Search

Background: Vedolizumab (VDZ) is a well-established and important therapeutic option in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, the significance of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with VDZ remains a contradictory field in daily clinical practice. Our study aims to clarify the predictive impact of VDZ drug levels in long-term clinical outcomes in a real-world cohort. Methods: Patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) from a tertiary IBD referral center at the University Hospital Augsburg, Germany, were enrolled in this single-center retrospective data analysis. Clinical and endoscopic data were collected at month 6, month 12, and at the last time of follow-up, and outcomes were correlated with VDZ levels at week 6. Results: This study included 95 patients, 68.4% (n = 65) with UC, 24.2% (n = 23) with CD, and 7.4% (n = 7) with indeterminate colitis (CI). Patients with a mean VDZ treatment time of 17.83 months ± 14.56 showed clinical response in 29.5% (n = 28) and clinical remission in 45.3% (n = 43) at the end of the study. Endoscopic response occurred in 20.0% (n = 19) and endoscopic remission in 29.5% (n = 28) at the end of the study. The sustained beneficial effect of VDZ was also reflected in a significant change in biomarker levels. VDZ trough level at week 6 was determined in 48.4% (n = 46) with a mean of 41.79 µg/mL ± 24.58. A significant association between VDZ level at week 6 and both short and long-term outcomes could not be demonstrated. However, numerically higher VDZ levels were seen in patients with endoscopic and clinical improvement at month 6 and at the time of last follow-up. Conclusions: This study demonstrated efficacy and safety for VDZ in a real-world cohort. Although, for some parameters, a clear trend for higher VDZ levels at week 6 was seen, the efficacy of VDZ was not significantly correlated to VDZ level at week 6, which questions the predictive value of VDZ levels in the real world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) is often found in patients with gut dysbiosis such as irritable bowel syndrome. Recently, the association of SIBO and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been described in some cases. While clinical symptoms might be similar in IBD and SIBO, treatment is quite different for both diseases. Therefore, the differentiation between SIBO or a flare in IBD patients is key to optimizing treatment for these patients. Methods: We retrospectively investigated our patients with IBD receiving a glucose breath test for SIBO and correlated the results with the clinical symptoms (clinical remission or active disease). Results: 128 patients with the diagnosis "colitis" were analyzed in our cohort. Fifty-three (41.4%) patients had Crohn's disease and 22 (17.2%) patients were suffering from ulcerative colitis. Seventy-four (57.8%) were female and 54 (42.2%) were male patients. A total of 18 (14.1%) patients had a positive testing for SIBO. Eleven (61.1%) cases were associated with CD patients and two (11.1%) with UC. IBD patients in clinical remission had a positive SIBO in six (19.4%) cases, while IBD patients with active disease were positive in nine (15.3%) cases. The proportion of positive SIBO in active IBD patients was higher; however, it did not reach significance. Older age was a risk factor for SIBO in patients with CD (p < 0.003). Conclusions: In our study, we could show that an increased amount of SIBO was found in IBD patients and was especially more frequent in patients with CD than in those with UC. In UC patients, SIBO rates were not different to patients with other gastrointestinal diseases investigated (e.g., infectious colitis, collagenous colitis, or irritable bowel syndrome). In active IBD, positive SIBO was detected more often numerically compared to quiescent disease; however, due to the low number of patients included, it was not significant. However, older age was a significant risk factor for SIBO in patients with CD. SIBO is of clinical relevance in the vulnerable patient cohort with IBD, and its real prevalence and impact needs to be investigated in further and larger clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]