Search

Background: The performance of bowel preparation (BP) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) is unknown., Aims: To evaluate the operating properties of instruments used to assess BP quality in patients with CD., Methods: We used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, modified Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, Harefield Cleansing Scale, Food and Drug Administration Bowel Cleansing Assessment Scale (BCAS), and a 100-mm visual analogue scale of bowel cleanliness to assess BP quality in 50 videos from 40 patients with CD. We assessed endoscopic activity with the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD (SES-CD). Assessments were on endoscope insertion and withdrawal. Reliability was quantified using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). We assessed validity by within-patient correlation between instruments and the visual analogue scale using mixed-effect models. The correlation between BP quality and SES-SD scores was assessed using Spearman's rho., Results: Inter- and intra-rater reliability for all BP quality instruments was substantial (ICC ≥0.61) except for the Food and Drug Administration BCAS on insertion (inter-rater reliability ICC ≥0.41). The visual analogue scale had substantial inter- and almost perfect (ICC ≥0.81) intra-rater reliability. Correlation coefficients for the validity of the instruments exceeded 0.58. BP quality and endoscopic disease activity scores in the colon were negatively correlated., Conclusion: Most existing instruments reliably assess BP quality in patients with CD. These results support the use of these instruments in clinical practice, provide a framework for scoring BP quality in CD clinical trials, and support evaluation of novel BP agents in patients with CD., (© 2024 The Author(s). Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background & Aims: Although biologics have revolutionized the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD), an efficacy ceiling has been reached. Combining biologic therapies may improve remission rates., Methods: EXPLORER, a phase 4, single-arm, open-label study, evaluated triple combination therapy with vedolizumab (300 mg on day 1, weeks 2 and 6, and then every 8 weeks), adalimumab (160 mg on day 2, 80 mg at week 2, then 40 mg every 2 weeks), and methotrexate (15 mg weekly) in biologic-naïve patients with newly diagnosed, moderate- to high-risk CD. Endoscopic remission at week 26 (primary end point; Simple Endoscopic Score for CD ≤2), clinical remission at weeks 10 and 26 (secondary end point; Crohn's Disease Activity Index <150), and incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were evaluated., Results: Among 55 enrolled patients, the mean CD duration was 0.4 years, the mean baseline Simple Endoscopic Score for CD was 12.6, and the mean baseline Crohn's Disease Activity Index was 265.5. At week 26, 19 patients (34.5%) were in endoscopic remission. At weeks 10 and 26, 34 (61.8%) and 30 patients (54.5%), respectively, were in clinical remission. Post hoc Bayesian analysis showed that the probabilities that triple combination therapy produced a higher endoscopic remission rate (33.5%; 95% credible interval, 22.4-45.7) than placebo (14%), vedolizumab monotherapy (27%), or adalimumab monotherapy (30%) were 99.9% or higher, 86.3%, and 71.4%, respectively. Six patients had serious adverse events., Conclusions: Combination therapy resulted in endoscopic and clinical remission at week 26 in 34.5% and 54.5% of patients, respectively, with no safety signal related to the treatment regimen. This supports further evaluation of combination therapy in CD., Clinicaltrials: gov number: NCT02764762., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Outcomes after ileocolonic resection in Crohn's disease [CD] are heterogeneous, and a clear definition of postoperative recurrence remains to be determined. Our Endpoints Working Group of the International Organization for the study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease [IOIBD] aimed to standardise postoperative outcomes, to discuss which endpoints should be used for postoperative clinical trials, and to define those which could be used in trials or registries., Methods: Based on a systematic review of the literature, recommendations and statements were drafted and sent to all IOIBD members for a first round of voting. Recommendations and statements were revised based on the voters' comments during a consensus hybrid conference open to all IOIBD members. If no agreement was reached after two rounds of voting, the statement was excluded., Results: In the systematic review, 3071 manuscripts were screened of which 434 were included. Sixteen recommendations were identified, of which 11 were endorsed. Recommendations and statements include that endoscopy remains the gold standard and should be used as a short-term primary endpoint in both observational cohorts and randomised controlled trials. Clinical symptoms classically used in clinical trials for luminal CD are not reliable in this specific situation. For that reason, longer-term endpoints should be based on the evidence of macroscopic inflammation assessed by imaging techniques, endoscopy, or as reflected by the presence of complications., Conclusions: Agencies recommend the use of clinical evaluations, as in the case of luminal CD, and do not recognise primary endpoints based solely on endoscopy. This consensus has led to agreement on the need to define postoperative endoscopy-based and/or imaging-based endpoints., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Although validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements can categorize patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) into clinical remission or active disease, patients may have different definitions of remission. The purpose of this study was to compare patient-defined remission to remission based on PRO measures and physician global assessment (PGA) and to understand the clinical and demographic factors associated with disagreements., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 3257 de-identified surveys from 2004 IBD patients who consented to participate in the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation's IBD Qorus Learning Health System between September 2019 and February 2021. We used logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations to analyze the clinical and demographic factors (eg, age, disease duration, health confidence) associated with discordance between patient-defined remission (yes/no) and PRO-defined remission for ulcerative colitis (UC; PRO2: stool frequency, rectal bleeding) and Crohn's disease (CD; PRO-3: average number of liquid stools, abdominal pain, well-being)., Results: Among patients with UC, overall concordance was 79% between patient self-report and PRO2-defined remission and 49% between patient self-report and PGA-defined remission. Among patients with CD, overall concordance was 69% between patient self-report and PRO3-defined remission and 54% between patient self-report and PGA-defined remission. Patients in PRO-defined remission were more likely to report active disease if they had IBD <5 years and low health confidence. Patients with PRO-defined active disease were more likely to report remission if they were not using prednisone and had high health confidence., Conclusion: Discordance exists between how remission is defined by patients, PRO measures, and PGA., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Despite regular need for colonoscopy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD), the efficacy and tolerability of bowel preparation (BP) agents is rarely assessed in this population. Assessing BP quality with existing scales may be challenging in CD due to presence of inflammation, bowel resection, and strictures., Aims: To provide recommendations for assessing BP quality in clinical trials for CD using a modified Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness process., Methods: Based on systematic reviews and a literature search, 110 statements relating to BP quality assessment in CD were developed. A panel of 15 gastroenterologists rated the statements as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate using a 9-point Likert scale., Results: Panelists considered it appropriate that central readers, either alone or with local assessment, score BP quality in clinical trials. Central readers should be trained on scoring BP quality and local endoscopists on performing high-quality video recording. Both endoscope insertion and withdrawal phases should be reviewed to score BP quality in each colonic segment and segments should align with endoscopic disease activity indices. The Harefield Cleansing Scale and the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale were considered appropriate. The final score should be calculated as the average of all visualized segments. Both total and worst segment scores should also be assessed., Conclusions: We developed a framework for assessing BP quality in patients with CD based on expert feedback. This framework could support the development or refinement of BP quality scales and the integration of BP quality assessment in future CD studies., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background and Aims: Patient-centric management of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is important, with consensus considering patient-reported outcomes alongside clinical and endoscopic assessment by healthcare providers. However, evidence regarding patients' treatment priorities is still limited. This study aimed to elicit benefit-risk trade-offs that patients with IBD are willing to make, to help inform discussions about patient-centric treatment targets., Methods: This was a cross-sectional online survey of adults with self-confirmed Crohn's disease [CD] or ulcerative colitis [UC] receiving IBD treatment. The impact of efficacy, administration and safety on treatment preferences was elicited using a discrete choice experiment. Relative attribute importance [RAI] and maximum acceptable risk of mild-to-moderate side effects [SEs] were estimated from a mixed logit model., Results: In total, 400 patients [CD: 54%; UC: 46%; female: 38.0%; age range: 18-78 years] were recruited. Efficacy, administration and safety affected treatment preferences to varying degrees, with abdominal pain being most important [RAI 33%] followed by risks of mild-to-moderate SEs [RAI 27%] and serious infections [RAI 16%]. To reduce abdominal pain from severe to moderate/mild, patients accepted an additional 18.8% or 30.6% risk of mild-to-moderate SEs, respectively. While average preferences between patients with CD and UC were similar, patients with CD placed greater importance on abdominal pain [p < 0.05], and patients with UC on bowel urgency [p < 0.05]. However, preferences varied notably., Conclusions: While avoiding abdominal pain, SEs and serious infections had on average the highest treatment priority, preferences varied between patients. Treatment strategies should consider the trade-offs individuals are willing to make., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.)

