Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Disease 2021

The recently developed ACE index – which incorporates three variables at hospital admission (C-reactive protein [CRP], albumin, and endoscopic severity) – accurately predicts steroid response at hospital admission in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC). This is according to study findings presented at the annual Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases conference by Marta Freitas, MD, of the Senhora da Oliveira Hospital in Guimarães, Portugal.*

Although intravenous steroids represent the first-line medical therapy for patients admitted to the hospital with acute UC, one study found that approximately 30% of patients with ASUC do not respond to this treatment approach and therefore require more advanced management options.

In patients with ASUC, delays in initiating therapy may be associated with an increased risk of mortality, explained Dr. Freitas and colleagues. Given this risk, there is a need for sensitive and accurate tools that can identify patients at admission who are at high risk of steroid nonresponse and who may likewise receive benefit from surgical intervention or earlier second-line therapy.

Early prediction of response to steroids in patients with ASUC at time of admission could also be helpful for prioritizing further assessment and counseling. The ACE index was recently developed to identify these patients to help improve risk stratification and facilitate earlier treatment delivery. A combination of three parameters is found within the ACE index: albumin ≤30 g/L; CRP ≥50 mg/L; and increased endoscopic severity as defined by a Mayo endoscopic score of 3.

Dr. Freitas and researchers retrospectively evaluated the performance of the ACE index in predicting steroid response in 65 patients with ASUC (mean age, 34 years). The study included a review of admissions for the disease between 2005 and 2020. The accuracy of the ACE index score was evaluated through the area under the curve.

Approximately 78.5% of patients in the retrospective cohort study had responded to steroids. Compared with nonresponders, responders had significantly different mean CRP (108.0 ± 60.0 vs. 66.0 ± 53.2 mg/dL, respectively; P = .01), mean albumin (2.9 ± 0.66 vs. 3.4 ± 0.71 g/L; P = .02), and median endoscopic severity score (3 vs. 3; interquartile range, 1 vs. 0; P = .005) at admission. In contrast, no statistically significant difference was found between responders versus nonresponders in regard to the median UC Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) score (8 vs. 7; P = .28).

Overall, the median ACE index score was 2. Steroid nonresponders had a significantly higher ACE index score (2.5 vs. 1; P = .001). The researchers noted that the ACE index score was a significant predictor of steroid response (AUC, 0.789; P = .001). Half (50.0%) of patients with an ACE index score of 3 had no response to steroids, while 86.3% of patients who had an ACE index score lower than 3 experienced a steroid response.

In a poster presentation by Hartman Brunt, MD, of the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in Baton Rouge, real-world data suggest there exists several inconsistencies in the use of UC-monitoring strategies recommended by clinical practice guidelines. According to a single-center retrospective chart review of adult patients with moderate to severe UC, Dr. Brunt and colleagues found that measurement of CRP decreased over time as did measurement of fecal calprotectin.

Given the lack of standardization for IBD monitoring, Dr. Hartman and colleagues noted “there is inevitably increased variability in provider care.” Consequently, this variability and lack of guideline adherence may lead to heterogeneous effects among the IBD patient population, including those that may drive suboptimal long-term outcomes.

In addition to disease monitoring, assessment of treatment response remains highly valuable, yet no clinical guidance currently exists on the use of the ACE index score in ASUC. Further research is needed to determine the validity of the ACE Index in a larger patient population to inform future clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus statements.

Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, a gastroenterologist from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an email to this news organization that there is an urgent need for tools that “accurately predict treatment response in severe UC because of the higher morbidity and rate of surgery in this population.” Dr. Ananthakrishnan is a co–primary investigator of the MASCC (Multi-center Acute Severe UC Cohort Study), sponsored by Johns Hopkins University, which is investigating the ACE index and other predictors of outcomes in severe UC.

“In addition, treatment decisions need to be made fairly quickly as clinical condition may change day to day,” further emphasizing the need for these predictors, added Dr. Ananthakrishnan. “At this point, the ACE index and other prediction scores have been described from observational studies, but the key is to prospectively incorporate this into a treatment algorithm.”

Dr. Ananthakrishnan explained that patients with a high ACE index, or those with UC who satisfy the high-risk criteria of other prediction models, may benefit from early or even upfront rescue therapy rather than trying steroids for 3-5 days first. He added that “the field is not quite there, and we need more study of this” approach.

Dr. Freitas, Dr. Brunt, and Dr. Ananthakrishnan declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was updated 1/11/22. 

*Correction, 1/11/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Martha Freitas' name.

