Search

This paper is the second in a series of two publications relating to the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn’s disease [CD] and concerns the surgical management of CD as well as special situations including management of perianal CD and extraintestinal manifestations. Diagnostic approaches and medical management of CD of this ECCO Consensus are covered in the first paper [Gomollon et al. JCC 2016].

BACKGROUND: Patients treated with infliximab for Crohn's disease (CD) frequently require intensified dosage due to loss of response. There are scant data regarding the efficacy of shortening the dosing interval to 6 weeks. AIM: We sought to investigate the efficacy of a once every 6 weeks' strategy compared with dose-doubling. METHODS: This work was a multicentre retrospective study of infliximab-treated CD patients who required dose escalation. The clinical outcome of patients treated by intensification to 5 mg/kg/6 weeks (6-week group) was compared with the outcome of patients whose infliximab was double-dosed (10 mg/kg/8 weeks or 5 mg/kg/4 weeks). RESULTS: Ninety-four patients (mean age: 29.8 years) were included in the study, 55 (59%) in the 6-week group and 39 (41%) in the double-dose group. Demographics and disease characteristics were similar between the two groups, although patients with re-emerging symptoms 5-7 weeks postinfusion were more likely to receive 5 mg/kg/6 weeks dosing (OR: 3.4, 95% CI: 1.4-8.8, P < 0.01). Early response to dose-intensification occurred in 69% of patients in the 6-week group and 67% in the double-dose group (P = N.S.). Regained response was maintained for 12 months in 40% compared with 29% of the patients respectively (P = N.S.). CONCLUSION: In CD patients who lost response to standard infliximab dose, especially when symptoms re-emerge 5-7 weeks postinfusion, shortening the dosing interval to 6 weeks appears to be at least as effective as doubling the dose to 10 mg/kg or halving the infusion intervals to once in 4 weeks. Aliment Pharmacol Ther

Biological drugs revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) such as Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. However, not all clinically eligible patients have access to biologicals due to significant costs and budget impact. Biosimilars are highly comparable to their originator product in terms of clinical efficacy and safety. Biosimilars are priced 15-75% lower than their reference product, which makes them a less costly alternative and is expected to offer better patients access to biologicals. The total projected cost savings are significant. If the achieved budget savings were used to cover more biological therapy, several additional IBD patients could be treated. Currently, the main barriers to the increasing uptake of biosimilars are the few incentives of the key stakeholders, while physicians’ and patients’ skepticism towards biosimilars seems to be changing. Over the coming years, biosimilars are expected to gain a growing importance in the treatment of IBD, contributing to a better access to treatment, improving population-level health gain and sustainability of health systems. This review summarizes the results of the literature on the economic considerations of biosimilars in IBD and the role of biosimilar infliximab in the treatment of IBD.

Biologics have transformed the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biosimilars—biologic medicines with no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy from licensed originators—can stimulate market competition and have the potential to expand patient access to biologics within the parameters of treatment recommendations. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between multiple stakeholders. Regulators and developers should collaborate to ensure biosimilars reach patients rapidly without compromising stringent quality, safety, or efficacy standards. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations and payer policies should be updated following biosimilar market entry, minimizing the risk of imposing nonmedical barriers to biologic treatment. In RA, disparities between treatment guidelines and national reimbursement criteria could be addressed to ensure more uniform patient access to biologics and enable rheumatologists to effectively implement treat-to-target strategies. In IBD, the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatment earlier in the disease course is likely to improve when biosimilars are incorporated into pharmacoeconomic analyses. Patient understanding of biosimilars is crucial for treatment success and avoiding nocebo effects. Full understanding of biosimilars by physicians and carefully considered communication strategies can help support patients initiating or switching to biosimilars. Developers must operate efficiently to be sustainable, without undermining product quality, the reliability of the supply chain, or pharmacovigilance. Developers should also facilitate information sharing to meet the needs of other stakeholders. Such collaboration will help to ensure a sustainable future for both the biosimilar market and healthcare systems, supporting the availability of effective treatments for patients. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40265-020-01256-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Current guidelines state that systemic inflammation, together with endothelial dysfunction, calcification, and hypercoagulability, predispose to premature atherosclerosis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We assessed whether IBD can affect aortic stiffness, a well-recognized vascular biomarker and an independent risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD) in several populations. Recent studies reported that aortic stiffness is increased in adults with IBD compared with matched controls. This association is dependent on inflammatory burden and disease duration, and is reduced by antitumor necrosis factor therapy. Considered together, current findings suggest that increased aortic stiffness is an extraintestinal manifestation of IBD. This is clinically relevant since measuring aortic stiffness in patients with IBD could improve risk assessment, especially in those without established CVD. Moreover, effective control of inflammation could lower CV risk in patients with IBD by reducing aortic stiffness. Further longitudinal studies are needed to better clarify (i) the relationship between disease duration and irreversible changes of the arterial wall, (ii) the clinical characteristics of patients with IBD that have an increased arterial stiffness at least in part reversible, and (iii) whether arterial stiffness is useful to evaluate the efficacy of immunosuppressive therapy.

