Search

Background: Regulatory guidance for Crohn's disease trials recommends coprimary efficacy end points that evaluate both symptoms and mucosal inflammation. We aimed to characterize the operating properties of commonly used disease activity assessments alone and in combination., Methods: Endoscopic and clinical data were available for 129 participants from the Study of Biologic and Immunomodulator Naïve Patients in Crohn's Disease trial. Readers scored the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease and the Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity using standardized conventions. Index reliability was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients. Index responsiveness was assessed using standardized effect sizes based upon treatment assignment. Outcomes were evaluated for optimal sensitivity to treatment effect., Results: Substantial inter-rater reliability was observed when the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease and Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity were used as continuous measures (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.73; and 0.62 95% CI, 0.36-0.77) compared with moderate reliability when dichotomized (0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.65; and 0.51; 95% CI, 0.00-0.78). The Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease, Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity, patient-reported outcome-2, and Crohn's Disease Activity Index were similarly responsive (standardized effect size, 0.43, 95% CI, 0.05-0.81; 0.38, 95% CI, 0.0-0.76; 0.53, 95% CI, 0.15-0.91). A composite outcome of Crohn's Disease Activity Index score <150 and Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity score <6 was most sensitive to treatment effect (28.9%; 95% CI, 11.0%-46.8%; P = .003)., Conclusion: Endoscopic indices were more reliable as continuous measures. Composite outcomes including endoscopy improved sensitivity to treatment effect., (© 2024 Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.)

Background: Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) with a rapidly growing worldwide incidence. The last decades presented rapid progress in pharmacological treatment leading in many cases to clinical and endoscopic remission, including biological treatment with anti-TNF agents., Aim: The exact timing of introduction, optimization and maintenance of anti-TNF therapy in IBDs is not thoroughly covered in current guidelines., Methods: We used the Delphi panel methodology to gather the IBD experts' views and achieve consensus for clinical recommendations on introducing and maintaining anti-TNF therapy for patients with IBDs., Results: Twelve recommendations achieved a high level of consensus in two assessment rounds by 52 (1st round) and 47 (2nd round) IBD experts., Conclusion: In many clinical situations, the early use of anti-TNF therapy is recommended. Nowadays, the cost-efficacy profile of anti-TNF biosimilars makes them the first-line drug in a substantial proportion of patients, thus providing the opportunity to increase access to biological therapy., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Ardizzone,S. received consulting and advisory board fees and/or research support from AbbVie, MSD, Ferring, Janssen, Takeda, Zambon, Sofar, Pfizer, Biogen, Galapagos, Sandoz, Celltrion. Armuzzi,A. received consulting/advisory board fees from AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda; speaker's fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, Tigenix; research support from MSD, Takeda, Pfizer and Biogen. Caprioli,F. served as consultant to Abbvie, MSD, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Celgene, Bristol-Meyers Squipp, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, Mundipharma, Biogen; received lecture fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Takeda, Allergy Therapeutics, Janssen, Pfizer, Biogen. and unrestricted research grants from Giuliani, Sofar, MSD, Takeda, Abbvie, Celtrion, Pfizer. Castiglione,F. received lecture grants and/or served as an advisory board member from Takeda, Pfizer, Biogen, Sandoz, Janssen, Fresenius. Danese, S. received consulting fees from AbbVie, Alimentiv, Allergan, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Athos Therapeutics, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Dr Falk Pharma, Eli Lilly, Enthera, Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc., Gilead, Hospira, Inotrem, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Morphic, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sublimity Therapeutics, Takeda, Teladoc Health, TiGenix, UCB Inc., Vial, Vifor. Daperno,M. received adivory bord or speaker fees from: Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Cellgene, Roche, Abbvie, Biogen, SOFAR, Chiesi, Ferring; received consultancy fees from: Quintiles/Clario. Fantini,M.C. received consultancy fees from Abbvie, Takeda, Jannsen-Cilag, Pfizer, Sandoz, Biogen, Galapagos, Bristol-Mayers Squibb, MSD; Research grants from Pfizer and Jannsen-Cilag. Fries,W. received speaker fees/research grants and served as an advisory board member from Pfizer, Biogen, Ferring, Janssen, Takeda, Abbvie, and Zambon. Principi,M. served as advisory board and received lecture fee from MSD, Abbvie, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda. Savarino,E. served as speaker for Abbvie, AGPharma, Alfasigma, Dr Falk, EG Stada Group, Fresenius Kabi, Grifols, Janssen, Innovamedica, Malesci, Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, Sandoz, SILA, Sofar, Takeda, Unifarco; served as consultant for Alfasigma, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Diadema Farmaceutici, Falk, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Merck & Co, Reckitt Benckiser, Regeneron, Sanofi, Shire, SILA, Sofar, Synformulas GmbH, Takeda, Unifarco; received research support from Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, SILA, Sofar, Unifarco Gionchetti,P. received