The recently developed ACE index – which incorporates three variables at hospital admission (C-reactive protein [CRP], albumin, and endoscopic severity) – accurately predicts steroid response at hospital admission in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC). This is according to study findings presented at the annual Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases conference by Marta Freitas, MD, of the Senhora da Oliveira Hospital in Guimarães, Portugal.*

Although intravenous steroids represent the first-line medical therapy for patients admitted to the hospital with acute UC, one study found that approximately 30% of patients with ASUC do not respond to this treatment approach and therefore require more advanced management options.

In patients with ASUC, delays in initiating therapy may be associated with an increased risk of mortality, explained Dr. Freitas and colleagues. Given this risk, there is a need for sensitive and accurate tools that can identify patients at admission who are at high risk of steroid nonresponse and who may likewise receive benefit from surgical intervention or earlier second-line therapy.

Early prediction of response to steroids in patients with ASUC at time of admission could also be helpful for prioritizing further assessment and counseling. The ACE index was recently developed to identify these patients to help improve risk stratification and facilitate earlier treatment delivery. A combination of three parameters is found within the ACE index: albumin ≤30 g/L; CRP ≥50 mg/L; and increased endoscopic severity as defined by a Mayo endoscopic score of 3.

Dr. Freitas and researchers retrospectively evaluated the performance of the ACE index in predicting steroid response in 65 patients with ASUC (mean age, 34 years). The study included a review of admissions for the disease between 2005 and 2020. The accuracy of the ACE index score was evaluated through the area under the curve.

Approximately 78.5% of patients in the retrospective cohort study had responded to steroids. Compared with nonresponders, responders had significantly different mean CRP (108.0 ± 60.0 vs. 66.0 ± 53.2 mg/dL, respectively; P = .01), mean albumin (2.9 ± 0.66 vs. 3.4 ± 0.71 g/L; P = .02), and median endoscopic severity score (3 vs. 3; interquartile range, 1 vs. 0; P = .005) at admission. In contrast, no statistically significant difference was found between responders versus nonresponders in regard to the median UC Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) score (8 vs. 7; P = .28).

Overall, the median ACE index score was 2. Steroid nonresponders had a significantly higher ACE index score (2.5 vs. 1; P = .001). The researchers noted that the ACE index score was a significant predictor of steroid response (AUC, 0.789; P = .001). Half (50.0%) of patients with an ACE index score of 3 had no response to steroids, while 86.3% of patients who had an ACE index score lower than 3 experienced a steroid response.

In a poster presentation by Hartman Brunt, MD, of the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in Baton Rouge, real-world data suggest there exists several inconsistencies in the use of UC-monitoring strategies recommended by clinical practice guidelines. According to a single-center retrospective chart review of adult patients with moderate to severe UC, Dr. Brunt and colleagues found that measurement of CRP decreased over time as did measurement of fecal calprotectin.

Given the lack of standardization for IBD monitoring, Dr. Hartman and colleagues noted “there is inevitably increased variability in provider care.” Consequently, this variability and lack of guideline adherence may lead to heterogeneous effects among the IBD patient population, including those that may drive suboptimal long-term outcomes.

In addition to disease monitoring, assessment of treatment response remains highly valuable, yet no clinical guidance currently exists on the use of the ACE index score in ASUC. Further research is needed to determine the validity of the ACE Index in a larger patient population to inform future clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus statements.

Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, a gastroenterologist from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an email to this news organization that there is an urgent need for tools that “accurately predict treatment response in severe UC because of the higher morbidity and rate of surgery in this population.” Dr. Ananthakrishnan is a co–primary investigator of the MASCC (Multi-center Acute Severe UC Cohort Study), sponsored by Johns Hopkins University, which is investigating the ACE index and other predictors of outcomes in severe UC.

“In addition, treatment decisions need to be made fairly quickly as clinical condition may change day to day,” further emphasizing the need for these predictors, added Dr. Ananthakrishnan. “At this point, the ACE index and other prediction scores have been described from observational studies, but the key is to prospectively incorporate this into a treatment algorithm.”

Dr. Ananthakrishnan explained that patients with a high ACE index, or those with UC who satisfy the high-risk criteria of other prediction models, may benefit from early or even upfront rescue therapy rather than trying steroids for 3-5 days first. He added that “the field is not quite there, and we need more study of this” approach.

Dr. Freitas, Dr. Brunt, and Dr. Ananthakrishnan declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was updated 1/11/22. 

*Correction, 1/11/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Martha Freitas' name.

The recently developed ACE index – which incorporates three variables at hospital admission (C-reactive protein [CRP], albumin, and endoscopic severity) – accurately predicts steroid response at hospital admission in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC). This is according to study findings presented at the annual Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases conference by Marta Freitas, MD, of the Senhora da Oliveira Hospital in Guimarães, Portugal.*

Although intravenous steroids represent the first-line medical therapy for patients admitted to the hospital with acute UC, one study found that approximately 30% of patients with ASUC do not respond to this treatment approach and therefore require more advanced management options.

