Explore the vast range of titles available.

Lay Summary This multicentre cohort study showed that Risankizumab is an effective induction therapy in patients with Crohn’s disease, and that the best results are obtained when Risankizumab is used as second-line therapy following a previous failure with a TNF inhibitor.

Abstract Background No data on the recently introduced infliximab (IFX) biosimilar SB2 in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are available. Methods The Sicilian Prospective Observational Study of Patients With IBD Treated With Infliximab Biosimilar SB2 is a multicenter, observational, prospective study performed among the cohort of the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. All consecutive IBD patients starting the IFX biosimilar SB2 from its introduction in Sicily (March 2018) to September 2019 (18 months) were enrolled. Results Two hundred seventy-six patients (Crohn disease: 49.3%, ulcerative colitis: 50.7%) were included: 127 (46.0%) were naïve to IFX and naïve to anti-tumor necrosis factor medications (anti-TNFs), 65 (23.5%) were naïve to IFX and previously exposed to anti-TNFs, 17 (6.2%) were switched from an IFX originator to SB2, 43 (15.6%) were switched from the biosimilar CT-P13 to SB2, and 24 (8.7%) were multiply switched (from IFX originator to CT-P13 to SB2). The cumulative number of infusions of SB2 was 1798, and the total follow-up time was 182.7 patient-years. Sixty-seven serious adverse events occurred in 57 patients (20.7%; incidence rate: 36.7 per 100 patient-year), and 31 of these events caused the withdrawal of the drug. The effectiveness after 8 weeks of treatment was evaluated in patients naïve to IFX (n = 192): 110 patients (57.3%) had steroid-free remission, while 56 patients had no response (29.2%). At the end of follow-up, 72 patients (26.1%) interrupted the treatment, without significant differences in treatment persistency estimations between the five groups (log-rank P = 0.15). Conclusions The safety and effectiveness of SB2 seem to be overall similar to those reported for the IFX originator and CT-P13.

Abstract Background Data from the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic suggested that patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are not at higher risk of being infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) than the general population and that a worse prognosis is not associated with immunomodulatory drugs, with the possible exception of systemic steroids. Methods This retrospective, observational study included consecutive IBD patients from the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SN-IBD) cohort who had a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis (polymerase chain reaction–confirmed presence of the viral genome in a nasopharyngeal swab) during the second COVID-19 pandemic wave (September 2020 to December 2020). Data regarding demographics, IBD features and treatments, and comorbidities were analyzed in correlation with COVID-19 clinical outcomes. Results Data on 122 patients (mean age, 43.9 ± 16.7 years; males, 50.0%; Crohn’s disease, 62.3%; ulcerative colitis, 37.7%) were reported. Twelve patients developed COVID-19-related pneumonia (9.8%), 4 (3.3%) required respiratory assistance (nonmechanical ventilation or orotracheal intubation), and 4 died (case fatality rate, 3.3%). In a multivariable analysis, age (odds ratio [OR], 1.034; 95% CI, 1.006–1.147; P = .032) and severe IBD activity (OR, 13.465; 95% CI, 1.104–164.182; P = .042) were independent predictors of COVID-19-related pneumonia, while severe IBD activity (OR, 15.359; 95% CI, 1.320–178.677; P = .030) was the only independent predictor of severe COVID-19, a composite endpoint defined as the need for respiratory assistance or death. A trend towards a protective role of tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors on pneumonia development was reported (P = .076). Conclusions In this cohort of patients with IBD and SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe IBD activity was the only independent risk factor for severe COVID-19. Lay Summary This retrospective, observational study on patients with inflammatory bowel disease and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection showed that severe inflammatory bowel disease activity was the only independent risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019.

Abstract Background Adalimumab (ADA) and vedolizumab (VDZ) have shown efficacy in moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) patients who failed infliximab (IFX). Although, a comparative efficacy evaluation of ADA and VDZ in this clinical setting is currently missing. Aim The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of ADA and VDZ in patients affected by UC who failed IFX. Methods Clinical records of UC patients from 8 Italian IBD referral centers who failed IFX and were candidates to receive either ADA or VDZ were retrospectively reviewed. The primary end point was therapeutic failure at week 52. Secondary end points included therapy discontinuation at weeks 8, 24 and 52, the discontinuation-free survival, and safety. Results One hundred sixty-one UC patients, 15 (9.2%) primary, 83 (51.6%) secondary IFX failures, and 63 (39.2%) IFX intolerants were included. Sixty-four (40%) patients received ADA and 97 (60%) VDZ as second line therapy. At week 52, 37.5% and 28.9% of patients on ADA and VDZ, respectively, had therapeutic failure (P = 0.302). However, the failure rate was significantly higher in the ADA group as compared with VDZ group among IFX secondary failures (48.0% ADA vs 22.4%VDZ, P = 0.035). The therapy discontinuation-free survival was significantly higher in the group of IFX secondary failures who received VDZ as compared with ADA at both the univariate (P = 0.007) and multivariate survival analysis (OR 2.79; 95% CI, 1.23–6.34; P = 0.014). No difference in the failure and biologic discontinuation-free survival was observed in the IFX primary failure and intolerant subgroups. Conclusion Vedolizumab might be the therapy of choice in those UC patients who showed secondary failure to IFX. Video Abstract 10.1093/ibd/izz057_video1 Video Abstract 6021138808001 izz057_video1 In a retrospective cohort of ulcerative colitis patients who failed Infliximab, Vedolizumab was more effective than Adalimumab among secondary failures while they were equally effective among Infliximab intolerants.