honoraria or consultation fees from: Janssen, Abbvie, Pfizer, Celgene, Takeda, Ferring, MSD, Alfa-Sigma, Amgen, Gilead, Arena, Galapagos, Celltrion, Biogen; participation in company sponsored speaker's bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Takeda, Ferring, Msd, Sofar, Chiesi, Biogen., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: STARDUST, a phase 3b randomised trial, compared ustekinumab therapeutic strategies in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) using early endoscopic assessment and treat-to-target (T2T) versus standard of care (SoC)., Aim: To assess the efficacy of ustekinumab extended treatment in a long-term extension (LTE) of up to 104 weeks with dosing adapted according to clinical, biomarker and endoscopy outcomes., Methods: Adults with moderately-to-severely active CD received intravenous ustekinumab approximating 6 mg/kg at Week 0 and subcutaneous ustekinumab 90 mg at Week 8. At Week 16, 440 ≥70-point responders were randomised to T2T or SoC and 323 entered the LTE. At Week 48, a unified, protocol-defined ustekinumab dose frequency escalation/de-escalation was applied based on achieving endoscopic remission and corticosteroid-free clinical remission. Achieving corticosteroid-free clinical remission and biomarker remission at consecutive visits determined ustekinumab dosing frequency. Dichotomous variables were analysed using non-responder imputation., Results: Among patients who entered the LTE, 7.7%, 48.6% and 43.7% received doses every 4, 8 and 12 weeks, respectively. Ustekinumab dose frequency was escalated in 23.5% and de-escalated in 19.7%. Endoscopic response and remission rates were 28.9% and 10.73% (all randomised) and 39.3% and 14.6% (patients entering the LTE), respectively, at Week 104. Clinical remission a rates at week 104 were 50.2% (all randomised) and 68.4% (patients entering the LTE). There were no new safety signals., Conclusion: STARDUST LTE is the first interventional ustekinumab efficacy study to show a favourable benefit-risk profile with preservation of clinical and endoscopic outcomes through Week 104 using flexible, algorithm-driven dose adjustment including de-escalation., (© 2023 Janssen Pharmaceuticals and The Authors. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background/aims: This analysis estimated the number of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients presenting criteria of eligibility for biological therapies in an Italian real-world setting., Methods: An observational analysis was performed on administrative databases of a sample of Local Health Units, covering 11.3% of the national population. Adult IBD patients (CD or UC) from 2010 to the end of data availability were included. Eligibility criteria for biologics were the following: Criterion A, steroid-refractory active disease; Criterion B, steroid-dependent patients; Criterion C, intolerance or contraindication to conventional therapies; Criterion D, severe relapsing disease; Criterion E (CD only), highly active CD disease and poor prognosis., Results: Of 26,781 IBD patient identified, 18,264 (68.2%) were treated: 3,125 (11.7%) with biologics and 15,139 (56.5%) non-biotreated. Among non-biotreated, 7,651 (28.6%) met at least one eligibility criterion for biologics, with criterion B (steroid-dependence) and criterion D (relapse) as the most represented (58-27% and 56-76%, respectively). Data reportioned to the Italian population estimated 67,635 patients as potentially eligible for biologics., Conclusions: This real-world analysis showed a trend towards undertreatment with biologics in IBD patients with 28.6% being potentially eligible, suggesting that an unmet medical need still exists among the Italian general clinical practice for IBD management., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Flavio Caprioli served as consultant to: Abbvie, MSD, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Celgene, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Galapagos, Gllead, Pfizer, Mundipharma, Galapagos, Biogen, Ferring. He received lecture fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Takeda, Allergy Therapeutics, Janssen, Pfizer, Biogen, and unrestricted research grants from Giuliani, Sofar, MSD, Takeda, Abbvie, Celltrion, Pfizer. All the other coauthors have no competing interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Endoscopy is an essential tool supporting inflammatory bowel disease diagnosis, and ileocolonoscopy is essential to the diagnostic process because it allows for histological sampling. A decent description of endoscopic lesions may lead to a correct final diagnosis up to 89% of the time. Moreover, endoscopy is key to evaluating endoscopic severity, which in both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis is associated with worse disease outcomes (e.g., more frequent advanced therapy requirements or more frequent hospitalizations and surgeries). Endoscopic severity should be reported according to validated endoscopic scores, such as the Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES) or the ulcerative colitis endoscopic index of severity (UCEIS) for ulcerative colitis, the Rutgeerts score for postoperative Crohn's recurrence, and the Crohn's disease endoscopic index of severity (CDEIS) or the simplified endoscopic score for Crohn's disease (SES-CD) for luminal Crohn's disease activity. The measuring of endoscopic activity has become a regulatory agency requirement to increase the objective evaluation of disease activity and drug response. In recent years, the central reviewing of endoscopic videos has become a standard for clinical trials. However, the adjudication paradigm and the type of endoscopic reading may substantially affect trial outcomes, and the reproducibility of all endoscopic scores is not perfect as they require the interpretation of intrinsically subjective images. This paper reviews and discusses the available evidence on inflammatory bowel disease endoscopy.

