Search

Background: some patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with antiTNF develop drug-induced psoriasis (antiTNF-IP). Several therapeutic strategies are possible., Aims: to assess the management of antiTNF-IP in IBD, and its impact in both diseases., Methods: patients with antiTNF-IP from ENEIDA registry were included. Therapeutic strategy was classified as continuing the same antiTNF, stopping antiTNF, switch to another antiTNF or swap to a non-antiTNF biologic. IP severity and IBD activity were assessed at baseline and 16, 32 and 54 weeks., Results: 234 patients were included. At baseline, antiTNF-IP was moderate-severe in 60 % of them, and IBD was in remission in 80 %. Therapeutic strategy was associated to antiTNF-IP severity (p < 0.001). AntiTNF-IP improved at week 54 with all strategies, but continuing with the same antiTNF showed the worst results (p = 0.042). Among patients with IBD in remission, relapse was higher in those who stopped antiTNF (p = 0.025). In multivariate analysis, stopping antiTNF, trunk and palms and soles location were associated with antiTNF-IP remission; female sex and previous surgery in Crohn´s disease with IBD relapse., Conclusion: skin lesions severity and IBD activity seem to determine antiTNF-IP management. Continuing antiTNF in mild antiTNF-IP, and swap to ustekinumab or switch to another antiTNF in moderate-severe cases, are suitable strategies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest DCD is partially supported by a Rio-Hortega fellowship from Instituto de Salud Carlos III. IM reports grants and personal fees from MSD, Janssen, Takeda, Kern and Chiesi, during the conduct of the study. AFC has served as a speaker, or has received education funding from Dr. Falk, Janssen, Takeda, Chiesi and Pfizer. MJG has received financial support for travelling and educational activities from Janssen, Pfizer, AbbVie, Takeda, Kern Pharma, Faes Farma and Ferring. IG has served as speaker or has received education funding from Takeda and Tillots. JPG has served as speaker, consultant, and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, Kern Pharma, Biogen, Mylan, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Sandoz, Celgene/Bristol Myers, Gilead/Galapagos, Lilly, Ferring, Faes Farma, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Falk Pharma, Tillotts Pharma, Chiesi, Casen Fleet, Gebro Pharma, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Norgine and Vifor Pharma. XC reports grants or contracts from Abbvie, Janssen, Kern, Takeda, Galapagos, Lilly, Sandoz; consulting fees from Janssen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Galapagos, Kern; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: X Jansen, Galapagos; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid: Past-president, Societat Catalana de Digestologia. BG has served as advisor to Galapagos and Abbvie and as speaker for Abbvie, Jansen, Takeda, Pfizer and Galapagos. REM reports grants and personal fees from Janssen, Pfizer and Ferring. NP has served as speaker, consultant and advisory board of has received research funding from MSD, Abbvie, Janssen, Takeda, Roche, Sandoz, Ferring, Adacyte, Faes Farma, Kern Pharma, Pfizer, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Vifor Pharma, Chiesi and Tillots. SGL has served as a speaker, advisory member for or has received research funding from AbbVie, MSD, Takeda, Janssen and Pfizer., (Copyright © 2024 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Familial inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) history is a controversial prognostic factor in IBD. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a familial history of IBD on the use of medical and surgical treatments in the biological era., Methods: Patients included in the prospectively maintained ENEIDA database and diagnosed with IBD after 2005 were included. Familial forms were defined as those cases with at least one first-degree relative diagnosed with IBD. Disease phenotype, the use of biological agents, or surgical treatments were the main outcomes., Results: A total of 5263 patients [2627 Crohn's disease (CD); 2636 ulcerative colitis (UC)] were included, with a median follow-up of 31 months. Of these, 507 (10%) corresponded to familial forms. No clinical differences were observed between familial and sporadic IBD forms except a lower age at IBD diagnosis and a higher rate of males in familial forms of UC. In CD, the proportions of patients treated with thiopurines (54.4% vs 46.7%; P = .015) and survival