AIM To test the cross-immunogenicity of anti-CT-P13 IBD patients' sera to CT-P13/infliximab originator and the comparative antigenicity evoked by CT-P13/infliximab originator sera. METHODS Sera of patients with IBD with measurable anti-CT-P13 antibodies were tested for their cross-reactivity to 5 batches of infliximab originator and CT-P13. Anti-drug antibody positive sera from treated patients were used to compare antigenic epitopes. RESULTS All 42 anti-CT-P13 and 37 anti-infliximab originator IBD sera were cross-reactive with infliximab originator and CT-P13 respectively. Concentration of anti-drug antibodies against infliximab originator or CT-P13 were strongly correlated both for IgG1 and IgG4 (P

In clinical practice, treatment sequences of biologicals are applied for active fistulising Crohn's disease, however underlying health economic analyses are lacking.The purpose of this study was to analyse the cost-effectiveness of different biological sequences including infliximab, biosimilar-infliximab, adalimumab and vedolizumab in nine European countries.A Markov model was developed to compare treatment sequences of one, two and three biologicals from the payer's perspective on a five-year time horizon. Data on effectiveness and health state utilities were obtained from the literature. Country-specific costs were considered. Calculations were performed with both official list prices and estimated real prices of biologicals.Biosimilar-infliximab is the most cost-effective treatment against standard care across the countries (with list prices: €34684-€72551/quality adjusted life year; with estimated real prices: €24364-€56086/quality adjusted life year). The most cost-effective two-agent sequence, except for Germany, is the biosimilar-infliximab-adalimumab therapy compared with single biosimilar-infliximab (with list prices: €58533-€133831/quality adjusted life year; with estimated prices: €45513-€105875/quality adjusted life year). The cost-effectiveness of the biosimilar-infliximab-adalimumab-vedolizumab three-agent sequence compared wit biosimilar-infliximab -adalimumab is €87214-€152901/quality adjusted life year.The suggested first-choice biological treatment is biosimilar-infliximab. In case of treatment failure, switching to adalimumab then to vedolizumab provides meaningful additional health gains but at increased costs. Inter-country differences in cost-effectiveness are remarkable due to significant differences in costs.