Background and Aims: Endoscopic assessment of disease activity is integral for evaluating treatment response in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). We aimed to define appropriate items for evaluating endoscopic activity and conventions for consistent endoscopic scoring rules in CD., Methods: A 2-round modified RAND/University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness Method study was conducted. A panel of 15 gastroenterologists used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the appropriateness of statements pertaining to the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD, Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity, and additional items relevant to endoscopy scoring in CD. Each statement was voted as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate based on the median panel rating and presence of disagreement., Results: Panelists voted that it is appropriate for all ulcers to contribute to endoscopic scoring in CD, including aphthous ulcers, ulcerations at a surgical anastomosis, and anal canal ulcers (scored in the rectum). Endoscopic healing should reflect an absence of ulcers. Narrowing should be defined as a clear decrease in luminal diameter; stenosis should be defined by an impassable narrowing, and if occurring at the junction of 2 segments, scored in the distal segment. Scarring and inflammatory polyps were considered inappropriate for including in the affected area score. The optimal method for defining ulcer depth remains uncertain., Conclusions: We outlined scoring conventions for the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD and Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity, noting that both scores have limitations. Therefore, we identified priorities for future research and steps for developing and validating a more representative endoscopic index in CD., (Copyright © 2023 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Tofacitinib is an oral small molecule Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). This post hoc analysis assessed whether various statistical techniques could predict outcomes of tofacitinib maintenance therapy in patients with UC., Methods: Data from patients who participated in a 52-week, phase III maintenance study (OCTAVE Sustain) and an open-label long-term extension study (OCTAVE Open) were included in this analysis. Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID) or placebo (OCTAVE Sustain only). Logistic regression analyses were performed to generate models using clinical and laboratory variables to predict loss of responder status at week 8 of OCTAVE Sustain, steroid-free remission (defined as a partial Mayo score of 0-1 in the absence of corticosteroid use) at week 52 of OCTAVE Sustain, and delayed response at week 8 of OCTAVE Open. Furthermore, differences in loss of response/discontinuation patterns between treatment groups in OCTAVE Sustain were established., Results: The generated prediction models demonstrated insufficient accuracy for determining loss of response at week 8, steroid-free remission at week 52 in OCTAVE Sustain, or delayed response in OCTAVE Open. Both tofacitinib doses demonstrated comparable response/remission patterns based on visualizations of disease activity over time. The rectal bleeding subscore was the primary determinant of disease worsening (indicated by an increased total Mayo score), and the endoscopy subscore was the primary determinant of disease improvement (indicated by a decreased total Mayo score)., Conclusion: Visualizations of disease activity subscores revealed distinct patterns among patients with UC that had disease worsening and disease improvement. The statistical models assessed in this analysis could not accurately predict loss of responder status, steroid-free remission, or delayed response to tofacitinib. Possible reasons include the small sample size or missing data related to yet unknown key variables that were not collected during these trials., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background/aims: This real-world analysis evaluated the persistence and direct healthcare costs of Crohn's Disease (CD) patients treated with biologics in Italy., Methods: A retrospective analysis on administrative databases of Italian healthcare entities, covering 10.4 million residents, was performed. Adult CD patients under biologics between 2015 and 2020 were included and attributed to first/second treatment line based on absence/presence of biologic prescriptions 5-years before index-date (first biologic prescription)., Results: Of 16,374 CD patients identified, 1,398 (8.5%) were biologic-treated: 1,256 (89.8%) in first line and 135 (9.7%) in second line. Kaplan-Meier curves estimated a higher persistence for ustekinumab-treated patients followed by vedolizumab, infliximab and adalimumab, in both lines. Considering baseline variables and adalimumab as reference, infliximab in first line (HR: 0.537) and ustekinumab in first (HR: 0.057) and second line (HR: 0.213) were associated with significantly reduced risk of drug-discontinuation. First line total/average healthcare direct-costs were €13,637, €11,201, €17,104 and €18,340 in patients persistent on adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab and vedolizumab, respectively., Conclusions: This real-world analysis showed differences in persistence over 12-months between biologic treatments, being higher in ustekinumab-treated group, followed by vedolizumab, infliximab and adalimumab. Patients' management was associated with comparable direct healthcare costs among treatment lines, mainly driven by drug-related expenses., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Janssen-Cilag SpA purchased the study report that is the basis for this manuscript. This manuscript was developed with Janssen-Cilag SpA and CliCon S.r.l. Società Benefit. The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the supporters. The agreement signed by CliCon S.r.l. and Janssen-Cilag SpA does not create any entity, joint venture or any similar relationship between parties. CliCon S.r.l. is an independent company. Neither CliCon S.r.l. nor any of their representatives are employees of Janssen-Cilag SpA for any purpose. Andrea Franchi, Ottavio Secchi and Andrea Serra are employees of Janssen-Cilag SpA. Marco Daperno served as member of boards, lecturer and/or received grants for participation to congresses from Abbvie, Takeda, Jannsen, Pfizer, Celltrion, Galapagos, SOFAR, Chiesi, Zambon, Ferring; he acts as consultant for Bioclinica-Clario. Edoardo Vincenzo Savarino has served as speaker for