Background & aims

Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) treated with ustekinumab who experience inadequate response, or loss of response after standard induction and/or maintenance dosing may benefit from dose escalation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of reinduction and/or dose interval shortening of ustekinumab in patients with active CD despite standard induction and maintenance.

Methods

Through a systematic literature search through March 31, 2021, we identified 15 cohort studies in 925 adults with CD with inadequate response or loss of response to standard dose ustekinumab, underwent dose escalation (reinduction and/or dose interval shortening to <8 weeks), and reported rates of achieving clinical response, corticosteroid-free clinical remission, endoscopic response, and/or remission. We calculated pooled rates (with 95% confidence intervals) using random effects meta-analysis and examined factors associated with response to dose escalation through qualitative synthesis of individual studies.

Results

On meta-analysis, 55% of patients (95% confidence interval, 52%-58%) with inadequate response or loss of response who underwent ustekinumab dose escalation achieved clinical response, with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 57%). Approximately 61% of patients were able to achieve endoscopic response, including 29% who achieved endoscopic remission. Dose interval shortening alone recaptured response in 57% patients. No consistent factors associated with response to dose escalation were identified on qualitative synthesis.

Conclusion

In real word settings, ustekinumab dose escalation was effective in achieving response in patients with CD with inadequate response, or loss of response to standard dose induction and/or maintenance therapy.

Background and aims

5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA) are frequently used in the management of Crohn's disease (CD). We used a de-identified administrative claims database to compare patterns and outcomes of continuing versus stopping 5-ASA in patients with CD who escalated to anti-metabolite monotherapy.

Methods

Patients with CD on 5-ASA who were new users of anti-metabolite monotherapy and followed for at least 12 months from OptumLabs® Data Warehouse. Three patterns of 5-ASA use were identified: stopped 5-ASA, short-term 5-ASA (use for < 6 months after starting anti-metabolites), or persistent 5-ASA (use for > 6 months after starting anti-metabolites). Outcomes (need for corticosteroids, risk of CD-related hospitalization and/or surgery, treatment escalation to biologic therapy) were compared using Cox proportional hazard analysis adjusting for key covariates, with a 12-month immortal time period.

Results

Of 3036 patients with CD who were new-users of anti-metabolite monotherapy, 667 (21.9%), 626 (20.6%), and 1743 (57.4%) stopped 5-ASA, used 5-ASA transiently or persistently, respectively. Compared to patients who stopped 5-ASA after starting anti-metabolites, persistent 5-ASA use was associated with a higher risk of corticosteroid use (HR, 1.24 [1.08-1.42]), without an increase in risk of CD-related hospitalization (HR, 1.21 [0.98-1.49]), CD-related surgery (HR, 1.28 [0.90-1.80]) or treatment escalation (HR, 0.85 [0.62-1.20]). Sensitivity analyses using a 3-month window after initiation of anti-metabolites to classify patients as continuing vs. stopping 5-ASA showed similar results. Residual confounding by disease severity could not be excluded.

Conclusion

5-ASAs are frequently continued long-term even after escalation to anti-metabolite therapy in patients with CD but offer no clinical benefit over stopping 5-ASA.

Background & aims

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative risk of serious infections with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists, non-TNF targeted biologics, tofacitinib, and immunosuppressive agents in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs).

Methods

In a systematic search of publications, through March 18, 2018, we identified 15 observational studies (>500 person-years) of patients with IBD treated with TNF antagonists, non-TNF targeted biologics, tofacitinib, and/or immunosuppressive agents (thiopurines, methotrexate) that reported risk of serious infections. Only studies with active comparators were included, to allow appropriate comparative synthesis. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and estimated relative risk (RR) and 95% CIs.

Results

Compared with anti-TNF monotherapy, risk of serious infection increased with the combination of anti-TNF and an immunosuppressive agent (in 6 cohorts: RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.37), with anti-TNF and a corticosteroid (in 4 cohorts: RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.33-2.03), or with all 3 drugs (in 2 cohorts: RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.04-1.77); there was minimal heterogeneity among studies. In contrast, monotherapy with an immunosuppressive agent was associated with a lower risk of serious infections than monotherapy with a TNF antagonist (7 cohorts: RR, 0.61; 95% CI 0.44-0.84) or a TNF antagonist with an immunosuppressive agent (2 cohorts: RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.81). Infliximab-based therapy was associated with a lower risk of serious infections compared with adalimumab-based therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis (4 cohorts: RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97), but not Crohn's disease (4 cohorts: RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.49-1.70). Few data were available on the comparative safety of biologic agents that do not inhibit TNF and tofacitinib.

