Search

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors and sphingosine 1 phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators are small molecule drugs (SMDs) approved for IBD treatment. Their use in clinical practice might be limited due to cardiovascular concerns. We aimed to provide guidance on risk assessment, monitoring, and management strategies, aiming to minimize potential cardiovascular risks of SMDs and to facilitate an adequate shared decision-making. A systematic literature search was conducted, and proposed statements were prepared. A virtual consensus meeting was held, in which eleven IBD physicians and two cardiovascular specialists from ten countries attended. Proposed statements were voted upon in an anonymous manner. Agreement was defined as at least 75 % of participants voting as 'agree' with each statement. Consensus was reached for eighteen statements. Available evidence does not show a higher risk of cardiovascular events with JAK inhibitors in the overall IBD population, although it might be increased in patients with an unfavorable cardiovascular profile. S1P receptor modulators may be associated with a risk of bradycardia, atrioventricular blocks, and hypertension. Cardiovascular risk stratification should be done before initiation of SMDs. Although the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with IBD on SMDs appears to be low overall, caution should still be taken in certain scenarios., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest PAO declares no conflict of interest. AD reports fees for participation in clinical trials, review activities such as data monitoring boards, statistical analysis, and end point committees from Abivax, AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Dr Falk Foundation, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, and Pfizer; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Celltrion, Dr Falk Foundation, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Roche/Genentech, Sandoz/Hexal, Takeda, Tillotts, and Vifor Pharma; payment from lectures including service on speakers bureaus from AbbVie, Biogen, CED Service GmbH, Celltrion, Falk Foundation, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, High5MD, Janssen, Materia Prima, MedToday, MSD, Pfizer, Streamed-Up, Takeda, Tillotts, and Vifor Pharma; payment for manuscript preparation from Falk Foundation, Takeda, Thieme, and UniMed Verlag. MCD has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer Inc, Prometheus Laboratories, Takeda, and UCB. GP declares no conflict of interest. PGK: speaking and consultancy honorarium from Abbvie, Janssen, Pfizer and Takeda; Scientific grants from Pfizer and Takeda. ID has served as a speaker, consultant, or advisory board member for Takeda, Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Roche/Genentech, Cambridge Healthcare, Celgene/BMS, Falk Pharma, Ierative Scopes, Rafa Laboratories, Neopharm, Arena, Gilead, Galapagos, Celltrion, Sublimity, Sandoz, Abbott, and Athos Therapeutics. TK has served as a speaker, a consultant or an advisory board member for AbbVie, Alfresa Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Covidien, EA Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, JIMRO, Kyorin Pharmaceutical, Kissei, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mochida Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kayaku, Pfizer, Sekisui Medical, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Zeria Pharmaceutical, and received research funding from AbbVie, Alfresa Pharma, EA Pharma, Gilead, Kyorin Pharmaceutical, Mochida Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kayaku, Otsuka Holdings, Pfizer, Sekisui Medical, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Zeria Pharmaceutical. SG reports research grants from GSK, Abbvie; Drug Monitoring Committee from Janssen, Steering Committees from BMS, Receptos, Janssen, Abbvie, Gilead, Galapagos; Lecture fees from Takeda, Pfizer, Janssen, Abbvie, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, Celltrion and consulting fees from Abbvie, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Galapagos, Celltrion, Ferring. FM has served as a speaker and received honoraria from Abbvie, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Falk, Ferring, Hospira, Janssen, Laboratórios Vitoria, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sandoz, Takeda, UCB, and Vifor. JRFN declares no conflict of interest. BS has consulted for AbbVie, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Endpoint Health, Falk Pharma, Galapagos, Janssen, Landos, Lilly, Pfizer, Prometheus, and Takeda; has received speaker fees from AbbVie, CED Service GmbH, Falk Pharma, Ferring, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda, and has received funding from Pfizer. SD has served as a speaker, consultant, and advisory board member for Schering-Plough, AbbVie, Actelion, Alphawasserman, AstraZeneca, Cellerix, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, Ferring, Genentech, Grunenthal, Johnson & Johnson, Millenium Takeda, MSD, NikkisoEurope GmbH, Novo Nordisk, Nycomed, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, UCB Pharma, and Vifor. LPB reports personal fees from Galapagos, AbbVie, Janssen, Genentech, Ferring, Tillots, Celltrion, Takeda, Pfizer, Index Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Celgene, Biogen, Samsung Bioepis, Inotrem, Al-lergan, MSD, Roche, Arena, Gilead, Amgen, BMS, Vifor, Norgine, Mylan, Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Enthera, Theravance, Pandion