Introduction: We evaluated the real-world effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab (UST) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD)., Methods: This study used a retrospective, multicenter, multinational consortium of UST-treated CD patients. Data included patient demographics, disease phenotype, disease activity, treatment history, and concomitant medications. Cumulative rates of clinical, steroid-free, endoscopic, and radiographic remissions were assessed using time-to-event analysis, and clinical predictors were assessed by using multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses. Serious infections and adverse events were defined as those requiring hospitalization or treatment discontinuation., Results: A total of 1,113 patients (51.8% female, 90% prior antitumor necrosis factor exposure) were included, with a median follow-up of 386 days. Cumulative rates of clinical, steroid-free, endoscopic, and radiographic remissions at 12 months were 40%, 32%, 39%, and 30%, respectively. Biologic-naive patients achieved significantly higher rates of clinical and endoscopic remissions at 63% and 55%, respectively. On multivariable analyses, prior antitumor necrosis factor (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.99) and vedolizumab exposure (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.88) were independently associated with lower likelihoods of achieving endoscopic remission. In patients who experienced loss of remission, 77 of 102 (75%) underwent dose optimization, and 44 of 77 (57%) achieved clinical response. An additional 152 of 681 patients (22.3%) were dose-optimized because of primary nonresponse incomplete response to UST, of whom 40.1% (61 of 152) responded. Serious infections occurred in 3.4% of patients while other noninfectious adverse events (lymphoma [n = 1], arthralgia [n = 6], rash [n = 6], headache [n = 3], hepatitis [n = 3], hair loss [n = 3], neuropathy [n = 1], and vasculitis [n = 1]) occurred in 2.4% of patients., Discussion: UST represents a safe and effective treatment option for CD, with 40% of patients from a highly refractory cohort achieving clinical remission by 12 months. The greatest treatment effect of UST was seen in biologic-naive patients, and dose escalation may recapture clinical response., (Copyright © 2022 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background: Crohn's disease requires effective patient-clinician communication for successful illness and medication management. Shared decision making (SDM) has been suggested to improve communication around early intensive therapy. However, effective evidence-based SDM interventions for Crohn's disease are lacking, and the impact of SDM on Crohn's disease decision making and choice of therapy is unclear., Aim: To test the impact of SDM on choice of therapy, quality of the decision and provider trust compared to standard Crohn's disease care., Methods: We conducted a multi-site cluster randomised controlled trial in 14 diverse gastroenterology practices in the US., Results: A total of 158 adult patients with Crohn's disease within 15 years of their diagnosis, with no prior Crohn's disease complications, and who were candidates to receive immunomodulators or biologics, participated in the study. Among these, 99 received the intervention and 59 received standard care. Demographics were similar between groups, although there were more women assigned to standard care, and a slightly shorter disease duration among those in the intervention group. Participants in the intervention group more frequently chose combination therapy (25% versus 5% control, p < 0.001), had a significantly lower decisional conflict (p < 0.05) and had greater trust in their provider (p < 0.05)., Conclusions: With rapidly expanding medication choices for Crohn's disease and slow uptake of early intensive therapy, SDM can personalise treatment strategies and has the potential to move the field of Crohn's disease management forward with an ultimate goal of consistently treating this disease early and intensively in appropriate patients., Trial Registration: Evaluating a Shared Decision Making Program for Crohn's Disease, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02084290 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02084290., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background & Aims: Clinical trials evaluating biologics and small molecules in patients with ulcerative colitis are predominantly excluding ulcerative proctitis. The objective of the Definition and endpoints for ulcerative PROCtitis in clinical TRIALs initiative was to develop consensus statements for definitions, inclusion criteria, and endpoints for the evaluation of ulcerative proctitis in adults., Methods: Thirty-five international experts held a consensus meeting to define ulcerative proctitis, and the endpoints to use in clinical trials. Based on a systematic review of the literature, statements were generated, discussed, and approved by the working group participants using a modified Delphi method. Consensus was defined as at least 75% agreement among voters., Results: The group agreed that the diagnosis of ulcerative proctitis should be made by ileocolonoscopy and confirmed by histopathology, with the exclusion of infections, drug-induced causes, radiation, trauma, and Crohn's disease. Ulcerative proctitis was defined as macroscopic extent of lesions limited to 15 cm distance from the anal verge in adults. Primary and secondary endpoints were identified to capture response of ulcerative proctitis to therapy. A combined clinical and endoscopic primary endpoint for the evaluation of ulcerative proctitis disease activity was proposed. Secondary endpoints that should be evaluated include endoscopic remission, histologic remission, mucosal healing, histologic endoscopic mucosal improvement, disability, fecal incontinence, urgency, constipation, and health-related quality of life., Conclusions: In response to the need for guidance on the design of clinical trials in patients with ulcerative proctitis, the Definition and end points for ulcerative PROCtitis in clinical TRIALs consensus provides recommendations on the definition and endpoints for ulcerative proctitis clinical trials., (Copyright © 2022 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The treatment of chronic pouchitis remains a challenge due to the paucity of high-quality studies. We aimed to provide guidance for clinicians on the appropriateness of medical and surgical treatments in chronic pouchitis., Methods: Appropriateness of medical and surgical treatments in patients with chronic pouchitis was considered in 16 scenarios incorporating presence/absence of four variables: pouchitis symptoms, response to antibiotics, significant prepouch ileitis, and Crohn's disease (CD)-like complications (i.e., stricture or fistula). Appropriateness of permanent ileostomy in patients refractory to medical treatments was considered in eight additional scenarios. Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, international IBD expert panelists rated appropriateness of treatments in each scenario on a 1-9 scale., Results: Chronic antibiotic therapy was rated appropriate only in asymptomatic antibiotic-dependent patients with no CD-like complications and inappropriate in all other scenarios. Ileal-release budesonide was rated appropriate in 6/16 scenarios including patients with significant prepouch ileitis but no CD-like complications. Probiotics were considered either inappropriate (14/16) or uncertain (2/16). Biologic therapy was considered appropriate in most scenarios (14/16) and uncertain in situations where significant prepouch ileitis or CD-like complications were absent (2/16). In patients who are refractory to all medications, permanent ileostomy was considered appropriate in all scenarios (7/8) except in asymptomatic patients with no CD-like complications., Conclusions: In the presence of significant prepouch ileitis or CD-like complications, chronic antibiotics and probiotics are inappropriate. Biologics are appropriate in all patients except in asymptomatic patients with no evidence of complications. Permanent ileostomy is appropriate in most medically refractory patients., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background & Aims: End points to determine the efficacy and safety of medical therapies for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are evolving. Given the heterogeneity in current outcome measures, harmonizing end points in a core outcome set for randomized controlled trials is a priority for drug development in inflammatory bowel disease., Methods: Candidate outcome domains and outcome measures were generated from systematic literature reviews and patient engagement surveys and interviews. An iterative Delphi process was conducted to establish consensus: panelists anonymously voted on items using a 9-point Likert scale, and feedback was incorporated between rounds to refine statements. Consensus meetings were held to ratify the outcome domains and core outcome measures. Stakeholders were recruited internationally, and included gastroenterologists, colorectal surgeons, methodologists, and clinical trialists., Results: A total of 235 patients and 53 experts participated. Patient-reported outcomes, quality of life, endoscopy, biomarkers, and safety were considered core domains; histopathology was an additional domain for UC. In CD, there was consensus to use the 2-item patient-reported outcome (ie, abdominal pain and stool frequency), Crohn's Disease Activity Index, Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease, C-reactive protein, fecal calprotectin, and co-primary end points of symptomatic remission and endoscopic response. In UC, there was consensus to use the 9-point Mayo Clinic Score, fecal urgency, Robarts Histopathology Index or Geboes Score, fecal calprotectin, and a composite primary end point including both symptomatic and endoscopic remission. Safety outcomes should be reported using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities., Conclusions: This multidisciplinary collaboration involving patients and clinical experts has produced the first core outcome set that can be applied to randomized controlled trials of CD and UC., (Copyright © 2022 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Disease Severity Index (DSI) is a novel tool to predict disease severity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, its ability to predict disease complications and the presence of psychosocial comorbidity is unclear., Aims: To assess prospectively associations between the DSI and psychological symptoms, quality-of-life (QoL) and disease outcomes in an IBD cohort., Methods: Patients with IBD undergoing ileocolonoscopy were followed prospectively for 12 months. DSI, psychological symptoms (perceived stress (PSS-10), depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7)) and QoL (IBDQ-32) scores were assessed at baseline. Logistic regression identified variables predicting a complicated IBD course at 12 months (composite outcome of need for escalation of biological/immunomodulator for disease relapse, recurrent corticosteroid use, IBD-related hospitalisation and surgery). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis identified optimal DSI thresholds predicting a complicated disease course and multivariable logistic regression assessed the risk of reaching this outcome., Results: One hundred and seventy-two patients were recruited (100 Crohn's disease, 91 female). Median DSI was 21 (IQR 11-32) and 97 patients had endoscopically active disease at baseline. The DSI was significantly higher in patients with symptoms of moderate-severe stress (PSS-10 > 14, p < 0.01), depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 10, p < 0.01), anxiety (GAD-7 ≥ 10, p < 0.05) and impaired quality-of-life (IBDQ-32 < 168, p < 0.01). Only the baseline DSI (OR 1.05, p < 0.01) and endoscopically active disease (OR 6.12, p < 0.01) were associated with a complicated IBD course. A DSI > 23 was strongly predictive of a complicated IBD course (OR 8.31, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: The DSI is associated with psychological distress, impaired QoL and predicts a more complicated disease course in patients with IBD., (© 2022 The Authors. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background & Aims: Whether preoperative treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) increases the risk of postoperative infectious complications remains controversial. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether preoperative exposure to TNFis is an independent risk factor for postoperative infectious complications within 30 days of surgery., Methods: We conducted a multicenter prospective observational study of patients with IBD undergoing intra-abdominal surgery across 17 sites from the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation Clinical Research Alliance. Infectious complications were categorized as surgical site infections (SSIs) or non-SSIs. Current TNFi exposure was defined as use within 12 weeks of surgery, and serum was collected for drug-level analyses. Multivariable models for occurrence of the primary outcome, any infection, or SSI were adjusted by predefined covariates (age, sex, preoperative steroid use, and disease type), baseline variables significantly associated (P < .05) with any infection or SSI separately, and TNFi exposure status. Exploratory models used TNFi exposure based on serum drug concentration., Results: A total of 947 patients were enrolled from September 2014 through June 2017. Current TNFi exposure was reported by 382 patients. Any infection (18.1% vs 20.2%, P = .469) and SSI (12.0% vs 12.6%, P = .889) rates were similar in patients currently exposed to TNFis and those unexposed. In multivariable analysis, current TNFi exposure was not associated with any infection (odds ratio, 1.050; 95% confidence interval, 0.716-1.535) or SSI (odds ratio, 1.249; 95% confidence interval, 0.793-1.960). Detectable TNFi drug concentration was not associated with any infection or SSI., Conclusions: Preoperative TNFi exposure was not associated with postoperative infectious complications in a large prospective multicenter cohort., (Copyright © 2022 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Poor sleep is common in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), predicting increased risk of flares, surgery, and/or hospitalization and reducing quality of life., Aims: To profile specific sleep disorder symptoms in IBD, informing intervention efforts., Methods: 312 adults with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis were recruited from an academic medical center in New Hampshire, USA. Participants completed online surveys about sleep including well-validated measures of sleep quality, insomnia, restless leg syndrome, sleep apnea, and circadian rhythms. Participants also answered questions about IBD-related problems that could interfere with sleep., Results: 69.4% of participants reported experiencing poor sleep and 50% reported clinically significant insomnia. Participants with active IBD symptoms were more likely to have poor sleep and insomnia. Of those with poor sleep, 67.8% met the clinical threshold for insomnia disorder and 31.3% met criteria for two or more sleep disorders. IBD-related sleep disruptions (e.g., nighttime awakenings due to bowel movements) were not significantly related to poor sleep quality, but significantly related to insomnia severity for participants with active Crohn's disease., Conclusions: While poor sleep in IBD is reflective of a number of different sleep problems, it is most frequently related to insomnia. IBD symptom severity contributes to insomnia, but insomnia is also distinct from IBD-related sleep disruptions. Future research on the treatment of insomnia disorder in particular in individuals with IBD is warranted., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Goal: The goal of this study was to describe medication utilization patterns in older inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients., Background: Despite a growing population of older patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), questions remain regarding medication utilization patterns in comparison to younger populations., Materials and Methods: We collected data from the 34 sites in TARGET-IBD, a multicenter, observational cohort. The primary outcome in this study was the IBD-specific therapy utilized among older patients with IBD compared with younger age groups. Therapy use was analyzed using pairwise comparisons and then the odds of IBD-specific therapy use among patients older than age 65 were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression models., Results: We identified 2980 patients with IBD (61% CD). In multivariable analysis, younger patients with UC were significantly less likely to utilize aminosalicylate monotherapy when compared with patients above 65 years [age 18 to 29: adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.78]. In patients with CD, younger patients were significantly less likely to use aminosalicylate monotherapy when compared with patients above 65 (greatest difference age 18 to 29: aOR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.18-0.52). Younger patients with CD and UC were significantly more likely to use anti-tumor necrosis factor monotherapy than patients above 65 years (age 18 to 29: aOR=3.87, 95% CI: 2.47-6.06 and aOR=2.68, 95% CI: 1.29-5.58, respectively)., Conclusions: Older patients with IBD demonstrate significant differences in medication utilization, including more aminosalicylate monotherapy and less anti-tumor necrosis factor monotherapy compared with younger age groups. Given the aging population in the United States, these utilization patterns may have long-term implications for disease control., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: The IBD Qorus Collaborative aims to reduce variation and increase the value of care for the adult inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community. To evaluate the success of the collaborative, we aimed to develop a balanced set of outcome measures that reflect a multistakeholder view of value in IBD care. To achieve this, we used the Clinical Value Compass framework and engaged a mixed-stakeholder group to conduct a modified Delphi process. The end result was a 10-measure set to assess the value of IBD care., Method: The modified Delphi process included 3 iterative rounds of blinded voting and interactive webinar-style discussion. We recruited 18 participants for the Delphi panel, including clinicians, researchers, patients, Crohn's & Colitis Foundation staff, and payers. Participants first identified constructs to measure, then identified the tools to measure those constructs. A literature review and environmental scan of current measures in 4 domains were performed, and relevant measures were proposed for discussion and voting in each domain. Throughout the process, participants were invited to contribute additional measures., Conclusion: The modified Delphi process led to selection of 10 value measures across 4 domains: (1) patient experience; (2) functional status; (3) clinical status; and (4) health care costs and utilization. We have successfully completed a 3-stage modified Delphi process to develop a balanced set of value measures for adult IBD care. The value measure set expands upon prior efforts that have established quality measures for IBD care by adding cost and experience of care elements. This work positions IBD Qorus to better assess, study, improve, and demonstrate value at individual, system, and population levels and will inform and empower related research, improvement, and implementation efforts., (© 2021 Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