Conclusions

Combination therapies for IBD that include TNF antagonists, especially with corticosteroids, are associated with a higher risk of serious infection, whereas monotherapy with an immunosuppressive agent is associated with a lower risk, compared with monotherapy with a TNF antagonist. Studies are needed to evaluate the comparative safety of non-TNF targeted biologics and small molecules for treatment of IBD.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We evaluated short- and long-term outcomes of temporary faecal diversion [FD] for management of refractory Crohns disease [CD], focusing on outcomes in the biologic era. METHODS: Through a systematic literature review until March 15, 2023, we identified 33 studies [19 conducted in the biologic era] that evaluated 1578 patients with perianal and/or distal colonic CD who underwent temporary FD [with intent of restoring bowel continuity] and reported long-term outcomes [primary outcome: successful restoration of bowel continuity, defined as remaining ostomy-free after reconnection at a minimum of 6 months after diversion or at the end of follow-up]. We calculated pooled rates (with 95% confidence interval [CI]) using random effects meta-analysis, and examined factors associated with successful restoration of bowel continuity. RESULTS: Overall, 61% patients [95% CI, 52-68%; 50% in biologic era] experienced clinical improvement after FD. Stoma takedown was attempted in 34% patients [28-41%; 37% in biologic era], 6-18 months after diversion. Among patients where bowel restoration was attempted, 63% patients [54-71%] had successful restoration of bowel continuity, and 26% [20-34%] required re-diversion. Overall, 21% patients [17-27%; 24% in biologic era] who underwent FD were successfully restored; 34% patients [30-39%; 31% in biologic era] required proctectomy with permanent ostomy. On meta-regression, post-diversion biologic use and absence of proctitis was associated with successful bowel restoration after temporary FD in contemporary studies. CONCLUSION: In the biologic era, temporary FD for refractory perianal and/or distal colonic CD improves symptoms in half the patients, and bowel continuity can be successfully restored in a quarter of patients.

Objectives

5-aminosalicylates (5-ASA) are frequently continued in patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis (UC), even after escalation to biologic agents, without evaluation of the benefit of this approach. We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) pooled analysis of trials of infliximab and golimumab in UC, to evaluate whether concomitant use of 5-ASA modifies clinical outcomes among anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α-treated patients.

Methods

We included IPD from five trials of infliximab and golimumab in patients with moderate-severe UC (ACT-1 and -2, PURSUIT-SC, PURSUIT-M, NCT00336492). Patients treated with infliximab or golimumab were categorized as receiving concomitant 5-ASA or not at time of trial entry. Primary outcome was clinical remission (Mayo Clinic Score < 3) at last follow-up for each trial; secondary outcomes were clinical response and mucosal healing. Using multivariable logistic regression analysis, we evaluated association between concomitant 5-ASA and clinical remission, after adjusting for sex, smoking, baseline disease activity, disease extent, biochemical variables (C-reactive protein, albumin, hemoglobin), and concomitant prednisone and immunomodulators.

Results

We included 2183 infliximab-treated or golimumab-treated patients (1715 [78.6%] on 5-ASA). Concomitant use of 5-ASA was not associated with odds of achieving clinical remission (adjusted OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45-1.01], p = 0.06), clinical response (aOR, 0.89 [0.60-1.33], p = 0.58) or mucosal healing (aOR, 1.12 [0.82-1.51], p = 0.48). These results were consistent in trials of induction and maintenance therapy, and in trials of infliximab and golimumab.

Conclusions

Based on IPD pooled analysis, in patients with moderate-severe UC who are escalated to anti-TNF therapy, continuing 5-ASA does not improve clinical outcomes.

Background & aims

With several options available for patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis (UC), rapidity of symptom resolution could be an important differentiator. We compared the efficacy and speed of onset of action of infliximab vs golimumab induction therapy using patient-level data from phase 3 trials (ACT-1, ACT-2, and PURSUIT-SC).