Abbvie, AGPharma, Alfasigma, Dr Falk, EG Stada Group, Fresenius Kabi, Grifols, Janssen, Innovamedica, Malesci, Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, Sandoz, SILA, Sofar, Takeda, Unifarco; has served as consultant for Alfasigma, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Diadema Farmaceutici, Dr. Falk, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Merck & Co, Reckitt Benckiser, Regeneron, Sanofi, Shire, SILA, Sofar, Synformulas GmbH, Takeda, Unifarco; he received research support from Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, SILA, Sofar, Unifarco. Franco Scaldaferri received fees for consultancy or other activities form MSD, Janseen, Takeda, Sandoz, Ferring, Pfizer. or other activities. Alessandro Armuzzi has received consulting fees from: AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda; speaker's fees from: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, Tigenix; research support from: MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Biogen. All the other authors have no competing interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at risk of malnutrition, but little is known about how IBD centres provide nutritional care., Aim: To assess how nutritional care is delivered at IBD centres across Italy., Methods: 120 IBD centres were invited to answer a web-based questionnaire., Results: 76 questionnaires (63.3%) were completed. An IBD-dedicated nutritionist is present in 27 centres (35.5%). Fifty-two centres (68.4%) have an IBD multidisciplinary team, and 22 of these include a nutritionist. In the outpatient setting, malnutrition risk is evaluated at each visit in 23 centres (30.3%), while nutritional status is assessed at each visit in 21 centres (27.6%). These assessments are performed by a gastroenterologist in almost all centres (93.4% and 88.2%, respectively) and more rarely by a nutritionist (32.9% and 36.9%), dietician (7.9% and 2.6%) or nurse (3.9% and 9.2%). The decision to offer oral nutritional support is made by a gastroenterologist alone (35.5%), a nutritionist alone (23.7%), or a team of the two (38.2%)., Conclusions: Nutritional care for IBD patients appears quite far from satisfactory in the Italian reality. Educational and structural interventions are urgently needed to improve assessment and treatment of malnutrition in everyday clinical practice., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: In Italy, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection peaked in April and November 2020, defining two pandemic waves of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study compared the characteristics and outcomes of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and SARS-CoV-2 infections between pandemic waves., Methods: Observational longitudinal study of IBD patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with established diagnoses of IBD and of SARS-CoV-2 infection were consecutively enrolled in two periods: (i) first wave, from 1 March 2020 to 31 May 2020; and (ii) second wave, from 15 September to 15 December 2020., Results: We enrolled 937 IBD patients (219 in the first wave, 718 in the second wave). Patients of the first wave were older (mean ± SD: 46.3 ± 16.2 vs. 44.1 ± 15.4 years, p = 0.06), more likely to have ulcerative colitis (58.0% vs. 44.4%, p < 0.001) and comorbidities (48.9% vs. 38.9%; p < 0.01), and more frequently residing in Northern Italy (73.1% vs. 46.0%, p < 0.001) than patients of the second wave. There were no significant differences between pandemic waves in sex (male: 54.3% vs. 53.3%, p = 0.82) or frequency of active IBD (44.3% vs. 39.0%, p = 0.18). The rates of negative outcomes were significantly higher in the first than second wave: pneumonia (27.8% vs. 11.7%, p < 0.001), hospital admission (27.4% vs. 9.7%, p < 0.001), ventilatory support (11.9% vs. 5.4%, p < 0.003) and death (5.5% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.007)., Conclusion: Between the first and second SARS-CoV-2 pandemic waves, demographic, clinical and geographical features of IBD patients were different as were the symptoms and outcomes of infection. These differences are likely due to the different epidemiological situations and diagnostic possibilities between the two waves., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which includes Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), is a complex, immune-mediated, disorder which leads to several gastrointestinal and systemic manifestations determining a poor quality of life, disability, and other negative health outcomes. Our knowledge of this condition has greatly improved over the last few decades, and a comprehensive management should take into account both biological (i.e., disease-related, patient-related) and non-biological (i.e., socioeconomic, cultural, environmental, behavioral) factors which contribute to the disease phenotype. From this point of view, the so called 4P medicine framework, including personalization, prediction, prevention, and participation could be useful for tailoring ad hoc interventions in IBD patients. In this review, we discuss the cutting-edge issues regarding personalization in special settings (i.e., pregnancy, oncology, infectious diseases), patient participation (i.e., how to communicate, disability, tackling stigma and resilience, quality of care), disease prediction (i.e., faecal markers, response to treatments), and prevention (i.e., dysplasia through endoscopy, infections through vaccinations, and post-surgical recurrence). Finally, we provide an outlook discussing the unmet needs for implementing this conceptual framework in clinical practice., Competing Interests: ES has served as speaker for Abbvie, AGPharma, Alfasigma, EG Stada Group, Fresenius Kabi, Grifols, Janssen, Innovamedica, Malesci, Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, Sandoz, SILA, Sofar, Takeda, Unifarco; has served as consultant for Alfasigma, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Diadema Farmaceutici, Falk, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Merck & Co, Reckitt Benckiser, Regeneron, Sanofi, Shire, SILA, Sofar, Synformulas GmbH, Takeda, Unifarco; he received research support from Reckitt Benckiser, SILA, Sofar, Unifarco. DP has received speaker’s fee from Takeda, Pfizer, MSD, Janssen, MSD, and a grant from Amgen and Pfizer. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Lenti, Scribano, Biancone, Ciccocioppo, Pugliese, Pastorelli, Fiorino, Savarino, Caprioli, Ardizzone, Fantini, Tontini, Orlando, Sampietro, Sturniolo, Monteleone, Vecchi, Kohn, Daperno, D’Incà, Corazza and Di Sabatino.)