In Crohn's disease, combination therapy with anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents and azathioprine/mercaptopurine has been shown to be superior to monotherapy with one of these treatments alone. 1 This combination has its best success rate when used early in the course of treatment. 2 However, because of the significant cost of these drugs and concerns over long-term side effects, 3 , 4 many patients and providers often ask about stopping one or both of these medications., (Copyright © 2021 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Direct comparisons are lacking between vedolizumab and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-antagonist therapy in Crohn's disease (CD)., Aim: To compare safety and effectiveness of vedolizumab and TNF-antagonist therapy in adult CD patients., Methods: Retrospective observational cohort (May 2014-December 2017) propensity score-weighted comparison of vedolizumab vs TNF-antagonist therapy (infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab) in CD. Propensity scores were weighted for age, prior treatments, disease complications, extent and severity, steroid dependence, and concomitant immunosuppressive drug use. The primary outcome was comparative risk for infections or non-infectious serious adverse events (requiring antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, hospitalisation, or treatment discontinuation, or resulting in death). Secondary comparative effectiveness outcomes were clinical remission (resolution of CD-related symptoms), steroid-free clinical remission and endoscopic remission (absence of ulcers/erosions)., Results: We included 1266 patients (n = 659 vedolizumab). Rates of non-infectious serious adverse events (odds ratio [OR] 0.072, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.012-0.242), but not serious infections (OR 1.183, 95% CI 0.786-1.795), were significantly lower with vedolizumab vs TNF-antagonist therapy. Safety comparisons for non-infectious serious adverse events remained significant after adjusting for differences in duration of exposure. No significant difference was observed between vedolizumab and TNF-antagonist therapy for clinical remission (hazard ratio [HR] 0.932, 95% CI 0.707-1.228), steroid-free clinical remission (HR 1.250, 95% CI 0.677-2.310) or endoscopic remission (HR 0.827, 95% CI 0.595-1.151). TNF-antagonist therapy was associated with higher treatment persistence compared with vedolizumab., Conclusions: There was a lower risk of non-infectious serious adverse events, but not serious infections, with vedolizumab vs TNF-antagonist therapy, with no significant difference for achieving disease remission., (© 2020 The Authors. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

