinics, telephone consultation, remote monitoring or any web-based health platform) with standard care in management of IBD. Our primary outcomes were to assess the difference in disease activity and percentage of patients in clinical remission at the end of follow up. Our secondary outcomes were to investigate differences in quality of life (QoL), IBD-knowledge & rate ratios (RR) for endoscopic procedures, total healthcare encounters, corticosteroid use, and IBD related hospitalisation or surgery. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Clinical trials registry and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials (RCT) published in the English language until November 2020, comparing e-health interventions to standard care for patients with IBD. Pooled estimates of dichotomous outcomes were calculated using the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method. For continuous data, the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI were calculated using the inverse variance statistical method. Event data were analysed and expressed as RR with 95% CI using the inverse variance statistical method. Random effects model was used. Results Nine studies involving 1841 participants (991 e-health group and 850 controls) were identified. There was no statistically significant difference between the mean disease activity scores for UC (SMD 0.22, 95% CI: -0.04–0.48) and CD (SMD 0.02, 95% CI: -0.18–0.22) in the e-health and standard care groups and no statistically significant difference in the percentage of patients in clinical remission at the end of follow up between both groups (OR -1.05, 95% CI: 0.76–1.45). Higher QoL (SMD 0.19, 95% CI: 0.05–0.34) and IBD knowledge (SMD 0.25, 95% CI: 0.12–0.37) scores were noted in the e-health group compared to standard care. There were no statistically significant differences noted in the RR for endoscopic procedures (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.81–1.26), total healthcare encounters (RR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.93–1.15;), IBD related, corticosteroid use (RR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.51–1.92), and IBD related hospitalisation (RR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.53–1.25) or surgery (RR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.49–1.55) between both groups. Conclusion E-health interventions are comparable with standard care for impact on disease activity, remission, endoscopy utilisation, total healthcare encounters, corticosteroid use, and IBD related hospitalisation or surgery. QoL and IBD related knowledge were higher in the e-health compared to the standard care group.