Therapeutics, Gossamer Bio, Viatris, Thermo Fisher; grants from AbbVie, MSD, Takeda, Fresenius Kabi; and has stock options in CTMA., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: The evolving epidemiologic patterns of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) throughout the world, in conjunction with advances in therapeutic treatments, may influence hospitalization rates of IBD. We performed a systematic review with temporal analysis of hospitalization rates for IBD across the world in the 21st century., Methods: We systematically reviewed Medline and Embase for population-based studies reporting hospitalization rates for IBD, Crohn's disease (CD), or ulcerative colitis (UC) in the 21st century. Log-linear models were used to calculate the average annual percentage change (AAPC) with associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Random-effects meta-analysis pooled country-level AAPCs. Data were stratified by the epidemiologic stage of a region: compounding prevalence (stage 3) in North America, Western Europe, and Oceania vs acceleration of incidence (stage 2) in Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America vs emergence (stage 1) in developing countries., Results: Hospitalization rates for a primary diagnosis of IBD were stable in countries in stage 3 (AAPC, -0.13%; 95% CI, -0.72 to 0.97), CD (AAPC, 0.20%; 95% CI, -1.78 to 2.17), and UC (AAPC, 0.02%; 95% CI, -0.91 to 0.94). In contrast, hospitalization rates for a primary diagnosis were increasing in countries in stage 2 for IBD (AAPC, 4.44%; 95% CI, 2.75 to 6.14), CD (AAPC, 8.34%; 95% CI, 4.38 to 12.29), and UC (AAPC, 3.90; 95% CI, 1.29 to 6.52). No population-based studies were available for developing regions in stage 1 (emergence)., Conclusions: Hospitalization rates for IBD are stabilizing in countries in stage 3, whereas newly industrialized countries in stage 2 have rapidly increasing hospitalization rates, contributing to an increasing burden on global health care systems., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasing internationally, particularly in nations with historically low rates. Previous reports of the epidemiology of pediatric-onset IBD identified a paucity of data. We systematically reviewed the global trends in incidence and prevalence of IBD diagnosed in individuals <21 years old over the first 2 decades of the 21st century., Methods: We systematically reviewed studies indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Airiti Library, and SciELO from January 2010 to February 2020 to identify population-based studies reporting the incidence and/or prevalence of IBD, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and/or IBD-unclassified. Data from studies published before 2000 were derived from a previously published systematic review. We described the geographic distribution and trends in children of all ages and limiting to very early onset (VEO) IBD., Results: A total of 131 studies from 48 countries were included. The incidence and prevalence of pediatric-onset IBD is highest in Northern Europe and North America and lowest in Southern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Among studies evaluating trends over time, most (31 of 37, 84%) studies reported significant increases in incidence and all (7 of 7) reported significant increases in prevalence. Data on the incidence and prevalence of VEO-IBD are limited to countries with historically high rates of IBD. Time trends in the incidence of VEO-IBD were visually heterogeneous., Conclusions: Rates of pediatric-onset IBD continue to rise around the world and data are emerging from regions where it was not previously reported; however, there remains a paucity of data on VEO-IBD and on pediatric IBD from developing and recently developed countries., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Extraintestinal manifestations occur frequently in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and remain a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. The aim of the Endpoints for Extraintestinal Manifestations in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Trials (EXTRA) initiative was to achieve international expert consensus on how to assess these manifestations in IBD trials. A systematic literature review was done to identify methods to diagnose extraintestinal manifestations in patients with IBD and measure treatment outcomes. A consensus meeting involving a panel of 41 attendees, including gastroenterologists and referral specialists, was held on March 31, 2021, as part of an International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases initiative. The panel agreed that a specialist's expertise is needed to confirm the diagnosis of extraintestinal manifestations before the inclusion of a patient in IBD trials, except for axial spondyloarthritis, for which typical symptoms and MRI can be sufficient. Easy-to-measure endpoints were identified to assess the response of extraintestinal manifestations to treatment without needing specialist involvement. For uveitis, peripheral spondyloarthritis, and arthralgia, endpoint measurements need specialist expertise. The timing of endpoint measurements was discussed for individual extraintestinal manifestations. The EXTRA consensus proposes guidelines on how to thoroughly evaluate extraintestinal manifestations within IBD trials, and recommends that these guidelines are implemented in future trials to enable prospective assessment of these manifestations and comparison between studies., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests LGu reports consulting fees from AbbVie. RP reports consulting fees from AbbVie, Abbott, Alimentiv (formerly Robarts Clinical Trials), Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Cosmos Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elan, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Mylan, Oppilan Pandion, Pharma, Pandion Pharma, Pfizer, Progenity, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Satisfai Health, Sandoz, Schering-Plough, Shire, Sublimity Therapeutics, Theravance Biopharma, Union Chimique Belge, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals; and research support from AbbVie, Ferring, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda. WJS reports research grants from AbbVie, Abivax, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Seres Therapeutics, Shire, Takeda, and Theravance Biopharma; consulting fees from AbbVie, Abivax, Admirx, Alfasigma, Alimentiv Alivio Therapeutics, Allakos, Amgen, Applied Molecular Transport, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bausch Health (Salix), Beigene, Bellatrix Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Cellularity, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, Escalier Biosciences, Equillium, Forbion, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Gossamer Bio, Immunic (Vital Therapies), Index Pharmaceuticals, Intact Therapeutics, Janssen, Kyverna Therapeutics, Landos Biopharma, Lilly, Oppilan Pharma, Otsuka, Pandion Therapeutics, Pfizer, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonists Therapeutics, Provention Bio, Reistone Biopharma, Seres Therapeutics, Shanghai Pharma Biotherapeutics, Shire, Shoreline Biosciences, Sublimity Therapeutics, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance Biopharma, Thetis Pharmaceuticals, Tillotts Pharma, UCB, Vendata Biosciences, Ventyx Biosciences, Vimalan Biosciences, Vivelix Pharmaceuticals, Vivreon Biosciences, and Zealand Pharma; and stock or stock options from Allakos, BeiGene, Gossamer Bio, Oppilan Pharma, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Progenity, Shoreline Biosciences, Ventyx Biosciences, Vimalan Biosciences, and Vivreon Biosciences. MAl has served as a speaker, consultant, and advisory board member for Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Genentech IQVIA, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, and Tillotts. ANA has served as an advisory board member for AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Sun Pharma, and Ikena Therapeutics, and is supported by research funding from the Chleck Family Foundation, Crohn's and Colitis Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. PGK reports speaking and consultancy honoraria from AbbVie, Janssen, Ferring, Pfizer, Takeda, and Novartis, and scientific grants from Pfizer and Takeda. IEK has served as an advisory board member for AbbVie, Astelas, Genesis, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Shire, and Takeda; as a speaker for AbbVie, Astelas, Genesis, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Takeda; and has received research support from AbbVie, Ferring, and Vifor Pharma. PLL has served as a speaker and advisory board member for AbbVie, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Fresenius Kabi, Genetech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Mylan, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Tillots, and Viatris; and has received unrestricted research grants from AbbVie, Takeda, and Pfizer. JOL reports honoraria for developing and delivering the Cornerstones Health Best of DDW program; funding from AbbVie, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and Tillots; additional research support from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Shire, and Takeda; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Allergan (Warner Chilcott), Atlantic Healthcare, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celtrion, Ferring, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Napp, Norgine, Pfizer, Shire, Takeda, and Vifor Pharma, and speaking fees and travel support from AbbVie, Allergan (Warner Chilcott), Ferring, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Napp, Norgine, Pfizer, Shire, Tillotts, and Takeda. FM has served as a speaker for, and has received honoraria from, AbbVie, Biogen, Falk, Ferring, Hospira, Janssen, Laboratorios Vitoria, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Takeda, Sandoz, UCB, and Vifor Pharma. GJM has served as advisory board member for AbbVie, Celgene, Celtrion, Ferring, Genesis, Hospira, Janssen, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mylan, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Takeda, and Vianex; has served as a speaker for AbbVie, Angelini, Falk Pharma, Ferring, Galenica, Cenesis, Hospira, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Omega Pharma, Takeda, and Vianex; has served as a consultant for Merck Sharp & Dohme and Takeda; and has received research support from AbbVie, Galenica, Genesis, Menarini Group, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. SCN reports research grants and speaker honoraria from Takeda, Ferring, AbbVie, Janssen, and Tillotts. JP has received research grants from AbbVie and Pfizer; speaker's fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda; and has been a consultant for AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Origo, Pandion, Pfizer, Progenity, Alimentiv (formerly Robarts Clinical Trials), Roche, Takeda, Theravance, and Wassermann. GR has consulted for