People with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis have varying presentations and clinical consequences of their disease. Patients commonly ask about their prognosis, and what this diagnosis means for them. They are asking their clinicians to predict the future. The importance of predicting the course of any disease is to guide patient expectations and to guide treatment decisions. In the past decade the strategy of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment has shifted to treat patients earlier in the course of their disease, before irreversible damage occurs. Treatment approaches for disease categorized as mild, moderate or severe has most often been based on a current assessment of symptoms or disease activity without including a longitudinal assessment of a patient's disease course including past disease complications and surgeries. While a patient's current disease activity most typically drives these treatment decisions, optimally, treatment decisions would be made accounting for past disease activity and complications and the predicted future disease course. When developing a treatment plan for an individual patient, the immediate goal is to treat the current disease activity for relief of symptoms, and the long-term goal is to prevent progression of their disease due to complications. Since not all patients will progress to a complicated disease course, it is important to be able to select the right patients for the right therapy. Therefore, developing methods of stratifying patients into low-risk versus high-risk of complications will be an important aspect of treating IBD now and in the future., (Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A clinical decision support tool (CDST) has been validated for predicting treatment effectiveness of vedolizumab (VDZ) in Crohn's disease., Aim: To assess the utility of this CDST for predicting exposure-efficacy and disease outcomes., Methods: Using data from three independent datasets (GEMINI, GETAID and VICTORY), we assessed clinical remission rates and measured VDZ exposure, rapidity of onset of action, response to dose optimisation and progression to surgery by CDST-defined response groups (low, intermediate and high)., Results: A linear relationship existed between CDST-defined groups, measured VDZ exposure, rapidity of onset of action and efficacy in GEMINI through week 52 (P < 0.001 at all time points across three CDST-defined groups). In GETAID, CDST predicted differences in clinical remission at week 14 (AUC = 0.68) and rapidity of onset of action (P = 0.04) between probability groups. The high-probability patients did not benefit from shortening of infusion intervals, and differences in onset of action between the high-intermediate and low-probability groups within GETAID were no longer significant when including low-probability patients who received a week 10 infusion. CDST predicted a twofold increase in surgery risk over 12 months of VDZ therapy among low- to intermediate-probability vs high-probability patients (adjusted HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.33-3.21)., Conclusions: We further extended the clinical utility of a previously validated VDZ CDST, which accurately predicts at baseline exposure-efficacy relationships and rapidity of onset of action and could be used to help identify patients who would most benefit from interval shortening and those most likely to require surgery while on active therapy., (© 2019 The Authors. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: Biologic therapies have been available for inflammatory bowel disease for >20 years, but patient outcomes have not changed appreciably over this time period. To better understand medication utilization for this disease, we evaluated a novel technique for visualizing treatment pathways, including initial treatment, switching, and combination therapies., Methods: This retrospective, observational study used administrative claims data from the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Database. Adult patients with ≥2 consecutive health claims and newly diagnosed with ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD) were evaluated. Treatment pathways were visualized using Sankey diagrams representing the number of patients receiving treatment and duration of each treatment., Results: In all, 28,119 patients with UC and 16,260 patients with CD were identified. The most common initial treatment for UC was 5-aminosalicylic acid monotherapy (61% of the patients), followed by corticosteroid monotherapy (25%); <1% of patients were initially treated with biologics. The most common initial treatment for CD was corticosteroid monotherapy (42%), followed by 5-aminosalicylic acid monotherapy (35%); <5% of the patients were initially treated with biologics. Significantly fewer patients followed biologic vs nonbiologic treatment pathways (UC: 6% vs 94%, CD: 19% vs 81%, both P < 0.05)., Discussion: Significantly fewer patients with inflammatory bowel disease followed treatment pathways that included biologic therapies compared with nonbiologic therapies, and very few patients were ever initiated on biologic therapy. Although we have made significant progress in treatment, our most effective medications are only being used in a small proportion of patients, suggesting barriers prevent optimized patient management.

Background: Biologic medications have advanced the management of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) but are underutilized in the treatment algorithm. One reason may be related to patients' concerns about adverse events and their perceptions of risk. The aim of this study was to compare patients' perceptions of risk of IBD treatment with their perceived risk of everyday occurrences and other medications and how these perceptions may be influenced by personality traits., Methods: A cross-sectional study of consecutive IBD patients was conducted at a single tertiary care center. Participants were asked to report about their perception of risk of IBD medications, non-IBD medications, invasive procedures, and everyday life occurrences. Participants responded also to the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) scale to characterize beliefs about control over health outcomes., Results: A total of 130 patients with IBD completed the questionnaires. There was a broad range of disease severity and prior medication use. Biologics elicited the highest dread of all IBD medications, but this was still lower than their fear of surgery. Patients believed that biologics were of higher benefit than immunomodulators and mesalamines, but riskier. Having the personality trait of an internally developed locus of control was associated with the perception that biologics are less dreadful., Conclusions: Patients with IBD perceive biologics to be of higher benefit but riskier and more dreadful as compared with immunomodulators. Risk perception may be about more than their knowledge base but also about how much control patients typically believe they have over their daily lives., (© 2019 Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background & Aims: Patients with Crohn's disease (CD), but not ulcerative colitis (UC), of shorter duration have higher rates of response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists than patients with longer disease duration. Little is known about the association between disease duration and response to other biologic agents. We aimed to evaluate response of patients with CD or UC to vedolizumab, stratified by disease duration., Methods: We analyzed data from a retrospective, multicenter, consortium of patients with CD (n = 650) or UC (n = 437) treated with vedolizumab from May 2014 through December 2016. Using time to event analyses, we compared rates of clinical remission, corticosteroid-free remission (CSFR), and endoscopic remission between patients with early-stage (≤2 years duration) and later-stage (>2 years) CD or UC. We used Cox proportional hazards models to identify factors associated with outcomes., Results: Within 6 months initiation of treatment with vedolizumab, significantly higher proportions of patients with early-stage CD, vs later-stage CD, achieved clinical remission (38% vs 23%), CSFR (43% vs 14%), and endoscopic remission (29% vs 13%) (P < .05 for all comparisons). After adjusting for disease-related factors including previous exposure to TNF antagonists, patients with early-stage CD were significantly more likely than patients with later-stage CD to achieve clinical remission (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.59; 95% CI, 1.02-2.49), CSFR (aHR, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.66-6.92), and endoscopic remission (aHR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.06-3.39). In contrast, disease duration was not a significant predictor of response among patients with UC., Conclusions: Patients with CD for 2 years or less are significantly more likely to achieve a complete response, CSFR, or endoscopic response to vedolizumab than patients with longer disease duration. Disease duration does not associate with response vedolizumab in patients with UC., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vedolizumab effectiveness estimates immediately after Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) are limited by use in refractory populations. We aimed to compare treatment patterns and outcomes of vedolizumab in 2 time frames after FDA approval., Methods: We used 2 data sets for time trend analysis, an academic multicenter vedolizumab consortium (VICTORY) and the Truven MarketScan database, and 2 time periods, May 2014-June 2015 (Era 1) and July 2015-June 2017 (Era 2). VICTORY cumulative 12-month clinical remission, corticosteroid-free remission, and mucosal healing rates, and Truven 12-month hospitalization and surgery rates, were compared between Eras 1 and 2 using time-to-event analyses., Results: A total of 3661 vedolizumab-treated patients were included (n = 1087 VICTORY, n = 2574 Truven). In both cohorts, CD and UC patients treated during Era 2 were more likely to be biologic naïve. Compared with Era 1, Era 2 CD patients in the VICTORY consortium had higher rates of clinical remission (31% vs 40%, P = 0.03) and mucosal healing (42% vs 58%, P < 0.01). These trends were not observed for UC. In the Truven database, UC patients treated during Era 2 had lower rates of inflammatory bowel disease-related hospitalization (22.4% vs 9.6%, P < 0.001) and surgery (17.2% vs 9.4%, P = 0.008), which was not observed for CD., Conclusion: Since FDA approval, remission and mucosal healing rates have increased for vedolizumab-treated CD patients, and vedolizumab-treated UC patients have had fewer hospitalizations and surgeries. This is likely due to differences between patient populations treated immediately after drug approval and those treated later., (© 2019 Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.)

Both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) that can lead to progressive irreversible bowel damage. Selecting the most appropriate therapy for patients is a challenge because not all patients diagnosed with IBD have complications, and the amount of time to develop a complication is different for individuals. Models using patient characteristics, genetics, and immune responses help identify those patients who require early aggressive therapy with a goal to modify their disease course. Future research will help identify the role that the microbiome, metagenomics, metaproteomics, and microRNAs play in a patient prognosis., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We quantified loss of response (LOR) to vedolizumab (VDZ) in clinical practice and assessed the effectiveness of VDZ dose intensification for managing LOR., Methods: Retrospective review (May 2014-December 2016) of a prospectively maintained inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) registry. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine rates of LOR to VDZ . Independent predictors of LOR were identified using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression. Success of recapturing response (>50% reduction in symptoms from baseline) and remission (complete resolution of symptoms) after dose intensification was quantified., Results: Cumulative rates for VDZ LOR were 20% at 6 months and 35% at 12 months, with slightly lower rates in Crohn's disease than in ulcerative colitis (6 months 15% vs 18% and 12 months 30% vs 39%, P = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, LOR to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist before VDZ use was associated with an increased risk for LOR to VDZ [hazard ratio (HR) 1.93; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.97] in all patients. For Crohn's disease patients specifically, higher baseline C-reactive protein concentration was associated with increased risk for LOR to VDZ (HR 1.01 per mg/dL increase, 95% CI 1.01-1.02). Shortening of VDZ infusion interval from 8 to every 4 or 6 weeks recaptured response in 49% and remission in 18% of patients., Conclusions: LOR to a TNF antagonist before VDZ use and higher baseline C-reactive protein are important predictors of VDZ LOR. Treatment response can be recaptured in almost half of these patients with VDZ infusion interval shortening.

Medications are available that can be highly effective for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, there are multiple barriers in place to offer these treatments to the right patients at the right time. In addition to obstacles created by payers, there are concerns over medication side effects by patients and providers, and the logistic challenges of navigating the maze of initiating someone on biological therapy. As a gastroenterology community, we need to push the field forward for the sake of our patients. Current and future drug development for IBD is exciting, but we need to optimize what we have now to the best of our ability. When used appropriately and early enough in the disease course, our current medications can heal the bowel and prevent complications from developing. While recognizing that all patients do not need early intensive therapy, we need to identify the appropriate patients for more aggressive treatments. This article will describe how we can improve patient management now by shifting our focus to using a personalized, proactive, and patient-centered approach in our delivery of IBD care.