In patients with ASUC, delays in initiating therapy may be associated with an increased risk of mortality, explained Dr. Freitas and colleagues. Given this risk, there is a need for sensitive and accurate tools that can identify patients at admission who are at high risk of steroid nonresponse and who may likewise receive benefit from surgical intervention or earlier second-line therapy.

Early prediction of response to steroids in patients with ASUC at time of admission could also be helpful for prioritizing further assessment and counseling. The ACE index was recently developed to identify these patients to help improve risk stratification and facilitate earlier treatment delivery. A combination of three parameters is found within the ACE index: albumin ≤30 g/L; CRP ≥50 mg/L; and increased endoscopic severity as defined by a Mayo endoscopic score of 3.

Dr. Freitas and researchers retrospectively evaluated the performance of the ACE index in predicting steroid response in 65 patients with ASUC (mean age, 34 years). The study included a review of admissions for the disease between 2005 and 2020. The accuracy of the ACE index score was evaluated through the area under the curve.

Approximately 78.5% of patients in the retrospective cohort study had responded to steroids. Compared with nonresponders, responders had significantly different mean CRP (108.0 ± 60.0 vs. 66.0 ± 53.2 mg/dL, respectively; P = .01), mean albumin (2.9 ± 0.66 vs. 3.4 ± 0.71 g/L; P = .02), and median endoscopic severity score (3 vs. 3; interquartile range, 1 vs. 0; P = .005) at admission. In contrast, no statistically significant difference was found between responders versus nonresponders in regard to the median UC Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) score (8 vs. 7; P = .28).

Overall, the median ACE index score was 2. Steroid nonresponders had a significantly higher ACE index score (2.5 vs. 1; P = .001). The researchers noted that the ACE index score was a significant predictor of steroid response (AUC, 0.789; P = .001). Half (50.0%) of patients with an ACE index score of 3 had no response to steroids, while 86.3% of patients who had an ACE index score lower than 3 experienced a steroid response.

In a poster presentation by Hartman Brunt, MD, of the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in Baton Rouge, real-world data suggest there exists several inconsistencies in the use of UC-monitoring strategies recommended by clinical practice guidelines. According to a single-center retrospective chart review of adult patients with moderate to severe UC, Dr. Brunt and colleagues found that measurement of CRP decreased over time as did measurement of fecal calprotectin.

Given the lack of standardization for IBD monitoring, Dr. Hartman and colleagues noted “there is inevitably increased variability in provider care.” Consequently, this variability and lack of guideline adherence may lead to heterogeneous effects among the IBD patient population, including those that may drive suboptimal long-term outcomes.

In addition to disease monitoring, assessment of treatment response remains highly valuable, yet no clinical guidance currently exists on the use of the ACE index score in ASUC. Further research is needed to determine the validity of the ACE Index in a larger patient population to inform future clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus statements.

Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, a gastroenterologist from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an email to this news organization that there is an urgent need for tools that “accurately predict treatment response in severe UC because of the higher morbidity and rate of surgery in this population.” Dr. Ananthakrishnan is a co–primary investigator of the MASCC (Multi-center Acute Severe UC Cohort Study), sponsored by Johns Hopkins University, which is investigating the ACE index and other predictors of outcomes in severe UC.

“In addition, treatment decisions need to be made fairly quickly as clinical condition may change day to day,” further emphasizing the need for these predictors, added Dr. Ananthakrishnan. “At this point, the ACE index and other prediction scores have been described from observational studies, but the key is to prospectively incorporate this into a treatment algorithm.”

Dr. Ananthakrishnan explained that patients with a high ACE index, or those with UC who satisfy the high-risk criteria of other prediction models, may benefit from early or even upfront rescue therapy rather than trying steroids for 3-5 days first. He added that “the field is not quite there, and we need more study of this” approach.

Dr. Freitas, Dr. Brunt, and Dr. Ananthakrishnan declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was updated 1/11/22. 

*Correction, 1/11/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Martha Freitas' name.

A real-world analysis of tofacitinib, presented at the annual Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Disease conference, confirms that long-term use of the selective immunosuppressant agent tofacitinib is associated with high rates of steroid-free remission in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). These findings, along with clinical practice observations made during another session at the conference, further validate the efficacy of tofacitinib beyond that currently reported in specific clinical trial populations.

Tofacitinib is a small-molecule Janus kinase inhibitor that interferes with the intracellular JAK/signal transducer and activators of transcription pathway. Compared with other biologic agents, tofacitinib simultaneously acts on several cytokines and exerts broader effects on gastrointestinal inflammation.