time free of thiopurines (P = .009) were lower in familial forms. No differences were found regarding the use of biological agents. Concerning surgery, a higher rate of intestinal resections was observed in sporadic CD (14.8% vs 9.9%, P = .027). No differences were observed in UC., Conclusions: In the era of biological therapies, familial and sporadic forms of IBD show similar phenotypes and are managed medically in a similar way; whether these is due to lack of phenotypical differences or an effect of biological therapies is uncertain. What is already known on this topic: IBD's etiopathogenesis points to an interaction between environmental and genetic factors, being familial history a controversial prognostic factor. Biological agents use and need for surgery regarding familial or sporadic forms of IBDs present conflicting results. What this study adds: Familial and sporadic forms of IBD have similar phenotypes and are managed medically and surgically in a similar way. How this study might affect research, practice or policy: Familial aggregation should not be considered a factor associated with more aggressive disease., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Both vedolizumab and ustekinumab are approved for the management of Crohn's disease [CD]. Data on which one would be the most beneficial option when anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] agents fail are limited., Aims: To compare the durability, effectiveness, and safety of vedolizumab and ustekinumab after anti-TNF failure or intolerance in CD., Methods: CD patients from the ENEIDA registry who received vedolizumab or ustekinumab after anti-TNF failure or intolerance were included. Durability and effectiveness were evaluated in both the short and the long term. Effectiveness was defined according to the Harvey-Bradshaw index [HBI]. The safety profile was compared between the two treatments. The propensity score was calculated by the inverse probability weighting method to balance confounder factors., Results: A total of 835 patients from 30 centres were included, 207 treated with vedolizumab and 628 with ustekinumab. Dose intensification was performed in 295 patients. Vedolizumab [vs ustekinumab] was associated with a higher risk of treatment discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR] 2.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.02-3.21), adjusted by corticosteroids at baseline [HR 1.27; 95% CI: 1.00-1.62], moderate-severe activity in HBI [HR 1.79; 95% CI: 1.20-2.48], and high levels of C-reactive protein at baseline [HR 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02-1.10]. The inverse probability weighting method confirmed these results. Clinical response, remission, and corticosteroid-free clinical remission were higher with ustekinumab than with vedolizumab. Both drugs had a low risk of adverse events with no differences between them., Conclusion: In CD patients who have failed anti-TNF agents, ustekinumab seems to be superior to vedolizumab in terms of durability and effectiveness in clinical practice. The safety profile is good and similar for both treatments., (© The Author(s) 2023. 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: Infliximab seems to be the most efficacious of the three available anti-TNF agents for ulcerative colitis (UC) but little is known when it is used as the second anti-TNF., Objectives: To compare the clinical and treatment outcomes of a second subcutaneous or intravenous anti-TNF in UC patients., Design: Retrospective observational study., Methods: Patients from the ENEIDA registry treated consecutively with infliximab and a subcutaneous anti-TNF (or vice versa), naïve to other biological agents, were identified and grouped according to the administration route of the first anti-TNF into IVi (intravenous initially) or SCi (subcutaneous initially)., Results: Overall, 473 UC patients were included (330 IVi and 143 SCi). Clinical response at week 14 was 42.7% and 48.3% in the IVi and SCi groups (non-statistically significant), respectively. Clinical remission rates at week 52 were 32.8% and 31.4% in the IVi and SCi groups (nonsignificant differences), respectively. A propensity-matched score analysis showed a higher clinical response rate at week 14 in the SCi group and higher treatment persistence in the IVi group. Regarding long-term outcomes, dose escalation and discontinuation due to the primary failure of the first anti-TNF and more severe disease activity at the beginning of the second anti-TNF were inversely associated