Background & Aims: As more treatment options for inflammatory bowel diseases become available, it is important to identify patients most likely to respond to different therapies. We created and validated a scoring system to identify patients with Crohn's disease (CD) who respond to vedolizumab., Methods: We collected data from the GEMINI 2 phase 3 trial of patients with active CD treated with vedolizumab for 26 weeks (n = 814) and performed logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with clinical, steroid-free, and durable remission (derivation set). We used these data to develop a clinical decision support tool, which we validated using data from 366 participants in a separate clinical practice observational cohort of patients with active CD treated with vedolizumab for 26 weeks (the VICTORY cohort). We evaluated the ability of this tool to identify patients in clinical remission or corticosteroid-free remission, or those with mucosal healing (MH), clinical remission with MH, or corticosteroid-free remission with MH after vedolizumab therapy using receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) analyses. The primary outcome was to develop and validate a list of factors associated with achieving remission by vedolizumab in patients with active CD., Results: In the derivation analysis, we identified absence of previous treatment with a tumor necrosis factor antagonist (+3 points), absence of prior bowel surgery (+2 points), absence of prior fistulizing disease (+2 points), baseline level of albumin (+0.4 points per g/L), and baseline concentration of C-reactive protein (reduction of 0.5 points for values between 3.0 and 10.0 mg/L and 3.0 points for values >10.0 mg/L) as factors associated with remission. In the validation set, our model identified patients in clinical remission with an AUC of 0.67, patients in corticosteroid-free remission with an AUC of 0.66, patients with MH with an AUC of 0.72, patients in clinical remission with MH with an AUC of 0.73, and patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission with MH with an AUC of 0.75. A cutoff value of 13 points identified patients in clinical remission after vedolizumab therapy with 92% sensitivity, patients in corticosteroid-free remission with 94% sensitivity, patients with MH with 98% sensitivity, patients with clinical remission and MH with 100% sensitivity, and patients with corticosteroid-free clinical remission with MH with 100% sensitivity., Conclusions: We developed and validated a scoring system to identify patients with CD most likely to respond to 26 weeks of vedolizumab therapy. Further studies are needed to optimize its accuracy in select populations and determine its cost-effectiveness., (Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Endpoints in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Crohn's disease (CD) are changing. We performed a systematic review of efficacy and safety outcomes reported in placebo-controlled RCTs of patients with CD., Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library through March 1, 2017 for placebo-controlled RCTs of adult patients with CD treated with aminosalicylates, immunomodulators, corticosteroids, biologics, and oral small molecules. Efficacy and safety outcomes, definitions, and measurement tools were collected and stratified by decade of publication., Results: Our final analysis included 116 RCTs (81 induction, 44 maintenance, 7 postoperative prevention trials, comprising 27,263 patients). Clinical efficacy endpoints were reported in all trials; the most common endpoint was CD activity index score. We identified 38 unique definitions of clinical response or remission and 32 definitions of loss of response. Definitions of endoscopic response, remission, and endoscopic healing were also heterogeneous, evaluated using the CD endoscopic index of severity, the simple endoscopic score for CD, ulcer resolution, and Rutgeerts' Score for postoperative endoscopic appearance. Histologic outcomes were reported in 11.1% of induction trials, 2.3% of maintenance trials, and 14.3% of postoperative prevention trials. Biomarker outcomes were reported in 81.5% induction trials, 68.2% of maintenance trials, and 42.9% of postoperative prevention trials. Safety outcomes were reported in 93.8% of induction trials, 97.7% of maintenance trials, and 85.7% of postoperative prevention trials., Conclusions: In this systematic review, we demonstrate heterogeneity in definitions of response and remission, and changes in outcomes reported in RCTs of CD. It is a priority to select a core set of outcomes to standardize efficacy and safety evaluation in trials of patients with CD., (Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Matrix metalloproteinase-9 [MMP9] is implicated in the pathogenesis of Crohn's disease and may serve as a potential biomarker. A phase 2 trial was conducted to examine the efficacy and safety of the anti-MMP9 antibody andecaliximab [GS-5745] in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease., Methods: Patients were randomized 1:2:2:2 to receive subcutaneous injections of placebo weekly [QW], andecaliximab 150 mg every 2 weeks [Q2W], andecaliximab 150 mg QW, or andecaliximab 300 mg QW.The co-primary study efficacy endpoints were evaluation of a clinical response, defined as liquid or very soft stool frequency and abdominal pain composite [from Patient-Reported Outcome 2] score ≤ 8 at week 8, and an endoscopic response, defined as a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease, following 8 weeks of treatment., Results: A total of 187 participants were randomized to treatment; 53 participants were randomized to each andecaliximab treatment group and 28 participants were randomized to placebo. Proportions of patients receiving andecaliximab were not different from proportions of patients receiving placebo based on clinical and endoscopic response and Crohn's disease activity index-defined remission at week 8. Rates of adverse events were comparable among the andecaliximab and placebo groups., Conclusions: Eight weeks of induction treatment with 150 mg andecaliximab Q2W, 150 mg andecaliximab QW, or 300 mg andecaliximab QW in patients with Crohn's disease did not induce a clinically meaningful symptomatic or endoscopic response. Andecaliximab was well tolerated., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02405442., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.)

Background and Aim: Crohn's disease [CD] is a progressive inflammatory bowel disease that can lead to complications such as strictures or penetrating disease, and ultimately surgery. Few population-based studies have investigated the predictors for disease progression and surgery in CD according to the Montreal classification. We aimed to identify clinical predictors associated with complicated CD in a Danish population-based inception cohort during the biologic era., Methods: All incident patients with CD in a well-defined Copenhagen area, between 2003 and 2004, were followed prospectively until 2011. Disease progression was defined as the development of bowel stricture [B2] or penetrating disease [B3] in patients initially diagnosed with non-stricturing/non-penetrating disease [B1]. Associations between disease progression and/or resection, and multiple covariates, were investigated by Cox regression analyses., Results: In total, 213 CD patients were followed. A total of 177 [83%] patients had B1 at diagnosis. Patients who changed location had increased risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.1, 95% CI: 1.12,8.52). Biologic treatment was associated with lower risk of change in location [HR = 0.3, 95% CI: 0.1-0.7]. Colonic involvement [L2 or L3 vs L1] was associated with a lower risk of surgery (HR = 0.34/0.22, 95% CI: [0.13,0.86]/[0.08,0.60]). All CD patients who progressed in behaviour or changed location had an increased risk of surgery [p < 0.05]., Conclusions: This population-based inception cohort study demonstrates that changes in disease location or behaviour in patients with CD increase their risk of resection. Our findings highlight the protective effect of biologic treatment with regard to change in disease location, which might ultimately improve the disease course for CD patients.