Methods

We compared differences in proportions of patients who achieved the composite outcome of a rectal bleeding score=0 and stool frequency score ≤1 (patient-reported outcome 2 remission) at weeks 2 and 6 of treatment with standard-dose infliximab vs golimumab using logistic generalized estimating equation. Overall efficacy for inducing clinical remission (Mayo clinic score <3) was compared using logistic regression. Analyses were adjusted for sex, disease extent, baseline clinical and endoscopic severity, C-reactive protein, albumin, body weight and concomitant medications (immunomosuppressives, corticosteroids, and 5-aminsalicylates).

Results

Trial populations were similar and no differences were observed among the placebo groups in the studies. A significantly higher proportion patients treated with infliximab than golimumab achieved patient-reported outcome 2 remission at week 2 (35% vs 30%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.15-2.55) and at week 6 (50.0% vs 38.9%; adjusted OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.40-2.94). Infliximab-treated patients were also significantly more likely to achieve clinical remission than golimumab-treated patients (adjusted OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.95-4.70), with consistent findings in patients with moderate or severe UC.

Conclusions

Based on a patient-level analysis of data from phase 3 trials, infliximab resolves symptoms more rapidly and has greater efficacy for inducing remission than golimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe UC.

Background

Data are needed to inform the positioning of biologic therapy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease, both first line and after previous biologic exposure. We aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of biologics in patients with Crohn's disease.

Methods

We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of phase 2 and phase 3 randomised controlled trials done in adults (≥18 years) with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease (Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI] 220-450) treated with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists, anti-integrin, anti-interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23p40, or anti-IL23p19 agents, either alone or in combination with immunosuppressants, as their first-line biologic or after previous biologic exposure, compared with placebo or an active comparator. The minimum duration of therapy was 14 days for trials reporting induction of remission in active disease and 22 weeks in trials reporting maintenance of remission. We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings, trial registries, and unpublished data from inception to June 3, 2021, without any language restrictions. Summary estimates of the primary and secondary outcomes were extracted from the published reports; individual patient-level data were not sought. The primary endpoint was induction of clinical remission in patients with active disease (CDAI <150) and maintenance of remission in patients with response to induction therapy, with data extracted from published reports. A network meta-analysis with multivariate consistency model random-effects meta-regression was done, with rankings based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.

Findings

The search strategy yielded 18 382 citations, of which 31 trials were eligible for inclusion. On the basis of 15 randomised controlled trials including 2931 biologic-naive patients, infliximab monotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 4·53 [95% CI 1·49-13·79]), infliximab combined with azathioprine (7·49 [2·04-27·49]), adalimumab (3·01 [1·25-7·27]), and ustekinumab (2·63 [1·10-6·28]) were associated with significantly higher odds of inducing remission compared to certolizumab pegol (all moderate confidence); infliximab and azathioprine combination therapy was also associated with significantly higher odds of inducing remission than vedolizumab (3·76 [1·01-14·03]; low confidence). On the basis of ten randomised controlled trials including 2479 patients with previous biologic exposure, adalimumab after loss of response to infliximab (OR 2·82 [95% CI 1·20-6·62]; low confidence), and risankizumab (2·10 [1·12-3·92]; moderate confidence), were associated with higher odds of inducing remission than vedolizumab. No differences between active interventions were observed in maintenance trials. Most trials were at low or uncertain risk of bias.

Interpretation

Although biologic treatment choices in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease must be individualised for each patient, this analysis suggests that either infliximab with azathioprine or adalimumab might be preferred as a first-line therapy, and adalimumab (after infliximab loss of response) or risankizumab might be preferred as a second-line therapy, for induction of clinical remission.

Funding

None.

Background and aims

Despite increasing interest in histologic remission as a treatment target in ulcerative colitis (UC), the accuracy of histologic findings in left colon in detecting pancolonic histologic remission is unknown.

Methods

In a retrospective cohort study of patients with endoscopically active pancolitis undergoing treat-to-target interventions, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of left-sided (distal to splenic flexure) histologic and endoscopic findings on colonoscopy for detecting histologic and endoscopic healing elsewhere in the colon.

