Search

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Few data are available regarding the combination of biologics or small molecules in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. We report safety and efficacy of such combinations through a retrospective multicentre series. METHODS: Combination therapy was defined as the concomitant use of two biologics or one biologic with a small molecule. Patient demographics, disease characteristics and types of combinations were recorded. Safety was evaluated according to the occurrence of serious infection, opportunistic infection, hospitalisation, life-threatening event, worsening of IBD or immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID), cancer and death. Efficacy was evaluated as the physician global assessment of the combination and comparison of clinical/endoscopic scores of IBD/IMID activity prior and during combination. RESULTS: A total of 104 combinations were collected in 98 patients. Concomitant IMID were present in 41 patients. Reasons for starting combination therapy were active IBD (67%), active IMID or extra-intestinal manifestations (EIM) (22%), both (10%) and unclassified in 1. Median duration of combination was 8 months (interquartile range 5-16). During 122 patient-years of follow-up, 42 significant adverse events were observed, mostly related to uncontrolled IBD. There were 10 significant infections, 1 skin cancer and no death. IBD disease activity was clinically improved in 70% and IMID/EIM activity in 81% of the patients. Overall, combination was continued in 55% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of biologics and small molecules in patients with IBD and IMID/EIM seems to be a promising therapeutic strategy but is also associated with a risk of opportunistic infections or infections leading to hospitalisation in 10%. ispartof: UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL vol:9 issue:10 pages:1136-1147 ispartof: location:England status: published

Aim: Crohn's anal fistula (CAF) is a complex condition, with no agreement on which patient characteristics should be routinely reported in studies. The aim of this study was to develop a core descriptor set of key patient characteristics for reporting in all CAF research.Method: Candidate descriptors were generated from published literature and stakeholder suggestions. Colorectal surgeons, gastroenterologists and specialist nurses in inflammatory bowel disease took part in three rounds of an international modified Delphi process using nine-point Likert scales to rank the importance of descriptors. Feedback was provided between rounds to allow refinement of the next ratings. Patterns in descriptor voting were assessed using principal component analysis (PCA). Resulting PCA groups were used to organize items in rounds two and three. Consensus descriptors were submitted to a patient panel for feedback. Items meeting predetermined thresholds were included in the final set and ratified at the consensus meeting.Results: One hundred and thirty three respondents from 22 countries completed round one, of whom 67.0% completed round three. Ninety seven descriptors were rated across three rounds in 11 PCA-based groups. Forty descriptors were shortlisted. The consensus meeting ratified a core descriptor set of 37 descriptors within six domains: fistula anatomy, current disease activity and phenotype, risk factors, medical interventions for CAF, surgical interventions for CAF, and patient symptoms and impact on quality of life.Conclusion: The core descriptor set proposed for all future CAF research reflects characteristics important to gastroenterologists and surgeons. This might aid transparent reporting in future studies.

Crohn’s disease [CD] is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] that can result in progressive bowel damage and disability1. CD can affect individuals of any age, from children to the elderly, 2, 3 and may cause significant morbidity and impact on quality of life. Up to one-third of patients present with complicated behaviour [strictures, fistula, or abscesses] at diagnosis4. Most patients over time will develop a complication, with roughly 50% of patients requiring surgery within 10 years of diagnosis5-7. As the precise aetiology of CD remains unknown, a curative therapy is not yet available8. Several agents are available for the medical treatment of CD. Medical agents include mesalazine [5-ASA], locally active steroids [such as budesonide], systemic steroids, thiopurines such as azathioprine [AZA] and mercaptopurine [MP], methotrexate [MTX], and biological therapies [such as anti-TNF, anti-integrins, and anti-IL12/23]. The European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] produces and regularly updates several guidelines aimed at providing evidence-based guidance on critical aspects of IBD care to all healthcare professionals who manage patients with IBD. To provide high-quality evidence-based recommendations on medical and surgical treatment in CD, ECCO decided to develop these guidelines by adopting the GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation] approach9. GRADE is a systematic process for developing guidelines that addresses how to frame the healthcare questions, summarize the evidence, ..

Previously, we showed that 3% (31/1032)of asymptomatic healthcare workers (HCWs) from a large teaching hospital in Cambridge, UK, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in April 2020. About 15% (26/169) HCWs with symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (Rivett et al., 2020). Here, we show that the proportion of both asymptomatic and symptomatic HCWs testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 rapidly declined to near-zero between 25th April and 24th May 2020, corresponding to a decline in patient admissions with COVID-19 during the ongoing UK ‘lockdown’. These data demonstrate how infection prevention and control measures including staff testing may help prevent hospitals from becoming independent ‘hubs’ of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and illustrate how, with appropriate precautions, organizations in other sectors may be able to resume on-site work safely.

