Search

Background Endoscopic-post-operative-recurrence [ePOR] in Crohn’s disease [CD] after ileocecal resection [ICR] is a major concern. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of early prophylaxis with biologics and to compare anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] therapy to vedolizumab [VDZ] and ustekinumab [UST] in a real-world setting. Methods A retrospective multicentre study of CD-adults after curative ICR on early prophylaxis was undertaken. ePOR was defined as a Rutgeerts score [RS] ≥ i2 or colonic-segmental-SES-CD ≥ 6. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate risk factors, and inverse probability treatment weighting [IPTW] was applied to compare the effectiveness between agents. Results The study included 297 patients (53.9% males, age at diagnosis 24 years [19–32], age at ICR 34 years [26–43], 18.5% smokers, 27.6% biologic-naïve, 65.7% anti-TNF experienced, 28.6% two or more biologics and 17.2% previous surgery). Overall, 224, 39 and 34 patients received anti-TNF, VDZ or UST, respectively. Patients treated with VDZ and UST were more biologic experienced with higher rates of previous surgery. ePOR rates within 1 year were 41.8%. ePOR rates by treatment groups were: anti-TNF 40.2%, VDZ 33% and UST 61.8%. Risk factors for ePOR at 1 year were: past-infliximab (adjusted odds ratio [adj.OR] = 1.73 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.01–2.97]), past-adalimumab [adj.OR = 2.32 [95% CI: 1.35-4.01] and surgical aspects. After IPTW, the risk of ePOR within 1 year of VDZ vs anti-TNF or UST vs anti-TNF was comparable (OR = 0.55 [95% CI: 0.25–1.19], OR = 1.86 [95% CI: 0.79–4.38]), respectively. Conclusion Prevention of ePOR within 1 year after surgery was successful in ~60% of patients. Patients treated with VDZ or UST consisted of a more refractory group. After controlling for confounders, no differences in ePOR risk were seen between anti-TNF prophylaxis and other groups.

Background and Aims The development programm UNIFI has shown promising results of ustekinumab in ulcerative colitis [UC] treatment which should be confirmed in clinical practice. We aimed to evaluate the durability, effectiveness, and safety of ustekinumab in UC in real life. Methods Patients included in the prospectively maintained ENEIDA registry, who received at least one intravenous dose of ustekinumab due to active UC [Partial Mayo Score [PMS]>2], were included. Clinical activity and effectiveness were defined based on PMS. Short-term response was assessed at Week 16. Results A total of 95 patients were included. At Week 16, 53% of patients had response [including 35% of patients in remission]. In the multivariate analysis, elevated serum C-reactive protein was the only variable significantly associated with lower likelihood of achieving remission. Remission was achieved in 39% and 33% of patients at Weeks 24 and 52, respectively; 36% of patients discontinued the treatment with ustekinumab during a median follow-up of 31 weeks. The probability of maintaining ustekinumab treatment was 87% at Week 16, 63% at Week 56, and 59% at Week 72; primary failure was the main reason for ustekinumab discontinuation. No variable was associated with risk of discontinuation. Three patients reported adverse events; one of them had a fatal severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusions Ustekinumab is effective in both the short and the long term in real life, even in a highly refractory cohort. Higher inflammatory burden at baseline correlated with lower probability of achieving remission. Safety was consistent with the known profile of ustekinumab.