with clinical remission., Conclusion: The use of a second anti-TNF for UC seems to be reasonable in terms of efficacy, although it is particularly reduced in the case of the primary failure of the first anti-TNF. Whether the second anti-TNF is infliximab or subcutaneous does not seem to affect efficacy., Competing Interests: MC has served as a speaker for Takeda, Janssen, Faes Farma, and MSD; FC has served as a speaker or has received educational grants from Takeda, Janssen, MSD, and Ferring; MR has served as a speaker or has received research or educational funding or advisory fees from MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, Takeda, and Janssen; MI has served as a speaker or has received research or educational funding or advisory fees from MSD, Janssen, Adacyte, and Takeda; LC has served as a speaker or has received research or educational funding or advisory fees from Abbvie, Dr. Falk Pharma, and Tillots Pharma; LB has served as a speaker or has received research or educational funding or advisory fees from Ikan Biotech; MBA has served as a speaker or has received research or educational funding or advisory fees from MSD, AbbVie, Janssen, Kern Pharma, Celltrion, Takeda, Gillead, Celgene, Pfizer, Sandoz, Biogen, Fresenius, Ferring, Faes Farma, Dr. Falk Pharma, Chiesi, Gebro Pharma, Adacyte, and Vifor Pharma; CG-M has received educational funding fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Ferring, Kern Pharma, Norgine, and Tillots Pharma; JMH has served as a speaker or has received research or educational funding or advisory fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ferring, Abbvie, Janssen, Biogen, Sandoz, Kern Pharma, Faes Farma, Vifor Pharma, and Takeda; RL has served as a speaker or has received research or educational funding or advisory fees from MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, and Dr. Falk; AM-C has received research or educational funding from Abbvie, Biogen, Ferring, Janssen, MSD, Takeda, Dr. Falk Pharma, and Tillotts; JPG has served as a speaker or has received research or educational funding or advisory fees from MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, Kern Pharma, Biogen, Mylan, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Sandoz, Celgene/Bristol Myers, Gilead/Galapagos, Lilly, Ferring, Faes Farma, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Falk Pharma, Tillotts Pharma, Chiesi, Casen Fleet, Gebro Pharma, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Norgine, and Vifor Pharma; FG has served as a speaker or has received research or educational funding or advisory fees from Faes-Farma, Galápagos, Takeda, Pfizer, Janssen, and Abbvie; PA has served as a speaker or has received research or educational funding or advisory fees from MSD, Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, Gebro Pharma, Tillotts Pharma, and Biogen; CT has served as a speaker or has received research or educational funding or advisory fees from MSD, AbbVie, Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, Ferring, Faes Farma, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Falk Pharma, Galapagos, and Tillots; IR-L has served as a speaker or has received research or educational funding or advisory fees from MSD, Pfizer, Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, Tillotts Pharma, Kern, Celltrion, Roche, Ferring, Dr. Falk Pharma, Galapagos, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, and Adacyte; MM has served as a speaker and has received research or educational funding from MSD, AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, Ferring, and Pfizer; ED has served as a speaker or has received research or educational funding or advisory fees from AbbVie, Adacyte Therapeutics, Biogen, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Kern Pharma, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Takeda, and Tillots; MJG has served as a speaker or has received research or educational funding or advisory fees from Janssen, Pfizer, Abbvie, Takeda, Kern Pharma, and Ferring; MA has served as a speaker or has received research or educational funding or advisory fees from Faes, Ferring, and Janssen, and received educational grants from Janssen; JRP has served as a speaker or has received research or educational funding or advisory fees from MSD, AbbVie, and Tillots Pharma; FB received educational funding fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Ferring, Kern Pharma, Norgine, and Tillots Pharma. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s), 2024.)