Tofacitinib’s approval for moderate to severe UC was based on data from the OCTAVE clinical trial program. Although the phase 3 OCTAVE trial showed the JAK inhibitor features dose-dependent efficacy in inducing and maintaining remission in UC, stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria limit the generalizability of the trial’s findings across the broader, real-world UC population.

Findings from the recent analysis on tofacitinib were presented at AIBD 2021 by Knyazev Oleg, MD, who is the head of department of inflammatory bowel diseases at A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific and Practical Center.

Dr. Oleg and colleagues reported on real-world treatment observations of 58 tofacitinib-treated patients with UC. Treatment efficacy was evaluated using the Mayo index (score <2), erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, hemoglobin, fecal calprotectin, and the need for glucocorticoids (GCS).

At the time of tofacitinib initiation, all patients received GCS, with a mean therapeutic dose of 40 mg. In all 49 patients who responded to therapy, corticosteroids were discontinued after induction.

Only 15.5% (n = 9) of the study cohort did not respond to the JAK inhibitor during the follow-up period. A total of 14 patients (24.1%) who previously received anti-TNF therapies required a prolonged induction course of 20 mg tofacitinib. More than one out of five patients (22.4%) required repeated corticosteroids to manage exacerbations or dwindled tofacitinib response.

During another session, which discussed prescription treatment for moderate to severe UC, Bincy Abraham, MD, a professor of clinical medicine at Houston Methodist Academic Institute, summarized currently available clinical trial data on tofacitinib and discussed her own observations in her practice regarding the efficacy of the JAK inhibitor in the UC population.

The current data show the oral JAK inhibitor allows patients to reach remission as early as 8 weeks, with corresponding reductions observed in rectal bleeding and stool frequency as early as 2 weeks after therapy initiation. While the efficacy findings are corroborated by her own clinical practice, Dr. Abraham largely discussed the safety implications of the treatment.

Dr. Abraham emphasized the need for risk-mitigation strategies before initiating tofacitinib in appropriately selected patients with UC. In particular, Dr. Abraham explained that clinicians should be alerted to the possibility of tuberculosis as an opportunistic infection in tofacitinib-treated patients. “Before starting, I always liked to make sure that patients are getting checked for tuberculosis,” she said, adding that she performs annual monitoring for patients treated with the agent.

When considering tofacitinib, Dr. Abraham added that clinicians should ultimately consider discussing the risks of therapy versus the benefits in eligible patients.

During the question-and-answer portion of her session, Dr. Abraham noted that she has observed mixed findings in regard to tofacitinib’s effects on lipid levels. Specifically, only a small number of patients with UC in her practice have had to initiate cholesterol therapy while taking tofacitinib, but these patients typically have high-risk factors for hyperlipidemia, including family history and elevated body mass index.

On a question regarding the risk of shingles, Dr. Abraham noted that, if a patient does indeed develop the condition while taking tofacitinib, the therapy should be halted until shingles is resolved. In her practice, Dr. Abraham explained shingles vaccination is a priority before starting tofacitinib, suggesting this strategy has thus far prevented her tofacitinib-treated patients from developing the condition.

In patients with flares, Dr. Abraham noted that “we don’t have any specific clinical trial data specifically looking at” how to manage tofacitinib doses to further manage difficult-to-treat disease. She stated that, in her practice, she increases the dose of tofacitinib in patients who experience flares, as this often improves response. Subsequent dose reductions should be based on an individualized basis, with many patients requiring higher doses at varying periods.

Dr. Oleg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Abraham reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, which sponsored her discussion.
 

A real-world analysis of tofacitinib, presented at the annual Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Disease conference, confirms that long-term use of the selective immunosuppressant agent tofacitinib is associated with high rates of steroid-free remission in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). These findings, along with clinical practice observations made during another session at the conference, further validate the efficacy of tofacitinib beyond that currently reported in specific clinical trial populations.

Tofacitinib is a small-molecule Janus kinase inhibitor that interferes with the intracellular JAK/signal transducer and activators of transcription pathway. Compared with other biologic agents, tofacitinib simultaneously acts on several cytokines and exerts broader effects on gastrointestinal inflammation.

Tofacitinib’s approval for moderate to severe UC was based on data from the OCTAVE clinical trial program. Although the phase 3 OCTAVE trial showed the JAK inhibitor features dose-dependent efficacy in inducing and maintaining remission in UC, stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria limit the generalizability of the trial’s findings across the broader, real-world UC population.

Findings from the recent analysis on tofacitinib were presented at AIBD 2021 by Knyazev Oleg, MD, who is the head of department of inflammatory bowel diseases at A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific and Practical Center.

