Explore the vast range of titles available.

INTRODUCTION:There are limited real-world data comparing the effectiveness of upadacitinib and tofacitinib in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a multi-institutional database, to compare the effectiveness of upadacitinib and tofacitinib in patients with UC. The primary aim was to assess the risk of a composite outcome of hospitalization requiring intravenous steroids and/or colectomy within 6 and 12 months. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed for demographics, comorbid conditions, mean hemoglobin, C-reactive protein, albumin, and calprotectin, and prior UC medications including recent oral or intravenous steroid use between the cohorts. Risk was expressed as adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).RESULTS:There were 526 patients in the upadacitinib cohort (mean age 40.4 ± 16.3, 44.8% female sex, 76.6% White race) and 1,149 patients in the tofacitinib cohort (mean age 42 ± 17.1, 41.9% female sex, 76% White race). After propensity score matching, there was no significant difference in the risk of the composite outcome of need for intravenous steroids and/or colectomy within 6 months (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49-1.09). However, there was a lower risk of the composite outcome (aOR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44-0.89) in the upadacitinib cohort compared with the tofacitinib cohort within 12 months. There was no difference in the risk of intravenous steroid use (aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.48-1.02) but lower risk of colectomy (aOR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27-0.79). In sensitivity analysis, there was also a lower risk of the composite outcome (aOR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.94), including lower risk of intravenous steroid use (aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-0.99) and colectomy (aOR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.92) in the upadacitinib cohort compared with the tofacitinib cohort within 12 months.DISCUSSION:This study utilizing real-world data showed that upadacitinib was associated with improved disease-specific outcomes at 12 months compared with tofacitinib in patients with UC.

Abstract Over the last 2 decades, novel therapies targeting several immune pathways have been developed for the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Although anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents remain the firstline treatment for moderate to severe Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, many patients will require alternative agents, due to nonresponse, loss of response, or intolerance of anti-TNFs. Furthermore, patients may request newer therapies due to improved safety profiles or improved administration (ie, less frequent injection, oral therapy). This review will focus on new and emerging therapies for the treatment of IBD, with a special focus on their adverse effects. Although many of the agents included in this paper have been approved for use in IBD, a few are still in development but have been shown to be effective in phase II clinical trials. 10.1093/ibd/izy327_video1 izy327.video1 5967364908001

Abstract Introduction There has been growing interest in social media use in managing chronic illnesses. The aim of this study was to assess social media usage in a large sample of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Methods We performed a cross-sectional study within the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation's IBD Partners' internet-based cohort. We used bivariate analyses to compare patient characteristics by various factors associated with social media utilization. We used logistic regression models to determine factors independently associated with using social media to obtain IBD-related information. Results A total of 1960 IBD patients were included. Most respondents reported spending between 30 and 60 minutes on social media sites per day. Thirty-two percent of respondents agreed that social media could be useful for disease management. Most respondents agreed that social media should be used to connect patients with IBD-related organizations and to obtain IBD-related information online. Fifty percent of respondents could not rate the quality of IBD information posted online. Concerns surrounding social media use included privacy/confidentiality and lack of trust of information posted. The most frequently used social media website was Facebook. Thirty-two percent of respondents used social media at least once in the last week to obtain or post IBD-related content. Factors independently associated with social media use for IBD included female gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.43; 95% CI,1.10–1.87), age (OR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98–1.00), remission (OR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50–0.79), and a diagnosis of Crohn's disease (CD) rather than ulcerative colitis (UC) (OR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58–0.93). Conclusions Patients with IBD in this cohort expressed a substantial interest in using social media to aid in disease management. Use was higher in younger patients, females, and patients with active disease. Most patients were unsure of the quality of information posted online, which represents opportunities for clinicians to guide patients to appropriate resources.