Background: Mastocytosis manifests with multisystemic symptoms, often involving the nervous system. Numerous cognitive, neuropsychiatric and neurological alterations have been reported in multiple observational studies., Methods: We performed a qualitative systematic literature review of reported data consulting the electronic databases Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and BASE until June 2023., Results: We selected 24 studies in which the majority showed that a high proportion of mastocytosis patients suffer cognitive, neuropsychiatric and neurological alterations. The most common disorders and estimated ranges of frequency observed in adults were depression (68%-75%), anxiety, high stress or irritability (27%-54%), cognitive impairment (27%-39%, primarily affecting memory skills), and headaches (55%-69%). Attention challenges and learning difficulties were reported in children at a rate of 13%, while neurodevelopmental disorders occurred at rates of 8%-12%. Frequent white abnormalities in mastocytosis patients with concomitant psychocognitive symptoms have been reported although neuroimaging studies have been performed rarely in this population., Conclusion: Further studies with more comprehensive and homogeneous evaluations and neuroimaging and histological analysis should be performed for a better understanding of these manifestations. An earlier detection and proper management of these symptoms could greatly improve the quality of life of these patients., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.)

Background and Aims: Clinical trials and real-life studies with ustekinumab in Crohn's disease [CD] have revealed a good efficacy and safety profile. However, these data are scarcely available in elderly patients. Therefore, we aim to assess the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab in elderly patients with CD., Methods: Elderly patients [>60 years old] from the prospectively maintained ENEIDA registry treated with ustekinumab due to CD were included. Every patient was matched with two controls under 60 years of age, according to anti-tumour necrosis factor use and smoking habit. Values for the Harvey-Bradshaw Index [HBI], endoscopic activity, C-reactive protein [CRP] and faecal calprotectin [FC] were recorded at baseline and at weeks 16, 32 and 54., Results: In total, 648 patients were included, 212 of whom were elderly. Effectiveness was similar between young and elderly patients during the follow-up. Steroid-free remission was similar at week 16 [54.6 vs 51.4%, p = 0.20], 32 [53.0% vs 54.5%, p = 0.26] and 54 [57.8% vs 51.1%, p = 0.21]. Persistence of ustekinumab as maintenance therapy was similar in both age groups [log-rank test; p = 0.91]. There was no difference in the rate of adverse effects [14.2% vs 11.2%, p = 0.350], including severe infections [7.1% vs 7.3%, p = 1.00], except for the occurrence of de novo neoplasms, which was higher in older patients [0.7% vs 4.3%, p = 0.003]., Conclusions: Ustekinumab is as effective in elderly patients with CD as it is in non-elderly patients. The safety profile also seems to be similar except for a higher rate of de novo neoplasms, probably related to the age of the elderly patients., (© 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.)

(1) Scant information is available concerning the characteristics that may favour the acquisition of COVID-19 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess these differences between infected and noninfected patients with IBD. (2) This nationwide case−control study evaluated patients with inflammatory bowel disease with COVID-19 (cases) and without COVID-19 (controls) during the period March−July 2020 included in the ENEIDA of GETECCU. (3) A total of 496 cases and 964 controls from 73 Spanish centres were included. No differences were found in the basal characteristics between cases and controls. Cases had higher comorbidity Charlson scores (24% vs. 19%; p = 0.02) and occupational risk (28% vs. 10.5%; p < 0.0001) more frequently than did controls. Lockdown was the only protective measure against COVID-19 (50% vs. 70%; p < 0.0001). No differences were found in the use of systemic steroids, immunosuppressants or biologics between cases and controls. Cases were more often treated with 5-aminosalicylates (42% vs. 34%; p = 0.003). Having a moderate Charlson score (OR: 2.7; 95%CI: 1.3−5.9), occupational risk (OR: 2.9; 95%CI: 1.8−4.4) and the use of 5-aminosalicylates (OR: 1.7; 95%CI: 1.2−2.5) were factors for COVID-19. The strict lockdown was the only protective factor (OR: 0.1; 95%CI: 0.09−0.2). (4) Comorbidities and occupational exposure are the most relevant factors for COVID-19 in patients with IBD. The risk of COVID-19 seems not to be increased by immunosuppressants or biologics, with a potential effect of 5-aminosalicylates, which should be investigated further and interpreted with caution.