Significant differences exist in the availability of healthcare worker (HCW) SARS-CoV-2 testing between countries, and existing programmes focus on screening symptomatic rather than asymptomatic staff. Over a 3 week period (April 2020), 1032 asymptomatic HCWs were screened for SARS-CoV-2 in a large UK teaching hospital. Symptomatic staff and symptomatic household contacts were additionally tested. Real-time RT-PCR was used to detect viral RNA from a throat+nose self-swab. 3% of HCWs in the asymptomatic screening group tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. 17/30 (57%) were truly asymptomatic/pauci-symptomatic. 12/30 (40%) had experienced symptoms compatible with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)>7 days prior to testing, most self-isolating, returning well. Clusters of HCW infection were discovered on two independent wards. Viral genome sequencing showed that the majority of HCWs had the dominant lineage B∙1. Our data demonstrates the utility of comprehensive screening of HCWs with minimal or no symptoms. This approach will be critical for protecting patients and hospital staff., eLife digest Patients admitted to NHS hospitals are now routinely screened for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), and isolated from other patients if necessary. Yet healthcare workers, including frontline patient-facing staff such as doctors, nurses and physiotherapists, are only tested and excluded from work if they develop symptoms of the illness. However, there is emerging evidence that many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 never develop significant symptoms: these people will therefore be missed by ‘symptomatic-only’ testing. There is also important data showing that around half of all transmissions of SARS-CoV-2 happen before the infected individual even develops symptoms. This means that much broader testing programs are required to spot people when they are most infectious. Rivett, Sridhar, Sparkes, Routledge et al. set out to determine what proportion of healthcare workers was infected with SARS-CoV-2 while also feeling generally healthy at the time of testing. Over 1,000 staff members at a large UK hospital who felt they were well enough to work, and did not fit the government criteria for COVID-19 infection, were tested. Amongst these, 3% were positive for SARS-CoV-2. On closer questioning, around one in five reported no symptoms, two in five very mild symptoms that they had dismissed as inconsequential, and a further two in five reported COVID-19 symptoms that had stopped more than a week previously. In parallel, healthcare workers with symptoms of COVID-19 (and their household contacts) who were self-isolating were also tested, in order to allow those without the virus to quickly return to work and bolster a stretched workforce. Finally, the rates of infection were examined to probe how the virus could have spread through the hospital and among staff – and in particular, to understand whether rates of infection were greater among staff working in areas devoted to COVID-19 patients. Despite wearing appropriate personal protective equipment, healthcare workers in these areas were almost three times more likely to test positive than those working in areas without COVID-19 patients. However, it is not clear whether this genuinely reflects greater rates of patients passing the infection to staff. Staff may give the virus to each other, or even acquire it at home. Overall, this work implies that hospitals need to be vigilant and introduce broad screening programmes across their workforces. It will be vital to establish such approaches before ‘lockdown’ is fully lifted, so healthcare institutions are prepared for any second peak of infections.

Background:Accelerated induction regimens of infliximab have been proposed to improve response rates in patients with steroid refractory acute severe colitis. Aims:We aimed to determine differences in outcome for acute severe ulcerative colitis between accelerated and standard-dose infliximab.Methods:We collected data on hospitalised patients receiving differing regimens of rescue therapy for steroid refractory Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis. Our primary outcome was 30-day colectomy rate. Secondary outcomes were colectomy within index admission, 90 days and 12 months. We used propensity score analysis with optimal calliper matching using a priori defined high-risk covariates to reduce potential provider selection bias.Results:We included 131 patients receiving infliximab rescue therapy; 102 patients received standard induction and 29 received accelerated induction. In the unmatched cohort, there was no difference by type of induction in 30-day colectomy rates (18% vs. 20%, p=0.45), colectomy during index admission (13% vs. 20%, p = 0.26) or overall colectomy (20% vs. 24%, p= 0.38). In the propensity score-matched cohort of 52 patients, 30-day colectomy (57% vs. 27%, p = 0.048) and index admission colectomy (53% vs. 23%,p =0.045) rates were higher in those receiving standard induction compared to accelerated induction but there was no difference in overall colectomy rates between the 2 groups (57% vs. 31%, p =0.09). There was no significant difference in length of stay or in complication and infection rates.Conclusion:In a propensity score matched cohort, steroid refractory Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis patients, short-term, but not long-term, colectomy rates appear to be lower in those receiving accelerated induction regimen.