Dr. Oleg and colleagues reported on real-world treatment observations of 58 tofacitinib-treated patients with UC. Treatment efficacy was evaluated using the Mayo index (score <2), erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, hemoglobin, fecal calprotectin, and the need for glucocorticoids (GCS).

At the time of tofacitinib initiation, all patients received GCS, with a mean therapeutic dose of 40 mg. In all 49 patients who responded to therapy, corticosteroids were discontinued after induction.

Only 15.5% (n = 9) of the study cohort did not respond to the JAK inhibitor during the follow-up period. A total of 14 patients (24.1%) who previously received anti-TNF therapies required a prolonged induction course of 20 mg tofacitinib. More than one out of five patients (22.4%) required repeated corticosteroids to manage exacerbations or dwindled tofacitinib response.

During another session, which discussed prescription treatment for moderate to severe UC, Bincy Abraham, MD, a professor of clinical medicine at Houston Methodist Academic Institute, summarized currently available clinical trial data on tofacitinib and discussed her own observations in her practice regarding the efficacy of the JAK inhibitor in the UC population.

The current data show the oral JAK inhibitor allows patients to reach remission as early as 8 weeks, with corresponding reductions observed in rectal bleeding and stool frequency as early as 2 weeks after therapy initiation. While the efficacy findings are corroborated by her own clinical practice, Dr. Abraham largely discussed the safety implications of the treatment.

Dr. Abraham emphasized the need for risk-mitigation strategies before initiating tofacitinib in appropriately selected patients with UC. In particular, Dr. Abraham explained that clinicians should be alerted to the possibility of tuberculosis as an opportunistic infection in tofacitinib-treated patients. “Before starting, I always liked to make sure that patients are getting checked for tuberculosis,” she said, adding that she performs annual monitoring for patients treated with the agent.

When considering tofacitinib, Dr. Abraham added that clinicians should ultimately consider discussing the risks of therapy versus the benefits in eligible patients.

During the question-and-answer portion of her session, Dr. Abraham noted that she has observed mixed findings in regard to tofacitinib’s effects on lipid levels. Specifically, only a small number of patients with UC in her practice have had to initiate cholesterol therapy while taking tofacitinib, but these patients typically have high-risk factors for hyperlipidemia, including family history and elevated body mass index.

On a question regarding the risk of shingles, Dr. Abraham noted that, if a patient does indeed develop the condition while taking tofacitinib, the therapy should be halted until shingles is resolved. In her practice, Dr. Abraham explained shingles vaccination is a priority before starting tofacitinib, suggesting this strategy has thus far prevented her tofacitinib-treated patients from developing the condition.

In patients with flares, Dr. Abraham noted that “we don’t have any specific clinical trial data specifically looking at” how to manage tofacitinib doses to further manage difficult-to-treat disease. She stated that, in her practice, she increases the dose of tofacitinib in patients who experience flares, as this often improves response. Subsequent dose reductions should be based on an individualized basis, with many patients requiring higher doses at varying periods.

Dr. Oleg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Abraham reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, which sponsored her discussion.
 

A real-world analysis of tofacitinib, presented at the annual Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Disease conference, confirms that long-term use of the selective immunosuppressant agent tofacitinib is associated with high rates of steroid-free remission in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). These findings, along with clinical practice observations made during another session at the conference, further validate the efficacy of tofacitinib beyond that currently reported in specific clinical trial populations.

Tofacitinib is a small-molecule Janus kinase inhibitor that interferes with the intracellular JAK/signal transducer and activators of transcription pathway. Compared with other biologic agents, tofacitinib simultaneously acts on several cytokines and exerts broader effects on gastrointestinal inflammation.

Tofacitinib’s approval for moderate to severe UC was based on data from the OCTAVE clinical trial program. Although the phase 3 OCTAVE trial showed the JAK inhibitor features dose-dependent efficacy in inducing and maintaining remission in UC, stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria limit the generalizability of the trial’s findings across the broader, real-world UC population.

Findings from the recent analysis on tofacitinib were presented at AIBD 2021 by Knyazev Oleg, MD, who is the head of department of inflammatory bowel diseases at A.S. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific and Practical Center.

Dr. Oleg and colleagues reported on real-world treatment observations of 58 tofacitinib-treated patients with UC. Treatment efficacy was evaluated using the Mayo index (score <2), erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, hemoglobin, fecal calprotectin, and the need for glucocorticoids (GCS).

At the time of tofacitinib initiation, all patients received GCS, with a mean therapeutic dose of 40 mg. In all 49 patients who responded to therapy, corticosteroids were discontinued after induction.

Only 15.5% (n = 9) of the study cohort did not respond to the JAK inhibitor during the follow-up period. A total of 14 patients (24.1%) who previously received anti-TNF therapies required a prolonged induction course of 20 mg tofacitinib. More than one out of five patients (22.4%) required repeated corticosteroids to manage exacerbations or dwindled tofacitinib response.