Background: Previous studies comparing immigrant ethnic groups and native patients with IBD have yielded clinical and phenotypic differences. To date, no study has focused on the immigrant IBD population in Spain., Methods: Prospective, observational, multicenter study comparing cohorts of IBD patients from ENEIDA-registry who were born outside Spain with a cohort of native patients., Results: We included 13,524 patients (1,864 immigrant and 11,660 native). The immigrants were younger (45 ± 12 vs. 54 ± 16 years, p < 0.001), had been diagnosed younger (31 ± 12 vs. 36 ± 15 years, p < 0.001), and had a shorter disease duration (14 ± 7 vs. 18 ± 8 years, p < 0.001) than native patients. Family history of IBD (9 vs. 14%, p < 0.001) and smoking (30 vs. 40%, p < 0.001) were more frequent among native patients. The most prevalent ethnic groups among immigrants were Caucasian (41.5%), followed by Latin American (30.8%), Arab (18.3%), and Asian (6.7%). Extraintestinal manifestations, mainly musculoskeletal affections, were more frequent in immigrants (19 vs. 11%, p < 0.001). Use of biologics, mainly anti-TNF, was greater in immigrants (36 vs. 29%, p < 0.001). The risk of having extraintestinal manifestations [OR: 2.23 (1.92-2.58, p < 0.001)] and using biologics [OR: 1.13 (1.0-1.26, p = 0.042)] was independently associated with immigrant status in the multivariate analyses., Conclusions: Compared with native-born patients, first-generation-immigrant IBD patients in Spain were younger at disease onset and showed an increased risk of having extraintestinal manifestations and using biologics. Our study suggests a featured phenotype of immigrant IBD patients in Spain, and constitutes a new landmark in the epidemiological characterization of immigrant IBD populations in Southern Europe., Competing Interests: AG has served as speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, Kern Pharma, Takeda, Janssen, Ferring, Faes Farma, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Tillotts Pharma, Chiesi and Otsuka Pharmaceutical. ER has provided scientific advice/participated in medical meetings/received research funding from/received payment for presentations and advice from: MSD, Schering-Plow, Ferring, Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, Fresenius Kabi, Pfizer. IV has served as a speaker, or has received research or education funding from Abbvie, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, Tillotts Pharma, Ferring and Shire Pharmaceuticals. MM has served as speaker or has received research funding from MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, Kern Pharma, Takeda, Janssen, Ferring, Faes Farma, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Falk Pharma, Biogen, Tillotts Pharma, Chiesi and Adacyte. JPG has served as speaker, consultant, and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, Kern Pharma, Biogen, Mylan, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Sandoz, Celgene, Gilead/Galapagos, Ferring, Faes Farma, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Falk Pharma, Tillotts Pharma, Chiesi, Casen Fleet, Gebro Pharma, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, and Vifor Pharma. YZ has received support for conference attendance, speaker fees, research support and consulting fees from Abbvie, Adacyte, Almirall, Amgen, Dr. Falk, FAES Pharma, Ferring, Janssen, MSD, Otsuka, Pfizer, Shire, Takeda and Tillots. XC has received grants for research from Abbvie, MSD, Vifor fees for advisory boards form Abbvie, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Janssen and VIFOR and has given lectures for Abbvie, MSD, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, Shire and Allergan. FB has served as a speaker, a consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, Biogen, Amgen, Ferring, Faes Farma, Tillotts Pharma, Falk Pharma, Chiesi, Gebro Pharma, Vifor Pharma. MM-M has served as speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, Kern Pharma, Takeda, Janssen, Shire Pharmaceuticals and Otsuka Pharmaceutical. MR has served as speaker, consultant or advisory member for MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, Ferring and Chiesi. MP has served as speaker or has received research funding from Abbvie, Takeda and Janssen. IR-L has received financial support for traveling and educational activities from or