A cure for Crohn's disease (CD), a chronic inflammatory disease of the gastrointestinal tract of unknown etiology, is not available, so patients require lifelong management to keep inflammation under control. The therapeutic armamentarium has expanded with approval of several biological drugs, including infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab and ustekinumab - monoclonal antibodies that target different inflammatory pathways - and darvadstrocel, a suspension of expanded human allogeneic, adipose-derived, mesenchymal stromal cells for the treatment of refractory complex perianal fistula. Notwithstanding existing practice guidelines on medical therapy for CD, the Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease felt the need to issue new guidelines focused on the use of biologics for managing the intestinal manifestations of CD and based on the GRADE methodology. This document presents recommendations regarding six clinical settings, from the induction to the maintenance of clinical remission, and from optimization and de-escalation of treatments to dealing with perianal CD and post-operative recurrence. The 19 evidence-based statements are supported by information on the quality of the evidence, agreement rate among panel members, and panel comments mainly based on evidence from real world studies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest FSM served as an advisory board member and/or received lecture grants from AbbVie, Biogen, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. CP has received consultancy fees and/or educational grants from Abbvie, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, Sandoz, Chiesi, Sofar, Ferring and Zambon. SF: advisory board for Janssen Cilag; consultancy fees and/or educational grants from Takeda, SoFar, Abbvie, Zambon. AO served as an advisory board member for AbbVie, Galapagos, MSD, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and received lecture grants from AbbVie, MSD, Sofar, Chiesi, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. DP received consultancy fees from Takeda, Jannsen-Cilag, Pfizer, and MSD. GF served as a consultant and advisory board member for Takeda, Abbvie, Janssen, Pfizer, Celltrion, Sandoz, AlfaSigma, Samsung Bioepis, Amgen, Roche, Ferring, Mylan, Galapagos. MCF received consultancy fees from Roche, Takeda, Jannsen-Cilag, Pfizer, Sandoz, Biogen, Galapagos and research economic support from Abbvie. FC served as consultant to Abbvie, MSD, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Celgene, Bristol-Meyers Squipp, Galapagos, Gllead, Pfizer, Mundipharma, Galapagos, Biogen, received lecture fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Takeda, Allergy Therapeutics, Janssen, Pfizer, Biogen, and unrestricted research grants from Giuliani, Sofar, MSD, Takeda, Abbvie. MD served as advisor or received consultancy fees from: Roche, Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, Abbvie, Bioclinica. AA: consulting and/or advisory board fees from AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Protegonist-Therapeutics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda; lecture and/or speaker bureau fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, Tigenix; research grants: MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, and Biogen. SB, CP, and DP have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Telemonitoring is increasingly used in the management of IBD patients. We investigated the agreement between patients and physicians on scores of disease activity and burden., Methods: Consecutive outpatients at one IBD clinic were recruited between February and December 2021. Enrolled patients completed a questionnaire for disease activity (Harvey-Bradshaw Index [HBI] for Crohn's disease or Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index [SCCAI] for ulcerative colitis) and a test of disease burden (Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure [PRISM]). They did the tests within 5 days of an outpatient visit, working independently on IBD Tool, a new web-based telemonitoring application. Concomitantly, the senior and junior physicians who examined them completed the same tests. The agreement was tested for every pair of scores., Results: Five hundred and sixty patients (289 Crohn's disease; 271 ulcerative colitis) completed disease questionnaires on IBD Tool (in total, 742 times). By Spearman's correlation, the agreement was substantial both for HBI (rho 0.685-0.837) and SCCAI (rho 0.694-0.888) for comparisons between patients, junior and senior physicians. The agreement was moderate-to-substantial for PRISM (rho 0.406-0.725) for the same comparisons. The correlation between disease activity (HBI/SCCAI) and PRISM scores was substantial for senior (rho 0.757-0.788) or junior (rho 0.746-0.753) physicians and moderate for patients (rho 0.458-0.486). The median PRISM score difference was 2.3-1.6 points lower between patients and senior-junior physicians., Conclusion: Agreement between IBD patients and physicians was substantial for disease activity and moderate for disease impact. The inclusion of disease burden scoring in telemonitoring platforms provides important information for the management of IBD patients.Study highlightsWhat IS known•Continuous response to treatments and patient-reported outcomes became an essential goal for IBD patient management.•The use of tele-monitoring and eHealth technologies allows for regular disease assessments and for managing more efficiently IBD patients; disease questionnaires and tests are key to support eHealth tools.What is new here•Agreement between IBD patients and physicians was substantial for disease activity and moderate for disease burden, while agreement among junior and senior physicians was substantial for both.•PRISM performs as well for ulcerative colitis as for Crohn's patients.•The inclusion of disease burden tests might add to eHealth platforms valuable information, complemental to disease activity questionnaires.