Results

Of 86 patients with moderate to severely active pancolitis who underwent 2 consecutive colonoscopies during treat-to-target interventions, 38% and 51% achieved histologic and endoscopic remission, respectively. Substantial agreement (kappa, 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.51-0.83) was observed in histologic findings between left and right colon on follow-up colonoscopy. Histologic, and endoscopic, findings in left colon showed excellent accuracy in detecting pancolonic histologic remission (area under the curve (AUC), 0.96 [95% CI, 0.93-1.0]; misclassification rate, 5.9%), histologic normalization (AUC, 1.0, 0%), endoscopic improvement (AUC, 0.95 [0.96-1.0], 3.5%) and endoscopic remission (AUC, 0.98 [0.96-1.00], 5.8%), respectively.

Conclusions

In patients with active pancolitis undergoing treat-to-target interventions, histologic and endoscopic findings in the left colon on colonoscopy have excellent accuracy for detecting pancolonic histologic remission, histologic normalization, endoscopic improvement, and endoscopic remission. Flexible sigmoidoscopy may suffice for monitoring histologic and endoscopic activity in patients with pancolitis.

Background & aims

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to estimate rates and trends of colectomy in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), and of primary and re-resection in patients with Crohn's disease (CD), focusing on contemporary risks.

Methods

Through a systematic review until September 3, 2019, we identified population-based cohort studies that reported patient-level cumulative risk of surgery in patients with UC and CD. We evaluated overall and contemporary risk (after 2000) of surgery and analyzed time trends through mixed-effects meta-regression.

Results

In patients with UC (26 studies), the overall 1-, 5-, and 10-year risks of colectomy was 4.0% (95% CI, 3.3-5.0), 8.8% (95% CI, 7.7-10.0), and 13.3% (95% CI, 11.3-15.5), respectively, with a decrease in risk over time (P < .001). Corresponding contemporary risks were 2.8% (95% CI, 2.0-3.9), 7.0% (95% CI, 5.7-8.6), and 9.6% (95% CI, 6.3-14.2), respectively. In patients with CD (22 studies), the overall 1-, 5-, and 10-year risk of surgery was 18.7% (95% CI, 15.0-23.0), 28.0% (95% CI, 24.0-32.4), and 39.5% (95% CI, 33.3-46.2), respectively, with a decrease in risk over time (P < .001). Corresponding contemporary risks were 12.3% (95% CI, 10.8-14.0), 18.0% (95% CI, 15.4-21.0), and 26.2% (95% CI, 23.4-29.4), respectively. In a meta-analysis of 8 studies in patients with CD with prior resection, the cumulative risk of a second resection at 5 and 10 years after the first resection was 17.7% (95% CI, 13.5-22.9) and 31.3% (95% CI, 24.1-39.6), respectively.

Conclusions

Patient-level risks of surgery have decreased significantly over time, with a 5-year cumulative risk of surgery of 7.0% in UC and 18.0% in CD in contemporary cohorts. This decrease may be related to early detection and/or better treatment.

Background & aims

Clinical remission, defined by a composite of patient reported outcomes and Mayo endoscopy subscore (MES) 0 or 1 is a recommended treatment target in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). We estimated whether incorporating more rigorous remission definitions, of endoscopic remission (MES 0) and histologic remission, affects risk of relapse.

Methods

Through a systematic review, we identified cohort studies in adults with UC in clinical remission that reported a minimum 12-month risk of clinical relapse, based on MES (0 vs 1) and/or histologic disease activity, in patients with endoscopic remission. Using random effects meta-analysis, we calculated relative and absolute risk of clinical relapse in patients with UC achieving different treatment targets.

Results

In a meta-analysis of 17 studies that included 2608 patients with UC in clinical remission, compared to patients achieving MES 1, patients achieving MES 0 had a 52% lower risk of clinical relapse (relative risk, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.62). The median 12-month risk of clinical relapse in patients with MES 1 was 28.7%; the estimated annual risk of clinical relapse in patients with MES 0 was 13.7% (95% CI, 10.6-17.9). In a meta-analysis of 10 studies in patients in endoscopic remission (MES 0), patients who achieved histologic remission had a 63% lower risk of clinical relapse vs patients with persistent histologic activity (relative risk, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.24-0.56). Estimated annual risk of clinical relapse in who achieved achieving histologic remission was 5.0% (95% CI, 3.3-7.7).

Conclusions

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of patients with UC in clinical remission, we observed that patients achieving more rigorous treatment endpoints (endoscopic and histologic remission) have a substantially lower risk of clinical relapse compared with patients achieving clinical remission.