AbbVie, Augurix, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Calypso, Celgene, Falk, Ferring, Fisher, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Phadia, Roche, UCB, Takeda, Tillotts, Vifor Pharma, Vital Solutions, and Zeller; has received speaker's honoraria from AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Falk, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Phadia, Takeda, Tillotts, UCB, Vifor Pharma, and Zeller; and has received educational grants and research grants from AbbVie, Ardeypharm, Augurix, Calypso, FALK, Flamentera, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Tillotts, UCB, and Zeller. FS has served as a speaker and consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Ferring, Janssen, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda, and UCB. AD has served as a speaker, consultant, and advisory board member for Merck Sharp & Dohme, AbbVie, Janssen, Roche/Genentech, Ferring, Tillotts, Vifor Pharma, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Celltrion, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Sandoz, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Otsuka, Biogen, Gilead/Galapagos, Fresenius Kabi, and Arena Pharmaceuticals. BES reports consulting fees from 4D Pharma, AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Capella Biosciences, Celgene, Celltrion Healthcare, EnGene, Ferring, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Hoffmann-La Roche, Immunic, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Lilly, Lyndra, MedImmune, Morphic Therapeutic, Oppilan Pharma, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Otsuka, Palatin Technologies, Pfizer, Progenity, Prometheus Laboratories, RedHill Biopharma, Rheos Medicines, Seres Therapeutics, Shire, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Target PharmaSolutions, Theravance Biopharma R&D, TiGenix, and Vivelix Pharmaceuticals; honoraria for speaking in continuing medical education programmes from Takeda, Janssen, Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Genentech; and research funding from Celgene, Pfizer, Takeda, Theravance Biopharma R&D, and Janssen. SD has served as a speaker, consultant, and advisory board member for Schering-Plough, Abbott (AbbVie) Laboratories, Merck & Co, UCB Pharma, Ferring, Cellerix, Millennium Takeda, Nycomed, Pharmacosmos, Actelion, A Wasserman, Genentech, Grunenthal, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, Vifor Pharma, and Johnson & Johnson. LP-B has served as a speaker, consultant, and advisory board member for Merck, AbbVie, Janssen, Genentech, Mitsubishi, Ferring, Norgine, Tillotts, Vifor Pharma, Hospira/Pfizer, Celltrion, Takeda, Biogaran, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, HAC Pharma, Index Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Sandoz, Forward Pharma, Celgene, Biogen, Lycera, Samsung Bioepis, and Theravance. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has emerged as a useful tool for optimising the use of biologics, and in particular anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, challenges remain and are hindering the widespread implementation of TDM in clinical practice. These barriers include identification of the optimal drug concentration to target, the lag time between sampling and results, and the proper interpretation of anti-drug antibody titres among different assays. Solutions to overcome these barriers include the harmonisation of TDM assays and the use of point-of-care testing. Other unmet needs include well designed prospective studies and randomised controlled trials focusing on proactive TDM, particularly during induction therapy. Future studies should also investigate the utility of TDM for biologics other than anti-TNF therapies in both IBD and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis, and the use of pharmacokinetic modelling dashboards and pharmacogenetics towards individual personalised medicine., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KP has received a lecture fee from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma and Physicians Education Resource; a consultancy fee from Prometheus Laboratories; and scientific advisory board fees from ProciseDx and Scipher Medicine Corporation. NVC has received research grants and personal fees from R-Biopharm, Takeda, and UCB; and personal fees from Alimentiv (formerly Robarts Clinical Trials), Celltrion, and Prometheus Laboratories. ASC has received consultancy fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Bacainn, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Grifols, Prometheus Laboratories, Samsung, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer; and research support from Inform Diagnostics. SV has received grants from AbbVie, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, and Takeda; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Avaxia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Dr Falk Pharma, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech (Roche), Gilead, Hospira, Janssen, Mundipharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Prodigest, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Alimentiv, Second Genome, Shire, Takeda, Theravance, and Tillots Pharma; and speaker fees from AbbVie, Dr Falk Pharma, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech-Roche, Janssen, Pfizer, Shire, Takeda, and Tillots Pharma. NA has received a grant from Pfizer and lecture fees from Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda. TK reports personal fees from Alfresa Pharma, Covidien, Eli