Background: Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) require proactive monitoring both during the active phase to evaluate therapeutic response and during the remission phase to evaluate relapse or colorectal cancer surveillance. However, monitoring may vary between patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD), with distinct tools and intervals. Methods: This narrative review aims to focus on modern approaches to IBD monitoring, considering international guidelines and expert consensus. Results: The most recent European diagnostic guidelines advocate a combination of clinical, laboratory, endoscopic, and radiological parameters to evaluate the disease course of patients with IBD. Unfortunately, the conventional symptom-based therapeutic approach does not improve long-term outcomes and there is no single ideal biomarker available. Endoscopy plays a key role in evaluating response to therapy as well as monitoring disease activity. Recently, bedside intestinal ultrasound (IUS) has gained increasing interest and diffusion as it appears to offer several advantages including the monitoring of therapeutic response. Conclusion: In light of growing clinical advances, we present a schematic evidence-based monitoring algorithm that can be easily applied in clinical practice which combines all major monitoring modalities, including noninvasive tools such as IUS and video-capsule endoscopy.

Background/Objectives: Limited data exist on the epidemiology and clinical management of short bowel syndrome (SBS) and chronic intestinal failure (CIF) in Crohn’s disease (CD). This study aimed to evaluate these aspects in Italy. Methods: Members of the Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IG-IBD) were invited to complete a cross-sectional web survey. A subgroup analysis examined the influence of different clinical settings on SBS and CIF management in CD. Results: A total of 47/128 (36.7%) IG-IBD centers participated. Among them, 31.9% were teduglutide (TED) prescribers, and 48.9% were academic centers. The median estimated prevalence of CIF among small bowel CD patients was 1%, and it was significantly higher in academic centers (2.0% [IQR 1–5%] vs. 0.13% [IQR 0–1%], p = 0.02). Seventy-eight percent of centers managed fewer than 10 SBS and CD patients. Routine small bowel measurement and nutritional assessment were performed in only 15% and 42.6% of centers, respectively. TED was prescribed by 12 centers to 35 patients, with a treatment success rate exceeding 50% in 81.8% of centers. Conclusions: The estimated prevalence of CIF in CD patients with small bowel involvement in Italy is 1%. The diagnosis and management practices for SBS and CIF are suboptimal, and TED use is limited.

Background: No data on European countries about knowledge and application of immunization strategies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are available. Objectives: We designed a questionnaire aimed at exploring these issues among Italian gastroenterologists dealing with adult and paediatric IBD. Methods: An anonymous, 24-item, questionnaire was sent via e-mail to all members of the Italian Group for the study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Three sets of questions were formulated: (1) Characteristics of respondents; (2) General opinions on the role of vaccines in IBD patients; (3) Immunizations of IBD patients in clinical practice. Results: Of the 455 total surveys sent, there were 198 respondents (response rate: 43.5%). The great majority of respondents (82.9%) reputed as “very important” to perform the vaccinations recommended by the guidelines in patients with IBD. The indication to immunization is given at the diagnosis of the disease by 55.6% of the respondents. The most frequently recommended vaccine in IBD patients is the annual flu vaccine, while the recommendation rate for the other vaccines is variable depending on the different pathogens. Conclusions: Efforts carried out by the scientific societies are required to increase the awareness of this relevant topic among physicians.

Abstract Background Previous systematic cumulative analyses of the placebo arm in ulcerative colitis (UC) were limited by the wide heterogeneity in the scores and definitions of response. We aimed at estimating the placebo rates of remission, response, and mucosal healing (MH) in phase 2 and 3 randomized placebo-controlled trials of biologics and small molecule drugs that used homogeneous criteria for the assessment of outcomes. Methods PubMed Central, Embase, and reference lists of articles were systematically searched through July 2017. Only studies that employed the Mayo score were included. Results Thirty-one randomized placebo-controlled trials consisting of 2702 patients met the inclusion criteria. At induction, the pooled estimates of the placebo rates of remission, response, and MH were 9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7%-12%; range: 0%-29%; I2 = 75.0%), 34% (95% CI, 31%-38%; range: 12%-75%; I2 = 61.3%), and 26% (95% CI, 22%-30%; range: 2%-65%; I2 = 77.7%), respectively. At maintenance, the pooled estimates of the placebo rates of remission, response, and MH were 14% (95% CI, 10%-18%; range: 6%-30%; I2 = 73.0%), 23% (95% CI, 20%-27%; range: 18%-36%; I2 = 53.0%), and 19% (95% CI, 15%-23%; range: 12%-30%; I2 = 65.0%), respectively. Among the variables assessed by logistic regression analysis, multiple factors influenced the outcomes of placebo arms, including concomitant systemic steroids at baseline, endoscopic central reading, being naïve or non-naïve to anti-TNFs, and disease duration. Conclusions Despite the wide use of homogeneous criteria for the assessment of clinical and endoscopic outcomes, a high heterogeneity among placebo arms of modern trials in UC still exists.