In the ICP cohort, hesitancy regarding COVID-19 vaccines is prevalent given the exclusion of this population from clinical trials. [...]studies addressing immunization efficacy, timing relative to taking immunosuppressive agents, need to hold immunosuppressive agents, and vaccine hesitancy when caring for ICP will be instrumental. In assuming shared vaccination responsibilities, specialists should oversee and capitalize on administering vaccines at any in-person visits within their practice, whether it be in the office, endoscopy suite, laboratory, or infusion center [8]. [...]specialists should optimize their practice by including several tools, such as provider reminders, standing orders (i.e., protocol in place that permits non-physician providers to order and administer vaccines), and embedded state immunization registries, to assess immunization history and needs at every encounter. [...]current COVID-19 vaccine-related concerns among ICP include perception that the vaccine is not safe or may lead to disease flares. [...]patients may be obtaining inadequate or unvalidated information online, which is a concern given that reliance on social media has been correlated to a lower vaccination intent [10].

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. Lay Summary The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine is safe and well tolerated among individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Severe localized and systemic vaccine-related adverse events were rare, and rates of IBD flare were low (2%) following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination in a cohort of 3316 participants with IBD.

Serrated polyps are precursors in an alternative pathway to colon cancer. These polyps are frequently sessile or flat, located in the proximal colon, and may be overlooked during colonoscopy. Histological criteria to classify these polyps have only recently been described. This study assessed the variation of serrated polyp detection among endoscopists and pathologists in an average risk-screening cohort and trends in detection over time. Endoscopy and pathology reports were reviewed from all average risk-screening colonoscopies at an urban academic medical center from 2006 through 2008. Polyps were classified as adenoma (tubular, tubulovillous, or villous), serrated polyp (hyperplastic polyp (HP), sessile serrated adenoma (SSA), or dysplastic serrated polyp (DSP)), adenocarcinoma, or other. Differences in polyp detection among endoscopists and pathologists were tested with χ(2)-tests. Potential predictors of polyp detection were modeled with Poisson regression. Included in the study were 4,335 polyps from 7,192 colonoscopies. Detection prevalence (patients with at least one polyp per 100 colonoscopies) was 22.2 for adenomas, 11.7 for HP, 0.6 for SSA, and 0.2 for DSP. Detection prevalence of proximal SSAs increased from 0.2 in 2006 to 4.4 in 2008 (P<0.001). Detection prevalences among endoscopists differed significantly for adenomas, HP, and SSA. Classification rates among pathologists differed significantly for HP and SSA, but not for adenoma or DSP. On multivariate analysis, endoscopist was a significant predictor of adenoma, HP, and SSA. Pathologist was a significant predictor of HP, SSA, and DSP, but not adenoma. This study describes the detection of colorectal polyps in an average risk-screening cohort at an urban academic medical center. Detection of proximal SSAs increased during the study period. Detection of adenoma, HP, and SSA differed significantly by endoscopist. Classification of HP and SSA differed significantly by pathologist. Endoscopy and pathology practices should consider educational interventions to improve serrated polyp detection and standardize classification.

BackgroundPatients with immune-mediated conditions such as IBD and RA are at risk for vaccine-preventable infections. Despite guideline recommendations, prior studies have shown suboptimal vaccination rates.AimWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the different interventions intended to increase vaccination rates.MethodsA systematic search was conducted of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library up to 2020 for studies with interventions intended to increase vaccination rates. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to generate pooled odds ratios (ORs) to assess all interventions against no interventions. Our primary outcome was pneumococcal vaccination (PCV) rate.ResultsOur review found 8580 articles, for which 15 IBD and 8 RA articles met the inclusion criteria; 21 articles were included in the analysis. PCV was the predominant vaccination (91%). In our analysis of patients with IBD, almost all interventions (patient-oriented, physician-oriented, or barrier-oriented) increased PCV uptake [OR, 4.74; 95% CI, 2.44–6.56, I2 = 90%] compared to no intervention. The greatest effect was seen in barrier-oriented studies [OR, 12.68; 95% CI, 2.21–72.62, I2 = 92%]. For RA data, all interventions had increased PCV uptake compared to no interventions (OR 2.74; 95% CI, 1.80–4.17, I2 = 95%).ConclusionOur data suggest that many different interventions can increase PCV rates. It appears that barrier-oriented interventions may have the greatest positive effect on increasing PCV uptake. However, clinicians should be encouraged to implement measures best suited to their practice. Future high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the best approach to optimize vaccination rates.