Background: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted anti-β7 monoclonal antibody targeting α4β7 and αEβ7 integrins. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of two doses of etrolizumab with placebo in patients with Crohn's disease., Methods: BERGAMOT was a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study done at 326 treatment centres worldwide. We included patients aged 18-80 years with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease (Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score of 220-480, and a mean daily stool frequency score of ≥6 or a mean daily stool frequency score of >3, and a mean daily abdominal pain score of >1, as well as the presence of active inflammation on screening ileocolonoscopy) who had intolerance, inadequate response, or no response to one or more of corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, or anti-TNF therapy within the past 5 years. BERGAMOT consisted of three induction cohorts (a placebo-controlled, double-blind exploratory cohort [cohort 1]; an active treatment cohort not containing a placebo control [cohort 2]; and a placebo-controlled, double-blind pivotal cohort [cohort 3]) and one maintenance cohort. In induction cohort 3, during the 14-week induction, patients were randomly assigned (2:3:3) to receive matched placebo, 105 mg etrolizumab subcutaneously every 4 weeks (at weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12) or 210 mg etrolizumab subcutaneously (at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, and 12), stratified by concomitant treatment with oral corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants, baseline disease activity, and previous exposure to anti-TNF therapy. To preserve masking, all patients received two injections at weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12 and one injection at week 2. Week 14 etrolizumab responders from all cohorts were re-randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 105 mg etrolizumab (etrolizumab maintenance group) or placebo (placebo maintenance group) every 4 weeks for 52 weeks; patients in the induction placebo group underwent a sham re-randomisation to preserve masking. During maintenance, randomisation was stratified by CDAI remission status, concomitant treatment with oral corticosteroids, induction dose regimen, and previous exposure to anti-TNF therapy. All participants and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment for both induction and maintenance. Co-primary induction endpoints at week 14 (placebo vs 210 mg etrolizumab) were clinical remission (mean stool frequency ≤3 and mean abdominal pain ≤1, with no worsening) and endoscopic improvement (≥50% reduction in Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease [SES-CD]). Co-primary maintenance endpoints at week 66 (placebo vs etrolizumab) were clinical remission and endoscopic improvement. Efficacy was analysed using a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, defined as all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug (induction) and as all patients re-randomised into maintenance who received at least one dose of study drug in the maintenance phase (maintenance). Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Maintenance safety analyses include all adverse events occurring in both induction and maintenance. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02394028, and is closed to recruitment., Findings: Between March 20, 2015, and Sept 7, 2021, 385 patients (209 [54%] male and 326 [85%] white) were randomly assigned in induction cohort 3 to receive placebo (n=97), 105 mg etrolizumab (n=143), or 210 mg etrolizumab (n=145). 487 patients had a CDAI-70 response in any of the induction cohorts and were enrolled into the maintenance cohort, of whom 434 had a response to etrolizumab and were randomly assigned to placebo (n=217) or 105 mg etrolizumab (n=217). At week 14, 48 (33%) of 145 patients in the 210 mg induction etrolizumab group versus 28 (29%) of 96 patients in the placebo induction group were in clinical remission (adjusted treatment difference 3·8% [95% CI -8·3 to 15·3]; p=0·52), and 40 (27%) versus 21 (22%) showed endoscopic improvement (5·8% [-5·4 to 17·1]; p=0·32). At week 66, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving etrolizumab than those receiving placebo had clinical remission (76 [35%] of 217 vs 52 [24%] of 217; adjusted treatment difference 11·3% [95% CI 2·7-19·7]; p=0·0088) and endoscopic improvement (51 [24%] vs 26 [12%]; 11·5% [4·1-18·8]; p=0·0026). Similar proportions of patients reported one or more adverse events during induction (95 [66%] of 143 in the 105 mg etrolizumab group, 85 [59%] of 145 in the 210 mg etrolizumab group, and 51 [53%] of 96 in the placebo group) and maintenance (189 [87%] of 217 in the etrolizumab group and 190 [88%] of 217 in the placebo group). During induction, the most common treatment-related adverse events were injection site erythema (six [4%] of 143 in the 105 mg etrolizumab group, four [3%] of 145 in the 210 mg etrolizumab group, and none of 96 in the placebo group), and arthralgia (two [1%], one [1%], and four [4%]). In the maintenance cohort, the most common treatment-related adverse events were injection site erythema (six [3%] of 217 in the etrolizumab group vs 14 [6%] of 217 in the placebo: group), arthralgia (five [2%] vs eight [4%]), and headache (five [2%] vs seven [3%]). The most common serious adverse event was exacerbation of Crohn's disease (14 [6%] of 217 patients taking placebo and four [2%] of 217 patients taking 105 mg etrolizumab in the maintenance cohort)., Interpretation: A significantly higher proportion of patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease achieved clinical remission and endoscopic improvement with etrolizumab than placebo during maintenance, but not during induction., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests WJS has received grants from Alimentiv, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Prometheus, Roche/Genentech, Series Therapeutics, Shire, Takeda, and Theravance; personal fees from Alfasigma, Alimentiv, Alivio, Allakos, Amgen, Applied