During another session, which discussed prescription treatment for moderate to severe UC, Bincy Abraham, MD, a professor of clinical medicine at Houston Methodist Academic Institute, summarized currently available clinical trial data on tofacitinib and discussed her own observations in her practice regarding the efficacy of the JAK inhibitor in the UC population.

The current data show the oral JAK inhibitor allows patients to reach remission as early as 8 weeks, with corresponding reductions observed in rectal bleeding and stool frequency as early as 2 weeks after therapy initiation. While the efficacy findings are corroborated by her own clinical practice, Dr. Abraham largely discussed the safety implications of the treatment.

Dr. Abraham emphasized the need for risk-mitigation strategies before initiating tofacitinib in appropriately selected patients with UC. In particular, Dr. Abraham explained that clinicians should be alerted to the possibility of tuberculosis as an opportunistic infection in tofacitinib-treated patients. “Before starting, I always liked to make sure that patients are getting checked for tuberculosis,” she said, adding that she performs annual monitoring for patients treated with the agent.

When considering tofacitinib, Dr. Abraham added that clinicians should ultimately consider discussing the risks of therapy versus the benefits in eligible patients.

During the question-and-answer portion of her session, Dr. Abraham noted that she has observed mixed findings in regard to tofacitinib’s effects on lipid levels. Specifically, only a small number of patients with UC in her practice have had to initiate cholesterol therapy while taking tofacitinib, but these patients typically have high-risk factors for hyperlipidemia, including family history and elevated body mass index.

On a question regarding the risk of shingles, Dr. Abraham noted that, if a patient does indeed develop the condition while taking tofacitinib, the therapy should be halted until shingles is resolved. In her practice, Dr. Abraham explained shingles vaccination is a priority before starting tofacitinib, suggesting this strategy has thus far prevented her tofacitinib-treated patients from developing the condition.

In patients with flares, Dr. Abraham noted that “we don’t have any specific clinical trial data specifically looking at” how to manage tofacitinib doses to further manage difficult-to-treat disease. She stated that, in her practice, she increases the dose of tofacitinib in patients who experience flares, as this often improves response. Subsequent dose reductions should be based on an individualized basis, with many patients requiring higher doses at varying periods.

Dr. Oleg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Abraham reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, which sponsored her discussion.
 

Vedolizumab does not seem to increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies in biologic-naive patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), despite concerns that the gut-selective monoclonal antibody treatment may increase gastrointestinal infections at a greater rate than other biologics in this patient population.

Perturbations of the gut microbiota that occur in IBD predispose patients to CDI. Given that treatment with monoclonal antibody vedolizumab exerts an inhibitory action on lymphocyte trafficking to the intestines, questions have been raised on whether this action could increase the risk of CDI in an already vulnerable population.

In patients with UC, the incidence of CDI typically confers a higher risk of adverse outcomes. Unfortunately, CDI is a common complication associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can lead to disease flares, further adding to the physical and psychological burden associated with the condition, according to recent studies.

These concerns, however, may not be warranted in patients with UC, according to findings from a retrospective study presented at the annual Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases conference by Rahul Dalal, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

In the study, Dr. Dalal and colleagues retrospectively analyzed electronic medical records of adult patients with UC who initiated infliximab, adalimumab, or vedolizumab between June 2014 and December 2020. Patients in this retrospective cohort were followed until there was a documented occurrence of CDI, colectomy, or biologic discontinuation/switch, or until the last recorded gastroenterology encounter.

The researchers analyzed the time from biologic initiation to first CDI, which was characterized by a positive stool for C. difficile toxin or toxigenic C. difficile polymerase chain reaction with CDI-specific antibiotic prescriptions. Additionally, the investigators evaluated rates of CDI-related hospitalization, colectomy, or death within a 30-day period of CDI. The primary analysis compared patients with UC who initiated vedolizumab (n = 195) versus anti-TNF therapy (n = 610).

Compared with those treated with anti-TNF agents, patients who initiated vedolizumab were older and less frequently received systemic corticosteroids or had UC-related hospitalization within 12 months prior to starting biologics.

Over 1,436 patient-years’ worth of follow-up, the investigators observed 43 CDIs. Patients treated with vedolizumab less frequently had CDI (1.0% vs. 6.7%; P =.001) and CDI hospitalization (1.0% vs. 3.8%; P =.042), compared with those treated with anti-TNF therapies. The investigators reported no significant differences in the rates of colectomies or deaths or rates of exposure to antibiotics/corticosteroids during the follow-up period or within 30 days prior to CDI onset.

