Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesIn patients with IBD experiencing an immune-mediated loss of response (LOR) to antitumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF), algorithms recommend a switch of anti-TNF without immunosuppressive drug. The aim of our study was to compare in these patients two strategies: either switch to a second anti-TNF alone or with addition of azathioprine (AZA). After randomisation outcomes (time to clinical and pharmacokinetic failure) were compared between the two groups during a 2-year follow-up period.DesignConsecutive IBD patients in immune-mediated LOR to a first optimised anti-TNF given in monotherapy were randomised to receive either AZA or nothing with induction by a second anti-TNF in both arms. Clinical failure was defined for Crohn’s disease (CD) as a Harvey-Bradshaw index ≥5 associated with a faecal calprotectin level >250 µg/g stool and for UC as a Mayo score >5 with endoscopic subscore >1 or as the occurrence of adverse events requiring to stop treatment. Unfavourable pharmacokinetics of the second anti-TNF were defined by the appearance of undetectable trough levels of anti-TNF with high antibodies (drug-sensitive assay) or by that of antibodies (drug-tolerant assay).ResultsNinety patients (48 CDs) were included, and 45 of them received AZA after randomisation. The second anti-TNF was adalimumab or infliximab in 40 and 50 patients, respectively. Rates of clinical failure and occurrence of unfavourable pharmacokinetics were higher in monotherapy compared with combination therapy (p<0.001; median time of clinical failure since randomisation 18 vs >24 months). At 24 months, survival rates without clinical failure and without appearance of unfavourable pharmacokinetics were respectively 22 versus 77% and 22% versus 78% (p<0.001 for both) in monotherapy versus combination therapy. Only the use of combination therapy was associated with favourable outcomes after anti-TNF switch.ConclusionIn case of immune-mediated LOR to a first anti-TNF, AZA should be associated with the second anti-TNF.Trial registration number03580876.

BackgroundPatients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) agents may have lower immune response to the influenza vaccine. We aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity of the high dose (HD) vs standard dose (SD) influenza vaccine in patients with IBD on anti-TNF monotherapy.MethodsWe performed a randomized clinical trial at a single academic center evaluating the immunogenicity of the HD vs SD influenza vaccine in patients with IBD on anti-TNF monotherapy. Influenza antibody concentration was measured at immunization, at 2 to 4 weeks postimmunization, and at 6 months.ResultsSixty-nine patients with IBD were recruited into the study, 40 on anti-TNF monotherapy, and 19 on vedolizumab, along with 20 healthy controls (HC). Patients with IBD receiving the HD influenza vaccine had significantly higher H3N2 postimmunization antibodies compared with those who received the SD influenza vaccine (160 [interquartile range 80 to 320] vs 80 [interquartile range 40 to 160]; P = 0.003). The H1N1 postimmunization levels were not significantly higher in the HD influenza vaccine (320 [interquartile range 150 to 320] vs 160 [interquartile range 80 to 320]; P = 0.18). Patients with IBD receiving the HD influenza vaccine and those on vedolizumab who received SD had equivalent antibody concentrations to HC (H1N1 P = 0.85; H3N2 P = 0.23; B/Victoria P = 0.20 and H1N1 P = 0.46; H3N2 P = 0.21; B/Victoria P = 1.00, respectively).ConclusionsPatients with IBD on anti-TNF monotherapy receiving the HD influenza vaccine had significantly higher postimmunization antibody levels compared with SD vaccine. Clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT02461758).High-dose influenza vaccine improves immunogenicity compared with standard-dose vaccine in patients with IBD on anti-TNF therapy and may provide better protection against infection. Vedolizumab does not impact immune response to influenza vaccine in patients with IBD.Video Abstract 10.1093/ibd/izz164_video1Video Abstractizz164_video16076481126001