Biosimilars of infliximab were first approved by the European Medicine Agency in 2013,1 , 2 based on pre-clinical studies on biosimilarity and on clinical data coming from two randomised controlled trials conducted in rheumatoid arthritis [RA] and ankylosing spondylitis [AS].3 , 4 Initially the European Crohn’s Colitis Organisation [ECCO] raised some caution on the use of biosimilars.5 This cautious approach was also supported by several national inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] societies5–12 [Table 1]. An insufficient understanding of the characteristics and use of biosimilars became evident in a web survey among ECCO members in the same period.13 View this table: Table 1. Available society guidelines. Since biosimilars were introduced in the EU market in early 2015, more data from IBD patients14–19 have supported the biosimilarity of biosimilar infliximab CT-P13 and the reference product, with no significant differences in terms of efficacy or safety, in either naive or switched patients in cohort studies. Importantly, a study showed clear cross-reactivity between the infliximab originator and CT-P13.20 Recently, a large nationwide Norwegian randomised controlled trial [NOR-SWITCH] on patients with immune-mediated diseases [Crohn’s disease; ulcerative colitis; psoriasis; psoriatic arthritis; RA and AS] found no differences in terms of clinical response, maintenance of remission, or adverse events in patients receiving CT-P13 compared with those receiving originator infliximab.21 Consideration of these findings22 together with a better understanding of the process of biosimilar development and regulatory approval, have contributed to a change in the perception of IBD experts, who now prescribe biosimilars with significantly more confidence.23 A task-force including Governing Board representatives and one representative from pertinent ECCO Committees performed a literature search and made relevant statements to summarise their shared position. The proposed statements were then discussed, agreed and approved in a Consensus meeting. The licensing of any biosimilar medication …

Background: The authors aimed to conduct an extensive literature review and consensus meeting to identify unmet needs in ulcerative colitis (UC) and ways to overcome them. UC is a relapsing and remitting inflammatory bowel disease with varied, and changing, incidence rates worldwide. UC has an unpredictable disease course and is associated with a high health economic burden. During 2016 and 2017, a panel of experts was convened to identify, discuss and address areas of unmet need in UC. Methods: PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles describing studies performed in patients with UC. These findings were used to generate a set of statements relating to unmet needs in UC. Consensus on these statements was then sought from a panel of 9 expert gastroenterologists using a modified Delphi review process that consisted of anonymous surveys followed by live meetings. Results: In 2 literature reviews, over 5,000 unique records were identified and a total of 138 articles were fully reviewed. These were used to consider 26 areas of unmet need, which were explored in 2 face-to-face meetings, in which the statements were debated and amended, resulting in consensus on 30 final statements. The unmet needs identified were categorised into 7 areas: impact of UC on patients’ daily life; importance of early diagnosis and treatment; drawbacks of existing treatments; urgent need for new treatments; and disease-, practice- or patient-focused unmet needs. Conclusions: These expert group meetings found a number of areas of unmet needs in UC, which is an important first step in tackling them in the future. Future research and development should be focused in these areas for the management of patients with UC.

Background and aimDisease 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.MethodsUsing 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.ResultsFor 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.ConclusionsBased 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.

BackgroundIron deficiency is a common and undertreated problem in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).AimTo develop an online tool to support treatment choice at the patient-specific level.MethodsUsing the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM), a European expert panel assessed the appropriateness of treatment regimens for a variety of clinical scenarios in patients with non-anaemic iron deficiency (NAID) and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA). Treatment options included adjustment of IBD medication only, oral iron supplementation, high-/low-dose intravenous (IV) regimens, IV iron plus erythropoietin-stimulating agent (ESA), and blood transfusion. The panel process consisted of two individual rating rounds (1148 treatment indications; 9-point scale) and three plenary discussion meetings.ResultsThe panel reached agreement on 71% of treatment indications. ‘No treatment’ was never considered appropriate, and repeat treatment after previous failure was generally discouraged. For 98% of scenarios, at least one treatment was appropriate. Adjustment of IBD medication was deemed appropriate in all patients with active disease. Use of oral iron was mainly considered an option in NAID and mildly anaemic patients without disease activity. IV regimens were often judged appropriate, with high-dose IV iron being the preferred option in 77% of IDA scenarios. Blood transfusion and IV+ESA were indicated in exceptional cases only.ConclusionsThe RUAM revealed high agreement amongst experts on the management of iron deficiency in patients with IBD. High-dose IV iron was more often considered appropriate than other options. To facilitate dissemination of the recommendations, panel outcomes were embedded in an online tool, accessible via http://ferroscope.com/.