Molecular Transport, Arena, AstraZeneca, Atlantic Pharmaceuticals, Bausch Health, BeiGene, Bellatrix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Celularity, ClostraBio, Codexis, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, Equillium, Escalier Biosciences, Forbion, Galapagos, Gilead, Glenmark, Gossamer Bio, GSK, Immunic, InDex Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Intact Therapeutics, iota Biosciences, Janssen, Kiniksa, Kyverna, Landos Biopharma, Lilly, Morphic Therapeutics, Novartis, Ono, Oppilan Pharma, Otsuka, Pandion Therapeutics, Pfizer, Pharm-Olam, Progenity, Prometheus, Protagonist Therapeutics, Provention Bio, PTM Therapeutics, Quell Therapeutics, Reistone Biopharma, Roche/Genentech, Series Therapeutics Shanghai Pharma Biotherapeutics, Shire, Shoreline Biosciences, Sterna Biologicals, Sublimity, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, Thetis, Tillotts Pharma, UCB, Vedanta Biosciences, Ventyx Biosciences, Vivelix, Vividion, Vivreon Gastrosciences, Xencor, and Zealand Pharma; and stock or stock options from Allakos, BeiGene, Gossamer Bio, Oppilan Pharma, Progenity, Prometheus, Protagonist Therapeutics, Shoreline Biosciences, Ventyx Biosciences, Vimalan Biosciences, and Vivreon Gastrosciences. JP has received grants from MSD; consulting fees from AbbVie, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Nestlé, Oppilan Pharma, Pfizer, Progenity, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, Theravance, and TiGenix; and other fees and support from AbbVie and Takeda. SD has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Alimentiv, Allergan, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Athos Therapeutics, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Dr Falk Pharma, Enthera, Ferring, Gilead, Hospira, Inotrem, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Mundipharma, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sublimity Therapeutics, Takeda, TiGenix, UCB, and Vifor. ZS, AH, RJ-M, and CE are employees of Roche/Genentech and receive salary and stock options. MD has received speaker fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; consulting fees from Bioclinica; and other fees and support from AbbVie, Chiesi, Ferring, Janssen, Roche, SOFAR, and Takeda. JFV has received grants from AbbVie, Applied Molecular Transport, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Takeda. DL has received grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Fresenius Kabi, and Takeda; speaker fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and Tillotts Pharma; consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, and Tillotts Pharma; and other fees and support from AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sandoz. CB has received grants from Roche; speaker fees from AbbVie and Janssen; and other fees and support from AbbVie, Janssen, and Takeda. RA has received grants from AbbVie, Biogen, InDex Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, and Tillotts Pharma; speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion Healthcare, Dr Falk Pharma, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, InDex Pharmaceuticals, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Takeda, and Tillotts Pharma; consulting fees from AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, InDex Pharmaceuticals, Janssen-Cilag, Kliniksa Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Samsung Bioepis, Stelic Institute, and Takeda; and other fees and support from AbbVie, Biogen, Dr Falk Pharma, and Janssen-Cilag. RP has received speaker fees and consulting fees from Roche/Genentech. SV has received grants from AbbVie, Galapagos, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda; speaker fees from AbbVie, Galapagos, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda; and consulting fees from AbbVie, AbolerIS Pharma, AgomAb, Alimentiv, Arena, AstraZeneca, Avaxia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, CVasThera, Dr Falk Pharma, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Hospira, IMIDomics, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Materia Prima, MiroBio, Morphic, MRM Health, MSD, Mundipharma, Pfizer, ProDigest, Progenity, Prometheus, Robarts Clinical Trials, Roche/Genentech, Second Genome, Shire, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, Tillotts Pharma, and Zealand Pharma. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Emergency subtotal colectomy is the standard treatment for acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) unresponsive to medical treatment. No guidelines are available about surgical technique. The aim of the current survey was to identify the attitudes of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) surgeons concerning colectomy in patients with ASUC by means of a nationwide survey, with specific focus on intraoperative technical details. A survey was developed with focus on number of procedures performed, approach to vascular ligation, technique of bowel dissection, treatment of the omentum and of the rectal stump. Twenty Centres completed the survey. Seventy percent of responders started the colectomy laparoscopically. No significant differences were observed about vessels and mesocolic dissection as well as on the choice of the starting colon side and management of the omentum. Ileocolic vessels were ligated distally by 70% and at the origin by 30% and those who transect mesenteric vessels distally are significatively more likely to perform the dissection from lateral to medial and to cut the middle colic vessels distally and 100% of the ones linking left vessels at mesenteric axis transect middle colic vessels at the origin. No differences were observed in the treatment of rectal stump; however, all surgeons who performed a transrectal drainage (45%) left the rectal stump intraperitoneal (p < 0.05). No consensus exists about the technique of dissection, vascular ligation, treatment of the omentum and management of rectal stump. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of the different surgical techniques on patients' outcomes., (© 2022. Italian Society of Surgery (SIC).)