BackgroundSafety data are lacking on influenza vaccination in general and on A (H1N1)v vaccination in particular in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) receiving immmunomodulators and/or biological therapy.Aims and methodsThe authors conducted a multicentre observational cohort study to evaluate symptoms associated with influenza H1N1 adjuvanted (Pandemrix, Focetria, FluvalP) and non-adjuvanted (Celvapan) vaccines and to assess the risk of flare of IBD after vaccination. Patients with stable IBD treated with immunomodulators and/or biological therapy were recruited from November 2009 until March 2010 in 12 European countries. Harvey–Bradshaw Index and Partial Mayo Score were used to assess disease activity before and 4 weeks after vaccination in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Vaccination-related events up to 7 days after vaccination were recorded.ResultsOf 575 patients enrolled (407 CD, 159 UC and nine indeterminate colitis; 53.9% female; mean age 40.3 years, SD 13.9), local and systemic symptoms were reported by 34.6% and 15.5% of patients, respectively. The most common local and systemic reactions were pain in 32.8% and fatigue in 6.1% of subjects. Local symptoms were more common with adjuvanted (39.3%) than non-adjuvanted (3.9%) vaccines (p<0.0001), whereas rates of systemic symptoms were similar with both types (15.0% vs 18.4%, p=0.44). Among the adjuvanted group, Pandemrix more often induced local reactions than FluvalP and Focetria (51.2% vs 27.6% and 15.4%, p<0.0001). Solicited adverse events were not associated with any patient characteristics, specific immunomodulatory treatment, or biological therapy. Four weeks after vaccination, absence of flare was observed in 377 patients with CD (96.7%) and 151 with UC (95.6%).ConclusionInfluenza A (H1N1)v vaccines are well tolerated in patients with IBD. Non-adjuvanted vaccines are associated with fewer local reactions. The risk of IBD flare is probably not increased after H1N1 vaccination.

In patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on infliximab, data are limited on immune response to influenza vaccine and the impact of vaccine timing. The study aims were to evaluate immune responses to the influenza vaccine in IBD patients on infliximab and the impact of vaccine timing on immune responses.MethodsIn this randomized study, 137 subjects with IBD on maintenance infliximab therapy were allocated to receive the 2012/2013 inactivated influenza vaccine at the time of infliximab infusion (n = 69) or midway between infusions (n = 68). Serum was collected before and after vaccination for hemagglutination inhibition titers. Serologic protection was defined by postvaccine titer of ≥1:40.ResultsComparing subjects vaccinated at the time of infliximab with those vaccinated midway, serologic protection was achieved in 67% versus 66% to H1N1 (P = 0.8), in 43% versus 49% to H3N2 (P = 0.5), and in 69% versus 79% to influenza B (P = 0.2). Although solicited adverse events were common (60%), no subject experienced a serious adverse event requiring additional medical attention. Only 6% of subjects had a clinically significant increase in disease activity score, not impacted by vaccine timing.ConclusionsSerologic protection to influenza vaccine is achieved in only approximately 45% to 80% of IBD patients on maintenance infliximab therapy varying by antigen. Yet, importantly, vaccine timing relative to infliximab infusion does not affect the achievement of serologic protection, and the influenza vaccine is well tolerated. Therefore, influenza vaccination at any point during infliximab scheduling is recommended for patients with IBD and opportunities to broaden the availability and convenience of influenza vaccine to optimize coverage should be explored.

The treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) often includes immunosuppressive medications, which may increase the risk of vaccine-preventable illnesses. We aimed to assess the impact of immunosuppression on immune responses to pneumococcal vaccination in patients with IBD. The study design consists of a prospective controlled clinical trial. This study was carried out at a tertiary-care IBD clinic. The subjects for the study belonged to one of the following three groups: adult patients with IBD on combination TNF-blockers and immunomodulators (Group A), those without immunosuppressive therapy (Group B), and age-matched healthy controls (Group C). The treatment consisted of immunization with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines (PSVs). The main outcome was immune response for five serotypes defined as a twofold or greater increase from pre-vaccination titers and > or =1 microg post-vaccination titer. Sixty-four subjects participated in the study: 20 in Group A, 25 in Group B, and 19 in Group C. Pre-vaccination titers were similar among the three groups. Vaccine responses were lower in Group A than in Group B (P< or =0.01 for four out of five antigens) and Group C (P<0.01 for all five antigens). Overall vaccine response was seen in 45, 80, and 85% of Groups A, B, and C (P=0.01), respectively. Immune response to PSV-23 is impaired in Crohn's disease (CD) patients on combination immunosuppressive therapy but is normal among non-immunosuppressed patients. Given the unpredictable likelihood for immunosuppressive therapy, newly diagnosed patients with IBD should undergo vaccination before the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Background This research was conducted is to assess the effect of booster doses of the trivalent influenza vaccine in adult inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α agents and/or immunomodulators. Methods Adult IBD patients and healthy individuals were subcutaneously administered the trivalent influenza vaccine. They were randomized into two groups: the single vaccination group and the two vaccination booster group. Blood samples were collected, and the antibody titers against each influenza strain were determined by hemagglutination inhibition at 3 different time points (pre-vaccination, 3 weeks post-vaccination, and after the flu season) in the single vaccination group and at 4 time points (pre-vaccination, 3 weeks post-first vaccination, 3 weeks post-second vaccination, and after the flu season) in the booster vaccination group. Results Seventy-eight IBD patients and 11 healthy controls were randomized into the single vaccination group and the booster vaccination group. Twenty-nine patients received immunomodulators; 21 received anti-TNF-α agents; and 28 received a combination of both. No significant differences were observed in the evaluated immune response parameters between 3 weeks post-vaccination in the single vaccination group and 3 weeks post-second vaccination in the booster vaccination group (geometric mean titers: H1N1, p  = 0.09; H3N2: p  = 0.99; B: p  = 0.94). A higher pre-vaccination titer was significantly associated with sufficient seroprotection rate after vaccination for the H1N1 strain (odds ratio 11.93, p  = 0.03). Conclusions The second booster of trivalent influenza vaccination did not improve the immune response in adult IBD patients who were treated with immunomodulators and/or anti-TNF-α agents.