In the unadjusted Cox model, the researchers reported that vedolizumab featured a lower hazard of CDI, compared with anti-TNF (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.71). The multivariable Cox model found no significant difference in hazard of CDI for vedolizumab when compared with anti-TNF therapy (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.05-2.03) or immunomodulator exposure (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41-2.40). The incidence of CDI prior to biologic initiation was associated with an increased hazard of subsequent CDI (HR, 5.95; 95% CI, 2.93-12.09). In the subgroup of patients who experienced a CDI, approximately 39.5% had CDI before biologic initiation at a median of 227 days preceding the subsequent event.

“Vedolizumab is one of the safest biologics that we have in the clinic,” said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Colombel, who wasn’t involved in the study, is a gastroenterologist and serves as director of the Feinstein IBD Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and professor of medicine (division of gastroenterology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York. “Findings from this study reinforce the safety profile of vedolizumab” despite the potential concerns regarding gastroenterological infection with the agent, he added.
 

Recurrence worries

Recurrent CDI is an issue in patients with IBD, many of whom are considered at high risk for initial and recurrent infection. During a session on CDI and recurrence at the AIBD meeting, Sahil Khanna, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, explained that there are three different treatment guidelines to manage initial CDI in patients with IBD.

Predominantly, these guidelines also suggest human monoclonal antibody bezlotoxumab could be used for prevention of CDI recurrence in patients at high risk of recurrence, including those who had experienced severe CDI. “One can argue that anyone with IBD who has C. difficile can be a severe CDI patient because of the bad outcomes we can see,” he explained.

“We do know that IBD is a state of chronic microbial dysbiosis compared to our patients without IBD who get C. difficile because of antibiotic exposure, and that’s why these patients have a high risk of recurrence, compared with non-IBD patients,” said Dr. Khanna. He noted that the bezlotoxumab studies showed numerically lower CDI recurrence rates compared with other treatments in patients with IBD who were initially treated with the monoclonal antibody, but this difference was not statistically significant. “But again, this agent has been shown to be safe in this patient population.”

Dr. Dalal reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Colombel has consulted for Takeda, which markets Entyvio for UC. Dr. Khanna has research grants from Rebiotix, as well as consulting fees from Shire Plc, Premier, Facile Therapeutics, and ProbioTech.

Help your patients understand their C. difficile diagnosis by sharing patient education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/Cdiff .

Vedolizumab does not seem to increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies in biologic-naive patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), despite concerns that the gut-selective monoclonal antibody treatment may increase gastrointestinal infections at a greater rate than other biologics in this patient population.

Perturbations of the gut microbiota that occur in IBD predispose patients to CDI. Given that treatment with monoclonal antibody vedolizumab exerts an inhibitory action on lymphocyte trafficking to the intestines, questions have been raised on whether this action could increase the risk of CDI in an already vulnerable population.

In patients with UC, the incidence of CDI typically confers a higher risk of adverse outcomes. Unfortunately, CDI is a common complication associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can lead to disease flares, further adding to the physical and psychological burden associated with the condition, according to recent studies.

These concerns, however, may not be warranted in patients with UC, according to findings from a retrospective study presented at the annual Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases conference by Rahul Dalal, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

In the study, Dr. Dalal and colleagues retrospectively analyzed electronic medical records of adult patients with UC who initiated infliximab, adalimumab, or vedolizumab between June 2014 and December 2020. Patients in this retrospective cohort were followed until there was a documented occurrence of CDI, colectomy, or biologic discontinuation/switch, or until the last recorded gastroenterology encounter.

The researchers analyzed the time from biologic initiation to first CDI, which was characterized by a positive stool for C. difficile toxin or toxigenic C. difficile polymerase chain reaction with CDI-specific antibiotic prescriptions. Additionally, the investigators evaluated rates of CDI-related hospitalization, colectomy, or death within a 30-day period of CDI. The primary analysis compared patients with UC who initiated vedolizumab (n = 195) versus anti-TNF therapy (n = 610).

Compared with those treated with anti-TNF agents, patients who initiated vedolizumab were older and less frequently received systemic corticosteroids or had UC-related hospitalization within 12 months prior to starting biologics.

Over 1,436 patient-years’ worth of follow-up, the investigators observed 43 CDIs. Patients treated with vedolizumab less frequently had CDI (1.0% vs. 6.7%; P =.001) and CDI hospitalization (1.0% vs. 3.8%; P =.042), compared with those treated with anti-TNF therapies. The investigators reported no significant differences in the rates of colectomies or deaths or rates of exposure to antibiotics/corticosteroids during the follow-up period or within 30 days prior to CDI onset.