Use of the electronic health record (EHR) has become increasingly widespread. Higher EHR burden is associated with burnout, but this has not been specifically investigated among gastroenterology (GI) providers. We retrospectively collected measures of EHR use for outpatient GI providers during a 6-month period. We compared metrics across provider sex, subspecialty, and training (physicians vs nonphysician providers [NPPs]). Data collected represented more than 16,000 appointments from 41 providers across the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and hepatology specialists spent more time per appointment in the EHR, clinical review, and outside regular hours compared with other subspecialists. NPPs spent more EHR time than physicians. IBD and hepatology specialists and NPPs may have disproportionally high EHR burden. More work is needed to understand differences in provider workload to combat burnout.

Current therapy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients often involves agents that suppress the immune system, placing patients at an increased risk for developing infections, of which several are potentially vaccine preventable. Many IBD patients are not being vaccinated appropriately. The aims of this study were to assess gastroenterologist's knowledge regarding vaccinating the IBD patient, eliciting the barriers that prevent vaccinations, and defining the gastroenterologist's role in vaccinations.MethodsOne thousand gastroenterologists, randomly selected from the membership of the American College of Gastroenterology, were asked to complete a 19 question electronic survey regarding the suitable vaccines for the immunocompetent and immunosuppressed IBD patient and the barriers to recommending the vaccines. The perceived role of the gastroenterologist versus the primary care physician (PCP) was also assessed.ResultsIn all, 108 responses were analyzed; 68 (62%) gastroenterologists managed 40+ IBD patients, with 65 (52%) asking their patients about immunization history most or all of the time. The majority believed that the PCP should determine which vaccinations to give (64%) and to administer the vaccines (83%). Overall, 66%–88% of gastroenterologists correctly recommended the inactivated vaccines for their IBD patients not on immunosuppressive therapies while 20%–30% incorrectly recommended administering the live vaccines to their immunosuppressed patients.ConclusionsGastroenterologist knowledge of the appropriate immunizations to recommend to the IBD patient is poor and may be the primary reason why the majority of gastroenterologists believe that the PCP should be responsible for vaccinations. Educational programs on vaccinations directed to gastroenterologists who prescribe immunosuppressive agents are needed.

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has been increasing in frequency and severity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Population based and single center studies have shown worse clinical outcomes in concomitant CDI and IBD, with several reporting longer length of hospital stay, higher colectomy rates and increased mortality. Clinically, CDI may be difficult to distinguish from an IBD flare and may range from an asymptomatic carrier state to severe life threatening colitis. The traditional risk factors for CDI have included hospitalization, antibiotic use, older age and severe co-morbid disease but IBD patients have several distinct characteristics including younger age, community acquisition, lack of antibiotic exposure, colonic IBD and steroid use. CDI can occur in the small bowel and specifically in ulcerative colitis patients who have had a colectomy and an ileal pouch anal anastomosis. PCR based assays and combination Elisa algorithms have improved the sensitivity and specificity of testing, though in IBD patients have raised clinical questions about how to best manage diarrhea in the setting of possible C. difficile colonization. Treatment modalities for CDI have not been examined in randomized clinical trials in the IBD population. Newer antibiotics, immunotherapy and fecal microbiota transplantation may alter current treatment strategies. This review will focus on the unique epidemiology of CDI in IBD patients, detail clinical disease states, and provide updated diagnostic strategies, prevention and treatment options.