Pertussis epidemics have recently emerged across the United States, prompting broad public health recommendations for adult Tdap vaccination (tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis). The impact of immunosuppressive regimens for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on vaccine responses to the Tdap vaccine is not known.MethodsWe performed a prospective controlled trial between April 2011 and March 2012. Adults with IBD were consecutively stratified based on therapeutic regimen into one of 5 groups: A: no IBD therapy or 5-aminosalicylates alone; B: maintenance biologic monotherapy; C: maintenance immunomodulator monotherapy; D: combined biologic and immunomodulator therapy; and E: healthy age-matched controls. Subjects received Tdap, and serum antibody levels against tetanus toxoid, pertussis toxoid, and filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) were drawn just before and approximately 4 weeks after vaccination. The primary outcome was the booster response rate to each antigen. Secondary outcomes included the differences in pregeometric and postgeometric mean titers.ResultsA total of 98 subjects enrolled, and 84 completed the study. Tetanus response rates were 55%, 56%, 40%, 27%, and 63% across groups A to E, respectively. Group D rates were lower than those of group B (P = 0.02). Postvaccination pertussis toxoid responses were 59%, 72%, 47%, 45%, and 75%, while FHA responses were 86%, 72%, 80%, 64%, and 75% across groups A to E, respectively. Prevaccination and postvaccination geometric mean titer differences for FHA were lower in group D than those in group A (P = 0.05).ConclusionsAntibody responses to tetanus and pertussis vaccination may be affected by therapeutic drug regimen. Patients with IBD should optimally receive Tdap before starting immunomodulators, particularly when used in combination with anti–tumor necrosis factor alpha agents.

Effectors from the immune system can modulate the course and possibly the early development of gliomas. We, therefore, hypothesized that autoimmune diseases associated with increased immune‐surveillance may also modulate the risk of human glioma. To test this hypothesis, we used data from the well‐validated Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD from the UK to analyze the association of immune‐related disorders or use of immunosuppressive drugs and the risk of glioma. We identified 3112 incident glioma cases diagnosed between 1995 and 2017. We randomly selected up to 10 controls, matching them to glioma cases on age, sex, index date, general practice, and number of years of active history in the database prior to the index date. We performed conditional logistic regression analyses to estimate Odds Ratios (ORs) of glioma among those exposed to allergies, autoimmune diseases, and immunosuppressive drugs. Overall, we found no materially altered association between a history of any autoimmune disease (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86‐1.11), allergy (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89‐1.05), or use of immunosuppressive drugs and the risk of glioma. However, subgroup analyses among younger patients found a statistically significant increased risk of glioma in patients with a history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.31‐5.12). There was also an inverse association between asthma and risk of glioma in patients with longer survival (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58‐0.91) and between long‐term duration diabetes and risk of glioma (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53‐0.96). The immune system is increasingly recognized as a key player in glioma pathobiology. Small case‐control studies have found inverse associations between autoimmune diseases and glioma incidence. We performed a large case‐control study, which did not replicate these associations. However, our data indicate that inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) among patients ≤40 years are associated with an increased risk of glioma. Further studies are needed to explore the role of IBD and altered microbiota in glioma.

Accumulating data from animal models indicate that Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is mediated by a much more complicated mechanism than previously predicted. For example, the role of an individual molecule in the pathogenesis of IBD distinctly differs depending on several factors, including the fundamental mechanism of induction of the disease, the target cell type, the phase of disease, and the environment. Therefore, it has been difficult in the past to fully explain the complicated mechanism. Novel concepts have recently been proposed to further explain the complicated mechanism of IBD. In this review, we introduce past, current, and possible future concepts for IBD models regarding T helper (Th) 1, Th2, and Th17, antigen sampling and presentation, regulatory cell networks, NOD2, Toll-like receptors, bacteria/epithelia interaction, stem cells, autophagy, microRNAs, and glycoimmunology, and we also discuss the relevance of these new concepts, developed at the bench (in animal models), to the bedside.