Background and Aim: Disease activity for Crohn's disease (CD) and UC is typically defined based on symptoms at a moment in time, and ignores the long-term burden of disease. The aims of this study were to select the attributes determining overall disease severity, to rank the importance of and to score these individual attributes for both CD and UC., Methods: Using a modified Delphi panel, 14 members of the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IOIBD) selected the most important attributes related to IBD. Eighteen IOIBD members then completed a statistical exercise (conjoint analysis) to create a relative ranking of these attributes. Adjusted utilities were developed by creating proportions for each level within an attribute., Results: For CD, 15.8% of overall disease severity was attributed to the presence of mucosal lesions, 10.9% to history of a fistula, 9.7% to history of abscess and 7.4% to history of intestinal resection. For UC, 18.1% of overall disease severity was attributed to mucosal lesions, followed by 14.0% for impact on daily activities, 11.2% C reactive protein and 10.1% for prior experience with biologics. Overall disease severity indices were created on a 100-point scale by applying each attribute's average importance to the adjusted utilities., Conclusions: Based on specialist opinion, overall CD severity was associated more with intestinal damage, in contrast to overall UC disease severity, which was more dependent on symptoms and impact on daily life. Once validated, disease severity indices may provide a useful tool for consistent assessment of overall disease severity in patients with IBD., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Phase 1 was funded thanks to an unrestricted educational grant to IOIBD from AbbVie and Tillotts. CAS has served as a consultant on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Lilly, Janssen, Sandoz, Pfizer, Prometheus, Takeda, Theradiag and UCB; as a speaker for American Regent, AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer and Takeda; and receives grant support from AbbVie, Janssen and Takeda. BMRS has research grants from Shire and Takeda. BF has served as a consultant for Abbott/AbbVie, Actogenix, Akros, Albireo Pharma, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Avaxia Biologics, Avir Pharma, Axcan, Baxter Healthcare, Biogen Idec, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calypso Biotech, Celgene, Elan/Biogen, EnGene, Ferring Pharma, Roche/Genentech, GiCare Pharma, Gilead, Given Imaging, GSK, Ironwood Pharma, Janssen Biotech (Centocor), JnJ/Janssen, Kyowa Kakko Kirin Co., Lexicon, Lilly, Lycera BioTech, Merck, Mesoblast Pharma, Millennium, Nektar, Nestles, Novonordisk, Pfizer, Prometheus Therapeutics and Diagnostics, Protagonist, Receptos, Salix Pharma, Serono, Shire, Sigmoid Pharma, Synergy Pharma, Takeda, Teva Pharma, TiGenix, Tillotts, UCB Pharma, Vertex Pharma, VHsquared, Warner-Chilcott, Wyeth, Zealand and Zyngenia; has been a speaker for Abbott/AbbVie, JnJ/Janssen, Takeda, Warner-Chilcott and UCB Pharma; has served on advisory boards for Abbott/AbbVie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Avaxia Biologics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Centocor, Elan/Biogen, Ferring, JnJ/Janssen, Merck, Nestles, Novartis, Novonordisk, Pfizer, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonist, Salix Pharma, Takeda, Teva, TiGenix, Tillotts Pharma AG and UCB Pharma; receives research funding from Abbott/AbbVie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Janssen Biotech (Centocor), JnJ/Janssen, Roche/Genentech, Millennium, Pfizer, Receptos, Santarus, Sanofi, Tillotts and UCB Pharma; and serves on the board of directors for Robarts Clinical Trials. BS has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen Biotech, MedImmune, Takeda, Pfizer, TiGenix, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Receptos, Akros Pharma, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Theravance Biopharma R&D, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, Toplvert Pharma, UCB and Lilly; has served on scientific advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen Biotech, MedImmune, Takeda, Pfizer, TiGenix and Lily; and he receives research funding from Celgene, Janssen Biotech, MedImmune, Takeda and Pfizer. EVL has consulted for UCB Pharma, Takeda, Janssen, AbbVie, Genentech, Celgene, Amgen, Mesoblast, Theradiag, Sun Pharma and Seres Health; has received research support from UCB Pharma, Takeda, Janssen, AbbVie, Genentech, Celgene, Amgen, Pfizer, Receptos, Gilead and Robarts Clinical Trials. RP has served as a consultant for Abbvie/Abbott, Amgen, Aptalis, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Eisai, Ferring, Janssen, Merck, Schering-Plough, Shire, Centocor, Elan, Glaxo-Smith Kline, UCB, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Warmer Chilcot, Takeda, Cubist and Celgene; on speaker's bureaus for Abbvie/Abbott, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Schering-Plough, Shire, Centocor, Elan, Prometheus, Warner Chilcott and Takeda; on advisory boards for Abbvie/Abbott, Amgen, Aptalis, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Eisai, Ferring, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, Schering-Plough, Shire, Centocor, Elan, Glaxo-Smith Kline, UCB, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Warner Chilcott, Takeda, Cubist, Celgene and Salix; and receives research/educational support from Abbvie, Abbott, Ferring, Janssen, Schering-Plough, Centocor, Millenium, Elan, Proctor and Gamble and Bristol-Myers Squibb. GD has served as advisor for Abbvie, Ablynx, Amakem, AM Pharma, Avaxia, Biogen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Boerhinger Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Cosmo, Covidien, Ferring, DrFALK Pharma, Engene, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hospira, Johnson & Johnson, Medimetrics, Millenium/Takeda, Mitsubishi Pharma, Merck Sharp Dome, Mundipharma, Novonordisk, Pfizer, Prometheus laboratories/Nestle, Receptos, Robarts Clinical Trials, Salix, Sandoz, Setpoint, Shire, Teva, Tigenix, Tillotts, Topivert, Versant and Vifor; and received speaker fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharp Dome, Mundipharma, Norgine, Pfizer, Shire, Millenium/Takeda, Tillotts and Vifor. CNB is supported in part by the Bingham Chair in Gastroenterology. He has served on advisory boards to Abbvie Canada, Janssen Canada, Shire Canada, Takeda Canada and Pfizer Canada and has consulted to Mylan Pharmaceuticals; he has received unrestricted educational grants from Abbvie Canada, Janssen Canada, Shire Canada and Takeda Canada. RG has received consulting and speaking fees from AbbVie, Janssen, MSD, Ferring, Takeda and Baxter; and research grants from AbbVie. GJM has served as speaker or advisory board member for AbbVie, Angelini, Astellas, Danone, MSD, Falk Pharma, Ferring, Hospira, Janssen, Omega Pharma, Otsuka, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sandoz and Takeda; as consultant for Janssen, MSD, Takeda and Omega Pharma; and has received research grants in the last 3 years from Menarini, AbbVie, and MSD. BS has served on advisory boards for Dann and Yakult North American Probiotic Council, Second Genome, Lilly and Enterome; and receives grant support from Janssen, Salix and GSK. MSS has received consulting and speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Ferring, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Prometheus, Shire and Takeda; and research funding from AbbVie, Janssen, Prometheus and Takeda. IEK has served as a consultant and on advisory boards for AbbVie and MSD. CO is the principal investigator for Redhill Pharma. DPBM is a consultant for UCB, Jannsen, Merck and Second Genome. WR has served as a speaker for Abbott Laboratories, Abbvie, Aesca, Aptalis, Centocor, Celltrion, Danone Austria, Elan, Falk Pharma GmbH, Ferring, Immundiagnostik, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, MSD, Otsuka, PDL, Pharmacosmos, Schering-Plough, Shire, Takeda, Therakos, Vifor and Yakult; as a consultant for Abbott Laboratories, Abbvie, Aesca, Amgen, AM Pharma, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Avaxia, Bioclinica, Biogen IDEC, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cellerix, Chemocentryx, Celgene, Centocor, Celltrion, Covance, Danone Austria, Elan, Falk Pharma GmbH, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, Grünenthal, ICON, Index Pharma, Inova, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma, Lipid Therapeutics, MedImmune, Millenium, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, MSD, Nestle, Novartis, Ocera, Otsuka, PDL, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Prometheus, Robarts Clinical Trial, Schering-Plough, Second Genome, Setpointmedical, Takeda, Therakos, Tigenix, UCB, Vifor, Zyngenia and 4SC; as an advisory board member for Abbott Laboratories, Abbvie, Aesca, Amgen, AM Pharma, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Avaxia, Biogen IDEC, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cellerix, Chemocentryx, Celgene, Centocor, Celltrion, Danone Austria, Elan, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech, Grünenthal, Inova, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma, Lipid Therapeutics, MedImmune, Millenium, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, MSD, Nestle, Novartis, Ocera, Otsuka, PDL, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Prometheus, Schering-Plough, Second Genome, Setpointmedical, Takeda, Therakos, Tigenix, UCB, Zyngenia and 4SC; and has received research funding from Abbott Laboratories, Abbvie, Aesca, Centocor, Falk Pharma GmbH, Immundiagnsotik and MSD. GR has consulted to Abbot, Abbvie, Augurix, Boehringer, Calypso, FALK, Ferring, Fisher, Genentech, Essex/MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Phadia, Roche, UCB, Takeda, Tillots, Vifor, Vital Solutions and Zeller; has received speaker's honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Abbott, Abbvie, FALK, MSD, Phadia, Tillots, UCB and Vifor; has received educational grants and research grants from Abbott/Abbvie, Ardeypharm, Augurix, Calypso, Essex/MSD, FALK, Flamentera, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Tillots, UCB and Zeller. WK has received fees for advising from Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH, Ferring International, GA-Analysis; support for research from Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH and GA-Analysis; grants for lectures from Abbvie, Ardeypharm, Falk Foundation, Ferring Arzneimittel, GA-Analysis, Institut Allergosan, Nikkiso, Otsuka and Recordati. CT has served as a speaker for Dr. Falk Pharma, Tillotts Pharma, Ferring, MSD and AstraZeneca. SS has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Boehringer; Celltrion/Mundipharma, Jansen, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer/Hospira, Sanofi, Takeda and UCB; and speaking fees from AbbVie Ferring, Falk, Merck, Takeda and Shire. SD has served as a speaker, a consultant and an advisory board member for Abbvie, Ferring, Hospira, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Millennium Takeda, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Tigenix, UCB Pharma and Vifor. WS reports grant support from Receptos, Exact Sciences, Amgen, the American College of Gastroenterology and the Broad Foundation; grant support and personal fees from Prometheus Laboratories, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Atlantic Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer and Nutrition Science Partners; and personal fees from Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Celgene Cellular Therapeutics, Santarus, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Catabasis Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Warner Chilcott, Gilead Sciences, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Sigmoid Biotechnologies, Tillotts Pharma, Am Pharma BV, Dr. August Wolff, Avaxia Biologics, Zyngenia, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Index Pharmaceuticals, Nestle, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, UCB Pharma, Orexigen, Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Baxter Healthcare, Ferring Research Institute, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Mesoblast, Shire, Ardelyx, Actavis, Seattle Genetics, MedImmune (AstraZeneca), Actogenix NV, Lipid Therapeutics Gmbh, Eisai, Qu Biologics, Toray Industries, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Chiasma, TiGenix, Adherion Therapeutics, Immune Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Ambrx, Akros Pharma, Vascular Biogenics, Theradiag, Forward Pharma, Regeneron, Galapagos, Seres Health, Ritter Pharmaceuticals, Theravance, Palatin, Biogen and the University of Western Ontario (owner of Robarts Clinical Trials). AG has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Janssen, Merck and Takeda; a speaker for Janssen; and received research and clinical programme support from AbbVie and Janssen. ST has received Grants/Research Support from AbbVie, IOIBD, Lilly, UCB, Vifor and Norman Collison Foundation; consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chemocentryx, Cosmo, Ferring, Giuliani SpA, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, MSD, Neovacs, NovoNordisk, Norman Collison Foundation, Novartis, NPS Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Proximagen, Receptos, Shire, Sigmoid Pharma, Takeda, Topivert, UCB, VHsquared and Vifor; speaker fees from AbbVie, Ferring and Takeda. JP has received consultant fees from Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Galapagos, Genentech-Roche, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, TiGenix and Topivert; speaker fees from Abbvie, Celltrion, Janssen, MSD and Pfizer. JFC has served as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene Corporation, Celltrion, Enterome, Ferring, Genentech, Janssen and Janssen, Medimmune, Merck & Co., Pfizer, Protagonist, Second Genome, Seres, Takeda and Theradiag; a speaker for AbbVie, Ferring, Takeda and Shire; receives research support from Abbvie, Janssen and Janssen, Genentech and Takeda; and has stock options for Intestinal Biotech Development and Genfit. SH is a consultant for AbbVie, Actavis, Amgen, Arena, Astellas Pharma Global, Astra Zeneca, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Catabasis, Cellgene, Celltrion, Cubist, Ferring, Forest Labs, Genentech, Glenmark, GSK, Hospira, Janssen, Lilly, Lutipold/American Regent, Meda, Nestle, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Prometheus, Receptos, Salix, Sanofi-Avantis, Seattle-Genetics, Seres Health, Shire, Takeda, Theradiag, Tigenex, UCB Pharma and VHsquared; does clinical research with Abbvie, Amgen, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Lutipold/American Regent, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Prometheus, Receptos, Sanofi-Avantis, Takeda and UCB Pharma; is a speaker for AbbVie, Janssen and Takeda; and serves on a DSMB for Bristol Myers Squibb. LPB reports consulting fees from Merck, Abbvie, Janssen, Genentech, Mitsubishi, Ferring, Norgine, Tillots, Vifor, Therakos, Pharmacosmos, Pilège, BMS, UCB-pharma, Hospira, Celltrion, Takeda, Biogaran, Boerhinger-Ingelheim, Lilly, Pfizer, HAC-Pharma, Index Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Sandoz, Forward Pharma GmbH, Celgene, Biogen, Lycera and Samsung Bioepis; and lecture fees from Merck, Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, Takeda, Ferring, Norgine, Tillots, Vifor, Therakos, Mitsubishi and HAC-pharma., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Background: The overall risk for infection with contemporary biological agents in treating Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) has not been systematically assessed., Methods: We performed a PubMed and Cochrane database literature search to evaluate randomized, placebo-controlled trials of biologics in treating UC and CD. Meta-analysis was performed using a DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. We determined relative risk (RR) of harm against placebo; number needed to harm (NNH) was reported when appropriate. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed., Results: Fourteen trials (6 UC and 8 CD) evaluating 5107 patients were included. For anti-tumor necrosis factor agents used in the treatment of UC, golimumab {NNH of 9.3, RR = 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.8)} and pooled studies of infliximab and adalimumab (NNH = 17.2, RR = 1.2 [95% CI, 1.0-1.3]) had a statistically significant higher risk for any infection versus placebo. Risk was not significantly increased in anti-tumor necrosis factor trials in CD (RR = 1.1 [95% CI, 0.8-1.5]). By contrast, anti-integrin agents in UC (RR = 1.0 [95% CI, 0.9-1.2]) or CD (RR = 1.1 [95% CI, 0.97-1.3]) did not confer a statistically significant excess risk of infection versus placebo., Conclusions: Anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy but not anti-integrin therapy is associated with a greater infection risk than placebo in treating UC. Neither class of therapy is associated with increased infection risk over placebo in treating CD. Our findings can help guide patient-centered discussions regarding the risk for infection with biological agents.