Lilly, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Kyorin Pharmaceutical, Mochida Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kyaku, Pfizer, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Thermo Fisher Scientific, AbbVie, Astellas, Celltrion, EA Pharma, Nippon Kyaku, Mochida Pharmaceutical, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Zeria Pharmaceutical, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, and JIMRO; and grants from AbbVie, EA Pharma, Otsuka Holdings, Zeria Pharmaceutical, Kyorin Pharmaceutical, Mochida Pharmaceutical, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Alfresa Pharma, and Nippon Kyaku. WJS reports research grants from AbbVie, Abivax, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Seres Therapeutics, Shire, Takeda, and Theravance Biopharma; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Abivax, Admirx, Alfasigma, Alimentiv, Alivio Therapeutics, Allakos, Amgen, Applied Molecular Transport, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Salix (Bausch Health), Beigene, Bellatrix Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Cellularity, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, Escalier Biosciences, Equillium, Forbion, Genentech (Roche), Gilead Sciences, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Gossamer Bio, Immunic, Index Pharmaceuticals, Intact Therapeutics, Janssen, Kyverna Therapeutics, Landos Biopharma, Lilly, Oppilan Pharma, Otsuka, Pandion Therapeutics, Pfizer, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonists Therapeutics, Provention Bio, Reistone Biopharma, Seres Therapeutics, Shanghai Pharma Biotherapeutics, Shire, Shoreline Biosciences, Sublimity Therapeutics, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance Biopharma, Thetis Pharmaceuticals, Tillotts Pharma, UCB, Vendata Biosciences, Ventyx Biosciences, Vimalan Biosciences, Vivelix Pharmaceuticals, Vivreon Biosciences, and Zealand Pharma; and stock or stock options from Allakos, BeiGene, Gossamer Bio, Oppilan Pharma, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Progenity, Shoreline Biosciences, Ventyx Biosciences, Vimalan Biosciences, and Vivreon Biosciences. PMI reports lecture fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Falk Pharma, Ferring, Gilead, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, Tillotts, Sapphire Medical, Sandoz, Shire, and Warner Chilcott; financial support for research from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Takeda; and advisory fees from AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, Gilead, Hospira, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Procise, Prometheus Biosciences, Roche, Sandoz, Samsung Bioepis, Takeda, Topivert, VHsquared, Vifor Pharma, and Warner Chilcott. MF reports financial support for research from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda, and Thermo Fisher Scientific; and speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Falk, Ferring, Janssen, Lamepro, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda, and Truvion Healthcare. PGK has received consultancy and speaker fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, Ferring, and Novartis; and scientific grants from Takeda and Pfizer. DD has served as a speaker, a consultant, and an advisory board member for Merck Sharp & Dohme, AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Biogen, and Krka. JL has received unrestricted grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and UCB; speaker fees for AbbVie, Almirall, BMS, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, and UCB; and consultancy fees for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and UCB. NK has received speaker fees from Janssen. WA has received consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Dynacare, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Takeda. AJY has received consultant or advisory board fees from Prometheus Laboratories, Takeda, Arena Pharmaceuticals, and Bristol Myers Squibb. SD has served as a speaker, consultant, and advisory board member for Schering-Plough, AbbVie, Merck Sharp & Dohme, UCB, Ferring, Cellerix, Takeda, Nycomed, Pharmacosmos, Actelion, Alphawasserman, Genentech, Grunenthal, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, Vifor Pharma, Johnson and Johnson, Nikkiso Europe, and Theravance. MCD has received consultancy fees from Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Prometheus Biosciences, Arena Pharmaceuticals, and Lilly; and grant support from AbbVie, Pfizer, and Janssen. LPB has received grant support from AbbVie, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Takeda; consulting fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Genentech, Ferring, Tillots, Pharmacosmos, Celltrion, Takeda, Boerhinger-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Index Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Celgene, Biogen, Samsung Bioepis, Alma, Sterna, Nestle, Enterome, Allergan, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Hikma, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Vifor, Norgine, Mylan, Lilly, Fresenius, Oppilan Pharma, Sublimity Therapeutics, Applied Molecular Transport, OSE Immunotherapeutics, and Enthera; and stock or stock options from Clinical Trials Mobile Application. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of thrombotic events. Therapies for IBD have the potential to modulate this risk. The aims of this Evidence-Based Guideline were to summarize available evidence and to provide practical recommendations regarding epidemiological aspects, prevention and drug-related risks of venous and arterial thrombotic events in patients with IBD. A virtual meeting took place in May 2020 involving 14 international IBD experts and 3 thrombosis experts from 12 countries. Proposed statements were voted upon in an anonymous manner. Agreement was defined as at least 75% of participants voting as 'fully agree' or 'mostly agree' with each statement. For each statement, the level of evidence was graded according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) grading system. Consensus was reached for 19 statements. Patients with IBD harbour an increased risk of venous and arterial thrombotic events. Thromboprophylaxis is indicated during hospitalization of any cause in patients with IBD. Disease activity is a modifiable risk factor in patients with IBD, and physicians should aim to achieve deep remission to reduce the risk. Exposure to steroids should be limited. Antitumour necrosis factor agents might be associated with a reduced risk of thrombotic events., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background and Aim: One of the most impacted regions by the pandemic globally, Latin America is facing socioeconomic and health-care challenges that can potentially affect disease outcomes. Recent data suggest that inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients do not have an increased risk of the development of COVID-19 complications. However, the impact of COVID-19 on IBD patients living in least developed areas remains to be fully elucidated. This study aims to describe the outcomes of IBD patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in countries from Latin America based on data from the SECURE-IBD registry., Methods: Patients from Latin America enrolled in the SECURE-IBD registry were included. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. The studied outcomes were (i) a composite of need for intensive care unit admission, ventilator use, and/or death (primary outcome) and (ii) a composite of any hospitalization and/or death (secondary outcome). Multivariable regression was used to identify risk factors of severe COVID-19., Results: During the study period, 230 cases (Crohn's disease: n = 115, ulcerative colitis: n = 114, IBD-unclassified [IBD-U]: n = 1) were reported to the SECURE-IBD database from 13 different countries. Primary outcome was observed in 17 (7.4%) patients, and the case fatality rate was 1.7%. In the adjusted multivariable model, the use of systemic corticosteroids (odds ratio [OR] 10.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.44-34.99) was significantly associated with the primary outcome. Older age (OR 1.03; 95% CI: 1.00-1.05), systemic corticosteroids (OR 9.33; 95% CI: 3.84-22.63), and the concomitant presence of one (OR 2.14; 95% CI: 0.89-5.15) or two (OR 10.67; 95% CI: 1.74-65.72) comorbidities were associated with the outcome of hospitalization or death., Conclusion: Inflammatory bowel disease patients with COVID-19 in Latin America appear to have similar outcomes to the overall global data. Risk factors of severe COVID-19 are similar to prior reports., (© 2021 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: Women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may require surgery, which may result in higher risk of infertility. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal anal pouch anastomosis (IPAA) may increase infertility, but the degree to which IPAA affects infertility remains unclear, and the impact of other surgical interventions on infertility is unknown., Objectives: Primary objective• To determine the effects of surgical interventions for IBD on female infertility.Secondary objectives• To evaluate the impact of surgical interventions on the need for assisted reproductive technology (ART), time to pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, prematurity, mode of delivery (spontaneous vaginal, instrumental vaginal, or Caesarean section), infant requirement for resuscitation and neonatal intensive care, low and very low birth weight, small for gestational age, antenatal and postpartum hemorrhage, retained placenta, postpartum depression, gestational diabetes, and gestational hypertension/preeclampsia., Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to September 27, 2018, to identify relevant studies. We also searched references of relevant articles, conference abstracts, grey literature, and trials registers., Selection Criteria: We included observational studies that compared women of reproductive age (≥ 12 years of age) who underwent surgery to women with IBD who had a different type of surgery or no surgery (i.e. treated medically). We also included studies comparing women before and after surgery. Any type of IBD-related surgery was permitted. Infertility was defined as an inability to become pregnant following 12 months of unprotected intercourse. Infertility at 6, 18, and 24 months was included as a secondary outcome. We excluded studies that included women without IBD and those comparing women with IBD to women without IBD.., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened studies and extracted data. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess bias and GRADE to assess the overall certainty of evidence. We calculated the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects models. When individual studies reported odds ratios (ORs) and did not provide raw numbers, we pooled ORs instead., Main Results: We identified 16 observational studies for inclusion. Ten studies were included in meta-analyses, of which nine compared women with and without a previous IBD-related surgery and the other compared women with open and laparoscopic IPAA. Of the ten studies included in meta-analyses, four evaluated infertility, one evaluated ART, and seven reported on pregnancy-related outcomes. Seven studies in which women were compared before and after colectomy and/or IPAA were summarized qualitatively, of which five included a comparison of infertility, three included the use of ART, and three included other pregnancy-related outcomes. One study included a comparison of women with and without IPAA, as well as before and after IPAA, and was therefore included in both the meta-analysis and the qualitative summary. All studies were at high risk of bias for at least two domains.We are very uncertain of the effect of IBD surgery on infertility at 12 months (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.41 to 72.57; 114 participants; 2 studies) and at 24 months (RR 3.59, 95% CI 1.32 to 9.73; 190 participants; 1 study). Infertility was lower in women who received laparoscopic surgery compared to open restorative proctocolectomy at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27; 37 participants; 1 study).We are very uncertain of the effect of IBD surgery on pregnancy-related outcomes, including miscarriage (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.60; 776 pregnancies; 5 studies), use of ART (RR 25.09, 95% CI 1.56 to 403.76; 106 participants; 1 study), delivery via Caesarean section (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 4.95; 20 pregnancies; 1 study), stillbirth (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.42 to 9.18; 246 pregnancies; 3 studies), preterm birth (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.67 to 5.48; 194 pregnancies; 3 studies), low birth weight (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.08 to 4.83), and small for gestational age (RR 2.54, 95% CI 0.80 to 8.01; 65 pregnancies; 1 study).Studies comparing infertility before and after IBD-related surgery reported numerically higher rates of infertility at six months (before: 1/5, 20.0%; after: 9/15, 60.0%; 1 study), at 12 months (before: 68/327, 20.8%; after: 239/377, 63.4%; 5 studies), and at 24 months (before: 14/89, 15.7%; after: 115/164, 70.1%; 2 studies); use of ART (before: 5.3% to 42.2%; after: 30.3% to 34.3%; proportions varied across studies due to differences in which women were identified as at risk of using ART); and delivery via Caesarean section (before: 8/73, 11.0%; after: 36/75, 48.0%; 2 studies). In addition, women had a longer time to conception after surgery (two to five months; 2 studies) than before surgery (5 to 16 months; 2 studies). The proportions of women experiencing miscarriage (before: 19/123, 15.4%; after: 21/134, 15.7%; 3 studies) and stillbirth (before: 2/38, 5.3%; after: 3/80: 3.8%; 2 studies) were similar before and after surgery. Fewer women experienced gestational diabetes after surgery (before: 3/37, 8.1%; after: 0/37; 1 study), and the risk of preeclampsia was similar before and after surgery (before: 2/37, 5.4%; after: 0/37; 1 study). We are very uncertain of the effects of IBD-related surgery on these outcomes due to poor quality evidence, including confounding bias due to increased age of women after surgery.We rated evidence for all outcomes and comparisons as very low quality due to the observational nature of the data, inclusion of small studies with imprecise estimates, and high risk of bias among included studies., Authors' Conclusions: The effect of surgical therapy for IBD on female infertility is uncertain. It is also uncertain if there are any differences in infertility among those undergoing open versus laparoscopic procedures. Previous surgery was associated with higher risk of miscarriage, use of ART, Caesarean section delivery, and giving birth to a low birth weight infant, but was not associated with risk of stillbirth, preterm delivery, or delivery of a small for gestational age infant. These findings are based on very low-quality evidence. As a result, definitive conclusions cannot be made, and future well-designed studies are needed to fully understand the impact of surgery on infertility and pregnancy outcomes.

Purpose of Review: Epidemiological studies of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in newly industrialized countries are limited, due to a lack of medical surveillance systems and reliable and unified registries and databases. In Brazil, reliable data on the incidence and prevalence of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis is scarce. The objective of the present review is to describe in detail the available data on the incidence and prevalence of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in Brazil., Recent Findings: The authors identified the single four population-based studies which refer to incidence and prevalence of IBD in the country (two from São Paulo, one from Espírito Santo and one from the state of Piauí). These studies demonstrate a remarkable growth in the incidence and estimated prevalence of IBD in Brazil, with higher number of cases in more developed regions., Summary: The increase in incidence over time and the higher current prevalence are indicative of a historical progression in relation to the number of IBD patients in our country, similar to what was observed in countries from Asia and approximating those of the northern hemisphere. Epidemiological studies with more accurate methodology are needed in Brazil.