has served as an advisory board member for MSD, Pfizer, Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, Tillotts Pharma, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Celltrion, Faes Farma, Ferring, Dr. Falk Pharma, Otsuka Pharmaceutical and Adacyte. Financial support for research from Tillotts Pharma. RL has served as a speaker, or has received research or education funding from MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen and Dr. Falk. LA has served as speaker, or has received research or education funding from MSD, Abbvie, Kern Pharma, Ferring, FaesFarma, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, Tillotts Pharma, and Otsuka Pharmaceutical. FA-A has served as speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, Kern Pharma, Takeda, Janssen, Ferring, Faes Farma, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Tillotts Pharma, Chiesi and Dr. Falk. LR has served as a speaker, or has received education funding from MSD, Abbvie, Adacyte, Takeda, Pfizer, Janssen and Ferring. MB-d has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, AbbVie, Janssen, Kern Pharma, Celltrion, Takeda, Gillead, Celgene, Pfizer, Sandoz, Biogen, Fresenius, Ferring, Faes Farma, Dr. Falk Pharma, Chiesi, Gebro Pharma, Adacyte and Vifor Pharma. ED has served as a speaker, or has received research or education funding or advisory fees from AbbVie, Adacyte Therapeutics, Biogen, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen, Kern Pharma, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Takeda, Tillots, Thermofisher. RF has served as a speaker, or has received research or education funding or advisory fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Adacyte Therapeutics, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Almirall. 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 © 2022 Gutiérrez, Zapater, Ricart, González-Vivó, Gordillo, Olivares, Vera, Mañosa, Gisbert, Aguas, Sánchez-Rodríguez, Bosca-Watts, Laredo, Camps, Marín-Jiménez, Zabana, Martín-Arranz, Muñoz, Navarro, Sierra, Madero, Vela, Pérez-Calle, Sainz, Calvet, Arias, Morales, Bermejo, Fernández-Salazar, Van Domselaar, De Castro, Rodríguez, Muñoz-Villafranca, Lorente, Rivero, Iglesias, Herreros, Busquets, Riera, Martínez-Montiel, Roldón, Roncero, Hinojosa, Sierra, Barrio, De Francisco, Huguet, Merino, Carpio, Ginard, Muñoz, Piqueras, Almela, Argüelles-Arias, Alcaín, Bujanda, Manceñido, Lucendo, Varela, Rodríguez-Lago, Ramos, Sempere, Sesé, Barreiro-de Acosta, Domènech and Francés.)

Background: The effectiveness of the switch to another anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agent is not known. The aim of this study was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of treatment with a second and third anti-TNF drug after intolerance to or failure of a previous anti-TNF agent in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients., Methods: We included patients diagnosed with IBD from the ENEIDA registry who received another anti-TNF after intolerance to or failure of a prior anti-TNF agent., Results: A total of 1122 patients were included. In the short term, remission was achieved in 55% of the patients with the second anti-TNF. The incidence of loss of response was 19% per patient-year with the second anti-TNF. Combination therapy (hazard ratio [HR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-3; P < 0.0001) and ulcerative colitis vs Crohn's disease (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1; P = 0.005) were associated with a higher probability of loss of response. Fifteen percent of the patients had adverse events, and 10% had to discontinue the second anti-TNF. Of the 71 patients who received a third anti-TNF, 55% achieved remission. The incidence of loss of response was 22% per patient-year with a third anti-TNF. Adverse events occurred in 7 patients (11%), but only 1 stopped the drug., Conclusions: Approximately half of the patients who received a second anti-TNF achieved remission; nevertheless, a significant proportion of them subsequently lost response. Combination therapy and type of IBD were associated with loss of response. Remission was achieved in almost 50% of patients who received a third anti-TNF; nevertheless, a significant proportion of them subsequently lost response., (© 2019 Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)