Objectives: We assessed the real-world effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab (VDZ) in moderate-severe Crohn's disease (CD)., Methods: Retrospective cohort study of seven medical centers, from May 2014 to December 2015. Adults with moderate-severe CD treated with VDZ, with follow-up after initiation of therapy, were included. Using the multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, we identified independent predictors of clinical remission or mucosal healing with VDZ. Rates of serious infection (requiring antibiotics, resulting in discontinuation of VDZ, hospitalization or death) and serious adverse events (discontinuation of VDZ, hospitalization or death) were described quantitatively., Results: We included 212 patients with moderate-severe CD (median age 34 years; 40% male; 90% tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-antagonist exposed) with a median follow-up (IQR) of 39 weeks (25-53). Twelve-month cumulative rates of clinical remission, mucosal healing, and deep remission (clinical remission+mucosal healing) were 35%, 63%, and 26%, respectively. Individuals with prior TNF-antagonist exposure (hazard ratio (HR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20-0.81), smoking history (HR 0.47; 95% CI: 0.25-0.89), active perianal disease (HR 0.49; 95% CI: 0.27-0.88), and severe disease activity (HR 0.54; 95% CI: 0.31-0.95) were less likely to achieve clinical remission. Those with prior TNF-antagonist exposure (HR 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73), and severe disease activity (HR 0.54; 95% CI: 0.31-0.95) were less likely to achieve mucosal healing. During 160 patient years of follow-up (PYF) and 1,433 VDZ infusions, 5 patients developed infusion reactions (3.5 per 1,000 infusions), 21 developed serious infections (13 per 100 PYF), and 17 developed serious adverse events (10 per 100 PYF). A minority of adverse events required discontinuation of therapy (6 per 100 PYF)., Conclusions: VDZ is a safe and effective treatment option for moderate-severe CD in routine practice. Clinical remission and deep remission (clinical remission and mucosal healing) can be achieved in 1/3 of individuals, and a minority of individuals require discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events.

Background: Consensus on what constitutes a quality colonoscopy report for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is lacking. We developed a template for quality colonoscopy reporting that can be used broadly by endoscopists., Methods: After a literature review of topics relevant to colonoscopy reporting, members of the Building Research in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Globally (BRIDGe) group and 2 external experts proposed candidate reporting elements. The RAND/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness method was applied to rate the importance and feasibility of elements for inclusion in colonoscopy reports for patients with IBD. Panelists used the modified Delphi method to anonymously rate the importance and feasibility of candidate elements on a 1-to-9 scale (1-3: not important/feasible, 4-6: moderately important/feasible, 7-9: very important/feasible). Disagreement was assessed using a validated index. The panelists then met in person for discussion followed by a second round of voting. Elements rated a median of 7 or higher on importance after rerating were retained., Results: One hundred two reporting elements were proposed. A total of 48 elements were retained across the four themes of "disease background," "findings and interventions," "Crohn's disease with an ileocolonic anastomosis," and "pouchoscopy.", Conclusions: A comprehensive list of recommended elements for quality IBD colonoscopy reporting stratified by clinical scenario has been described, using a rigorous and evidence-based approach. These elements can be incorporated into endoscopy reporting software platforms. Standardized endoscopy reporting may improve the quality of care in IBD.

Purpose: It is now recognized that Crohn's disease (CD), similar to ulcerative colitis (UC), carries an up to 20-fold higher cancer risk, and the development of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is a major long-term complication. Once CRC is present, molecular profiling is one of the components in selecting appropriate treatment strategies; however, in contrast to UC, genetic alterations in Crohn's colitis-associated CRC are poorly understood., Methods: In a series of 227 patients with Crohn's colitis, we identified 33 cases of CRC (~14 %) and performed targeted mutational analysis of BRAF/KRAS/NRAS and determined microsatellite status as well as immunophenotype of the tumors., Results: In the CRC cohort, the median age at time of cancer diagnosis was 58 (range 34-77 vs. 59.5 in sporadic; P = 0.81) and the median CD duration was 29 years (range 6-45). As a group, CRC complicating Crohn's colitis is BRAF (97 %) and NRAS (100 %) wild type and the vast majority is microsatellite stable (94 %); KRAS-mutations were found in six cases (18 %). Stage grouping, anatomic distribution, and overall survival were similar to sporadic CRC; however, long-standing CD (≥25 years) as well as gastric-immunophenotype (MUC5AC+) was associated with significantly shorter overall survival (P = 0.0029; P = 0.036, respectively)., Conclusion: In summary, the clinicopathological and molecular profile of CD-associated CRC is similar to that observed in sporadic CRC.