International audience; BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Diagnostic delay is frequent in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). We developed a tool to predict early diagnosis.METHODS:A systematic literature review and 12 CD specialists identified 'Red Flags', i.e. symptoms or signs suggestive of CD. A 21-item questionnaire was administered to 36 healthy subjects, 80 patients with irritable bowel syndrome (non-CD group) and 85 patients with recently diagnosed (

International audience; OBJECTIVES: The Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE) program was initiated by the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IOIBD). It examined potential treatment targets for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to be used for a "treat-to-target" clinical management strategy using an evidence-based expert consensus process. METHODS: A Steering Committee of 28 IBD specialists developed recommendations based on a systematic literature review and expert opinion. Consensus was gained if ≥75% of participants scored the recommendation as 7-10 on a 10-point rating scale (where 10=agree completely). RESULTS: The group agreed upon 12 recommendations for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). The agreed target for UC was clinical/patient-reported outcome (PRO) remission (defined as resolution of rectal bleeding and diarrhea/altered bowel habit) and endoscopic remission (defined as a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 0-1). Histological remission was considered as an adjunctive goal. Clinical/PRO remission was also agreed upon as a target for CD and defined as resolution of abdominal pain and diarrhea/altered bowel habit; and endoscopic remission, defined as resolution of ulceration at ileocolonoscopy, or resolution of findings of inflammation on cross-sectional imaging in patients who cannot be adequately assessed with ileocolonoscopy. Biomarker remission (normal C-reactive protein (CRP) and calprotectin) was considered as an adjunctive target. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for selecting the goals for treat-to-target strategies in patients with IBD are made available. Prospective studies are needed to determine how these targets will change disease course and patients' quality of life.Am J Gastroenterol advance online publication, 25 August 2015; doi:10.1038/ajg.2015.233

*CIBEREHD, Hospital Cl inico Universitario Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza, Spain. Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel. Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy. Agaplesion Markus Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany. Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. **Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK. University Hospital Skane, University of Lund, Malm€o, Sweden. ISCARE Lighthouse and 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. Evangelismos Hospital, Athens, Greece. ***Lausanne University Medical Center, Lausanne, Switzerland. Oslo University Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. University Hospital of Nancy, Universit e Henri Poincar e 1, Vandoeuvre-l es-Nancy, France. Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. ****Clinical Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. Ismar Healthcare, Lier, Belgium. Department Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. E-mails: fgomollon@gmail.com, fgomollon@me.com

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Infliximab is a safe and effective therapy for ulcerative colitis (UC). We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study that included 7 European countries and Israel to examine whether infliximab discontinuation can be considered for patients who achieve sustained remission. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study, collecting medical records from 13 tertiary care referral inflammatory bowel disease centers of all patients with UC treated with infliximab (n = 193). We compared the disease course of patients with at least 12 months of clinical remission who discontinued infliximab (n = 111) with that of patients who continued scheduled treatment (controls, n = 82). We examined the incidence rates of relapse, hospitalization and colectomy, the comparative effectiveness of different therapeutic strategies after discontinuation, and assessed the rates of response, remission, and adverse effects after infliximab reinitiation. Statistical analyses used time-to-event methods. RESULTS: In the entire cohort, 67 patients (34.7%) relapsed during the follow-up period. The incidence rate of relapse was significantly higher after discontinuation (23.3 per 100 person-years) compared with the control group (7.2 per 100 person-years) in univariable analysis (logrank P < .001 hazard ratio, 3.41 95% confidence interval, 1.88-6.20) and multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 3.70 95% confidence interval, 2.02-6.77). Rates of hospitalization and colectomy did not differ between groups. Thiopurines appeared to be the best treatment option after infliximab discontinuation (incidence of relapse: 15.0 per 100 person-years for thiopurines, 27.4 per 100 person-years for thiopurines plus aminosalicylates, and 31.2 per 100 person-years for aminosalicylates alone log-rank P = .032). Response was regained in 77.1% of patients and remission in 51.4% of patients who re-initiated infliximab. However, 17.1% had infusion reactions and 17.1% reported other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In a multinational retrospective cohort study of patients with UC in sustained clinical remission, we associated discontinuation of infliximab with an increased risk of relapse. Treatment reinitiation is effective and safe.