Background: Hospitalisation rates for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) vary across the world. We aimed to investigate temporal patterns of hospitalisation for IBD in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)., Methods: From the OECD database, we assessed IBD-related hospitalisation rates (expressed as annual rates per 100 000 inhabitants) for 34 countries from 1990 to 2016. We calculated mean hospitalisation rates for the period 2010-15 and used joinpoint regression models to calculate average annual percentage changes with 95% CIs., Findings: Mean hospitalisation rates for IBD from 2010 to 2015 were highest in North America (eg, 33·9 per 100 000 in the USA), Europe (eg, 72·9 per 100 000 in Austria), and Oceania (eg, 31·5 per 100 000 in Australia). Hospitalisation rates for IBD were stabilising or decreasing over time in many countries in these regions but increasing in others. Countries in Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean had the lowest IBD-related hospitalisation rates but the greatest increases in rates over time. For example, Turkey had an annual hospitalisation rate of 10·8 per 100 000 inhabitants and an average annual percentage change of 10·4% (95% CI 5·2-15·9). Similarly, Chile had an annual hospitalisation rate of 9·0 per 100 000 inhabitants and an average annual percentage change of 5·9% (4·9-7·0)., Interpretation: Hospitalisation rates for IBD are high in western countries but are typically stabilising or decreasing, whereas rates in many newly industrialised countries are rapidly increasing, which reflects the known increase in IBD prevalence in these countries. Potential explanations for these trends include changes in the epidemiology of IBD, health-care delivery, and infrastructure in these countries, as well as overall country-specific patterns in hospitalisations and differences between countries in data collection methods., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vedolizumab is an α4β7 integrin antagonist with proven efficacy for inducing and maintaining clinical response and remission in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC)., Aim: To evaluate clinical and objective response and remission rates with vedolizumab in a large, real world cohort., Methods: A retrospective cohort study of adult CD and UC patients receiving vedolizumab between 2012 and 2017 was conducted., Primary Outcome: clinical or objective response and remission at 3, 6 and 12 months after induction. Clinical remission was defined by complete, steroid-free absence of symptoms. Objective remission was defined by endoscopic mucosal healing or normalisation of radiographic appearance on contrast-enhanced ultrasound or CT/MR enterography., Results: The study included 222 vedolizumab patients (122 CD, 100 UC). In CD, clinical remission at 3, 6 and 12 months was achieved in 19.8% (22/111), 22.1% (21/95) and 22.1% (15/68) of patients, respectively. Objective remission occurred in 11.5% (6/52), 21.2% (14/66), and 18.9% (7/37) of patients at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. In UC, clinical remission at 3, 6, and 12 months was 51.0% (51/100), 61.8% (55/89) and 61.9% (39/63), respectively. Endoscopic remission occurred in 27.5% (11/40), 41.0% (16/39) and 47.8% (22/46) of patients at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. In multivariable analysis, patients with UC as compared to CD, and those with milder disease activity were more likely to achieve objectively defined remission at both 6 and 12 months., Conclusions: Vedolizumab was effective for induction and maintenance of clinical and objective remission, both in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

S ummary: Background: Obesity may affect efficacy and safety of biologic treatments for ulcerative colitis (UC). Tofacitinib is an oral, small molecule Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of UC. Aims: To assess efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in patients with UC, by baseline body mass index (BMI). Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated patients with UC receiving placebo or tofacitinib from the 8‐week OCTAVE Induction 1 and 2 (NCT01465763, NCT01458951) and 52‐week OCTAVE Sustain (NCT01458574) studies. Patients were stratified by BMI at OCTAVE Induction 1 and 2 baseline (<25, 25 to <30 and ≥30 kg/m2). Outcomes included remission, endoscopic improvement, clinical response, sustained steroid‐free remission, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire total score and Short Form‐36 Health Survey scores. Adverse events were evaluated. Results: At Week 8 of OCTAVE Induction 1 and 2, and Week 52 of OCTAVE Sustain, higher proportions of patients receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (b.d.) achieved clinical response vs placebo, regardless of baseline BMI subgroup (all P < 0.05). Proportions of patients achieving efficacy endpoints were generally similar across BMI subgroups; in univariate and multivariate regression analyses, BMI was not a significant predictor (all P ≥ 0.05; univariate BMI [continuous] odds ratio for remission: 0.98 [95% confidence interval 0.95, 1.02]). There was no consistent trend between BMI and adverse events. Among patients receiving tofacitinib 10 mg b.d. in OCTAVE Induction 1 and 2, serious infections were numerically greater in the BMI ≥30 subgroup (3.2%) vs other subgroups (0.4%). Limitations included small patient numbers in the BMI ≥30 subgroup. Conclusions: Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib were similar in patients with UC regardless of baseline BMI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

LINKED CONTENT This article is linked to Sandborn et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15514 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15735. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

LINKED CONTENT This article is linked to Kayal et al and Kayal and Ungaro papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15505 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15582. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]