Background: Early treatment for Crohn's disease (CD) with immunomodulators and/or anti-TNF agents improves outcomes in comparison to a slower 'step up' algorithm. However, there remains a limited ability to identify those who would benefit most from early intensive therapy., Aim: To develop a validated, individualised, web-based tool for patients and clinicians to visualise individualised risks for developing Crohn's disease complications., Methods: A well-characterised cohort of adult patients with CD was analysed. Available data included: demographics; clinical characteristics; serologic immune responses; NOD2 status; time from diagnosis to complication; and medication exposure. Cox proportional analyses were performed to model the probability of developing a CD complication over time. The Cox model was validated externally in two independent CD cohorts. Using system dynamics analysis (SDA), these results were transformed into a simple graphical web-based display to show patients their individualised probability of developing a complication over a 3-year period., Results: Two hundered and forty three CD patients were included in the final model of which 142 experienced a complication. Significant variables in the multivariate Cox model included small bowel disease (HR 2.12, CI 1.05-4.29), left colonic disease (HR 0.73, CI 0.49-1.09), perianal disease (HR 4.12, CI 1.01-16.88), ASCA (HR 1.35, CI 1.16-1.58), Cbir (HR 1.29, CI 1.07-1.55), ANCA (HR 0.77, CI 0.62-0.95), and the NOD2 frameshift mutation/SNP13 (HR 2.13, CI 1.33-3.40). The Harrell's C (concordance index for predictive accuracy of the model) = 0.73. When applied to the two external validation cohorts (adult n = 109, pediatric n = 392), the concordance index was 0.73 and 0.75, respectively, for adult and pediatric patients., Conclusions: A validated, web-based tool has been developed to display an individualised predicted outcome for adult patients with Crohn's disease based on clinical, serologic and genetic variables. This tool can be used to help providers and patients make personalised decisions about treatment options., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background & Aims: There is debate over whether patients with Crohn's disease who start anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy after failed immunomodulator therapy should continue to receive concomitant immunomodulators. We conducted a meta-analysis of subgroups from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-TNF agents to compare the efficacy and safety of concomitant immunomodulator therapy vs anti-TNF monotherapy., Methods: We performed a systematic review of literature published from 1980 through 2008 and identified 11 RCTs of anti-TNF agents in patients with luminal or fistulizing Crohn's disease. We excluded RCTs of patients who were naive to anti-TNF and immunomodulator therapy. The primary end points were clinical response at weeks 4-14 and 24-30 and remission at weeks 24-30. Secondary end points included infusion site or injection site reactions and selected adverse events. A priori subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate fistula closure and the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with different anti-TNF agents., Results: Overall, combination therapy was no more effective than monotherapy in inducing 6-month remission (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.31), inducing a response (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.79-1.48), maintaining a response (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.67-3.49), or inducing partial (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.84-1.88) or complete fistula closure (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.68-1.78). In subgroup analyses of individual anti-TNF agents, combination therapy was not more effective than monotherapy in inducing 6-month remission in those treated with infliximab (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.97-3.07), adalimumab (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.35), or certolizumab (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.65-1.34). Overall, combination therapy was not associated with an increase in adverse events, but inclusion of infliximab was associated with fewer injection site reactions (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.79.), Conclusions: On the basis of a meta-analysis, continued use of immunomodulator therapy after starting anti-TNF therapy is no more effective than anti-TNF monotherapy in inducing or maintaining response or remission. RCTs are needed to adequately assess the efficacy of continued immunomodulator therapy after anti-TNF therapy is initiated., (Copyright © 2015 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aim: The comparative effectiveness of treatments for moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease can be influenced by the likelihood of remaining on medication. We aimed to clarify this treatment durability by assessing subject discontinuations from clinical trials in the context of treatment efficacy., Methods: We conducted a literature search for double-blind RCT of Crohn's disease therapies recommended in international guidelines or with recent positive phase III trial results. Durability was defined through study discontinuation due to adverse events or disease exacerbation represented by number needed to discontinue (NND). Efficacy was defined as clinical remission represented by number needed to treat (NNT). The primary endpoint was NND/NNT, with a higher value representing more durable and effective treatment., Results: Treatment with azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine (AZA/6MP) was associated with more discontinuations than with clinical remission (NND/NNT = 0.92) in maintenance trials. For induction, methotrexate was associated with similar rates of discontinuations and remission (NND/NNT = 1.4). In one maintenance trial, the remission rate for methotrexate was greater than the study discontinuation rate (NND/NNT = 23.3). In contrast, anti-TNF trials revealed greater durability among induction (no excess discontinuation) and maintenance (NND/NNT = 37.9) trials. Trials of anti-trafficking agents had fewer discontinuations in the drug treatment arms than placebo resulting in most favorable NND/NNT ratios., Conclusions: For patients with Crohn's disease, biologic therapies had higher durability than immunomodulators for induction and maintenance therapy. We also report the results of a novel NND/NNT ratio that should be validated in a prospective head-to-head placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Clinical factors were previously identified as predictors of short-term treatment efficacy in Crohn's disease (CD). The PRECiSE 3 (P3) 7-year trial provides an opportunity to study predictors of short- and long-term clinical remission among CD patients treated with certolizumab pegol (CZP)., Aim: To identify factors that influence long-term remission of CD with CZP treatment., Methods: Patients who had completed placebo-controlled studies (PRECiSE 1/PRECiSE 2, P1/P2) enrolled in P3 and received open-label CZP 400 mg every 4 weeks up to 7 years. Baseline predictors included, but were not limited to, smoking status, disease duration, prior inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) surgery, Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI), albumin, haematocrit and CZP exposure; association with time to initial remission (HBI ≤4) was tested for patients who received CZP in P1/P2; time to loss of remission/frequency of maintenance of remission was also tested. Univariate analyses and multivariate Cox or logistic regression models were used., Results: Predictors for initial remission (N = 377) included age, haematocrit, prior IBD surgery and entry HBI (P < 0.05 for all). Predictors for loss of remission (N = 437) included HBI, serum albumin concentration, haematocrit, smoking status and exposure. Predictors of maintenance of remission (N = 437) included haematocrit, IBD surgery, HBI, disease duration, serum albumin concentration and exposure. Significant predictors were confirmed with stepwise multivariate regression models., Conclusions: These analyses identified several influential parameters for short-and long-term remission of Crohn's disease with certolizumab pegol treatment. The data yield valuable hypotheses regarding factors that influence certolizumab pegol treatment. More investigation is needed. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00552058)., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background & Aims: There is controversy regarding the best treatment for patients with Crohn's disease because of the lack of direct comparative trials. We compared therapies for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with Crohn's disease, based on direct and indirect evidence., Methods: We performed systematic reviews of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases, through June 2014. We identified randomized controlled trials (N = 39) comparing methotrexate, azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab, vedolizumab, or combined therapies with placebo or an active agent for induction and maintenance of remission in adult patients with Crohn's disease. Pairwise treatment effects were estimated through a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis and reported as odds ratios (OR) with a 95% credible interval (CrI)., Results: Infliximab, the combination of infliximab and azathioprine (infliximab + azathioprine), adalimumab, and vedolizumab were superior to placebo for induction of remission. In pair-wise comparisons of anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, infliximab + azathioprine (OR, 3.1; 95% CrI, 1.4-7.7) and adalimumab (OR, 2.1; 95% CrI, 1.0-4.6) were superior to certolizumab for induction of remission. All treatments were superior to placebo for maintaining remission, except for the combination of infliximab and methotrexate. Adalimumab, infliximab, and infliximab + azathioprine were superior to azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine: adalimumab (OR, 2.9; 95% CrI, 1.6-5.1), infliximab (OR, 1.6; 95% CrI, 1.0-2.5), infliximab + azathioprine (OR, 3.0; 95% CrI, 1.7-5.5) for maintenance of remission. Adalimumab and infliximab + azathioprine were superior to certolizumab: adalimumab (OR, 2.5; 95% CrI, 1.4-4.6) and infliximab + azathioprine (OR, 2.6; 95% CrI, 1.3-6.0). Adalimumab was superior to vedolizumab (OR, 2.4; 95% CrI, 1.2-4.6)., Conclusions: Based on a network meta-analysis, adalimumab and infliximab + azathioprine are the most effective therapies for induction and maintenance of remission of Crohn's disease., (Copyright © 2015 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) provides 100% oxygen under pressure, which increases tissue oxygen levels, relieves hypoxia and alters inflammatory pathways. Although there is experience using HBOT in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, the safety and overall efficacy of HBOT in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is unknown., Aim: To quantify the safety and efficacy of HBOT for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). The rate of adverse events with HBOT for IBD was compared to the expected rate of adverse events with HBOT., Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Collaboration and Web of Knowledge were systematically searched using the PRISMA standards for systematic reviews. Seventeen studies involving 613 patients (286 CD, 327 UC) were included., Results: The overall response rate was 86% (85% CD, 88% UC). The overall response rate for perineal CD was 88% (18/40 complete healing, 17/40 partial healing). Of the 40 UC patients with endoscopic follow-up reported, the overall response rate to HBOT was 100%. During the 8924 treatments, there were a total of nine adverse events, six of which were serious. The rate of adverse events with HBOT in IBD is lower than that seen when utilising HBOT for other indications (P < 0.01). The risk of bias across studies was high., Conclusions: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy is a relatively safe and potentially efficacious treatment option for IBD patients. To understand the true benefit of HBOT in IBD, well-controlled, blinded, randomised trials are needed for both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

: Anti-tumor necrosis factor agents are now considered to be a vital component of the treatment algorithm for pediatric inflammatory bowel disease. Despite the clear benefit of these agents and the realignment of treatment goals to achieve early mucosal healing, the decision to initiate therapy is often delayed due to uncertainties regarding risks and benefits. The purpose of this review was to summarize the currently available data regarding anti-tumor necrosis factor agents in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease. Specifically, we review their expected efficacy in both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis and the likelihood of side effects associated with these agents. In addition, we address the barriers physicians face when communicating these data and help to identify how pediatric patients and their parents can be more involved in a shared decision-making process. Through the creation of a new decision aid (Option Grid), we hope to allow for a more clear line of communication at the bedside when helping patients and parents make these difficult treatment decisions.