Background: Assessment of mucosal healing is important for the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but endoscopy can miss microscopic disease areas that may relapse. Histological assessment is informative, but no single scoring system is widely adopted. We previously proposed an eight-item histological scheme for the easy, fast reporting of disease activity in the intestine. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of our Simplified Histologic Mucosal Healing Scheme (SHMHS)., Methods: Between April and May 2021 pathologists and gastroenterologists in Italy were invited to contribute to this multicenter study by providing data on single endoscopic-histological examinations for their IBD patients undergoing treatment. Disease activity was expressed using SHMHS (maximum score, 8) and either Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (categorized into grades 0-3) or Mayo Endoscopic Subscore (range 0-3)., Results: Thirty hospitals provided data on 597 patients (291 Crohn's disease; 306 ulcerative colitis). The mean SHMHS score was 2.96 (SD = 2.42) and 66.8% of cases had active disease (score ≥ 2). The mean endoscopic score was 1.23 (SD = 1.05), with 67.8% having active disease (score ≥ 1). Histologic and endoscopic scores correlated (Spearman's ρ = 0.76), and scores for individual SHMHS items associated directly with endoscopic scores (chi-square p < 0.001, all comparisons). Between IBD types, scores for SHMHS items reflected differences in presentation, with cryptitis more common and erosions/ulcerations less common in Crohn's disease, and the distal colon more affected in ulcerative colitis., Conclusions: SHMHS captures the main histological features of IBD. Routine adoption may simplify pathologist workload while ensuring accurate reporting for clinical decision making., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background and Aims: Current endoscopic scoring indices such as the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease [SES-CD] quantify the degree of mucosal inflammation in Crohn's disease [CD] but lack prognostic potential. The Modified Multiplier of the SES-CD [MM-SES-CD] quantifies the endoscopic burden of CD and can be accessed online [https://www.mcmasteribd.com/mm-ses-cd]. This analysis aims to establish MM-SES-CD thresholds that classify CD endoscopic burden into inactive/very mild, mild, moderate, and severe disease based on the probability of achieving endoscopic remission [ER] on active therapy at 1 year., Methods: This post-hoc analysis included pooled data from three CD clinical trials [n = 350 patients, baseline SES-CD ≥3 with ulceration]. Disease category severity was determined using the maximum Youden Index. Achievement of ER between severity categories was compared using chi square tests. Time to clinical remission [CR] was compared using Kaplan-Meier survival curves., Results: MM-SES-CD severity categories were established as very mild/remission [score <14], mild [≥14 to <31], moderate [≥31 to <45], and severe [≥45], which were predictive of 1-year ER [50%, 30.3%, 21.7%, 8.8%, respectively, p <0.001]. Lower MM-SES-CD scores had numerically higher rates of 1-year clinical remission [CR], and time to 1-year CR was superior to those with higher scores [p = 0.0492]. MM-SES-CD thresholds for achieving 1-year ileal ER among 75 patients with isolated ileal disease were established as mild [score <14], moderate [≥14 to <33], and severe [≥33], which were predictive of 1-year ER [66.7%, 33.3%, 13.3%, respectively, p = 0.027]., Conclusions: We have established numerical MM-SES-CD cut-offs that categorise endoscopic disease severity and have demonstrated that they are prognostic for 1-year ER and CR., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Vedolizumab registration trials were the first to include elderly patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD), but few real-life data have been reported in this population., Aims: We investigated the effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab in matched cohorts of elderly and nonelderly UC and CD patients., Methods: The Long-term Italian Vedolizumab Effectiveness (LIVE) study is a retrospective-prospective study including UC and CD patients who started vedolizumab from April 2016 to June 2017. Elderly patients (≥65 years) were matched clinically 1:2 to nonelderly patients (18-64 years); the 2 groups were followed until drug discontinuation or June 2019., Results: The study included 198 elderly (108 UC, 90 CD) and 396 matched nonelderly patients (205 UC, 191 CD). Nonelderly UC patients had a significantly higher persistence on vedolizumab compared to elderly patients (67.6% vs. 51.4%, p = 0.02). No significant difference in effectiveness was observed between elderly and nonelderly CD patients (59.4% vs. 52.4%, p = 0.32). Age ≥65 years was associated with lower persistence in UC; for CD, previous exposure to anti-TNF-α agents, Charlson comorbidity index >2 and moderate-to-severe clinical activity at baseline were associated with lower persistence. There were recorded 130 adverse events, with comparable rates between the two groups. A Charlson comorbidity index >2 was associated with an increased risk of adverse events., Conclusion: Vedolizumab can be considered a safe option in elderly IBD patients. Its effectiveness in elderly UC patients may be reduced, while no age-dependent effect on effectiveness was observed in CD., (© 2022 The Authors. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)