In the unadjusted Cox model, the researchers reported that vedolizumab featured a lower hazard of CDI, compared with anti-TNF (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.71). The multivariable Cox model found no significant difference in hazard of CDI for vedolizumab when compared with anti-TNF therapy (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.05-2.03) or immunomodulator exposure (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41-2.40). The incidence of CDI prior to biologic initiation was associated with an increased hazard of subsequent CDI (HR, 5.95; 95% CI, 2.93-12.09). In the subgroup of patients who experienced a CDI, approximately 39.5% had CDI before biologic initiation at a median of 227 days preceding the subsequent event.

“Vedolizumab is one of the safest biologics that we have in the clinic,” said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Colombel, who wasn’t involved in the study, is a gastroenterologist and serves as director of the Feinstein IBD Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and professor of medicine (division of gastroenterology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York. “Findings from this study reinforce the safety profile of vedolizumab” despite the potential concerns regarding gastroenterological infection with the agent, he added.
 

Recurrence worries

Recurrent CDI is an issue in patients with IBD, many of whom are considered at high risk for initial and recurrent infection. During a session on CDI and recurrence at the AIBD meeting, Sahil Khanna, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, explained that there are three different treatment guidelines to manage initial CDI in patients with IBD.

Predominantly, these guidelines also suggest human monoclonal antibody bezlotoxumab could be used for prevention of CDI recurrence in patients at high risk of recurrence, including those who had experienced severe CDI. “One can argue that anyone with IBD who has C. difficile can be a severe CDI patient because of the bad outcomes we can see,” he explained.

“We do know that IBD is a state of chronic microbial dysbiosis compared to our patients without IBD who get C. difficile because of antibiotic exposure, and that’s why these patients have a high risk of recurrence, compared with non-IBD patients,” said Dr. Khanna. He noted that the bezlotoxumab studies showed numerically lower CDI recurrence rates compared with other treatments in patients with IBD who were initially treated with the monoclonal antibody, but this difference was not statistically significant. “But again, this agent has been shown to be safe in this patient population.”

Dr. Dalal reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Colombel has consulted for Takeda, which markets Entyvio for UC. Dr. Khanna has research grants from Rebiotix, as well as consulting fees from Shire Plc, Premier, Facile Therapeutics, and ProbioTech.

Help your patients understand their C. difficile diagnosis by sharing patient education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/Cdiff .

Vedolizumab does not seem to increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies in biologic-naive patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), despite concerns that the gut-selective monoclonal antibody treatment may increase gastrointestinal infections at a greater rate than other biologics in this patient population.

Perturbations of the gut microbiota that occur in IBD predispose patients to CDI. Given that treatment with monoclonal antibody vedolizumab exerts an inhibitory action on lymphocyte trafficking to the intestines, questions have been raised on whether this action could increase the risk of CDI in an already vulnerable population.

In patients with UC, the incidence of CDI typically confers a higher risk of adverse outcomes. Unfortunately, CDI is a common complication associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can lead to disease flares, further adding to the physical and psychological burden associated with the condition, according to recent studies.

These concerns, however, may not be warranted in patients with UC, according to findings from a retrospective study presented at the annual Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases conference by Rahul Dalal, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

In the study, Dr. Dalal and colleagues retrospectively analyzed electronic medical records of adult patients with UC who initiated infliximab, adalimumab, or vedolizumab between June 2014 and December 2020. Patients in this retrospective cohort were followed until there was a documented occurrence of CDI, colectomy, or biologic discontinuation/switch, or until the last recorded gastroenterology encounter.

The researchers analyzed the time from biologic initiation to first CDI, which was characterized by a positive stool for C. difficile toxin or toxigenic C. difficile polymerase chain reaction with CDI-specific antibiotic prescriptions. Additionally, the investigators evaluated rates of CDI-related hospitalization, colectomy, or death within a 30-day period of CDI. The primary analysis compared patients with UC who initiated vedolizumab (n = 195) versus anti-TNF therapy (n = 610).

Compared with those treated with anti-TNF agents, patients who initiated vedolizumab were older and less frequently received systemic corticosteroids or had UC-related hospitalization within 12 months prior to starting biologics.

Over 1,436 patient-years’ worth of follow-up, the investigators observed 43 CDIs. Patients treated with vedolizumab less frequently had CDI (1.0% vs. 6.7%; P =.001) and CDI hospitalization (1.0% vs. 3.8%; P =.042), compared with those treated with anti-TNF therapies. The investigators reported no significant differences in the rates of colectomies or deaths or rates of exposure to antibiotics/corticosteroids during the follow-up period or within 30 days prior to CDI onset.

In the unadjusted Cox model, the researchers reported that vedolizumab featured a lower hazard of CDI, compared with anti-TNF (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.71). The multivariable Cox model found no significant difference in hazard of CDI for vedolizumab when compared with anti-TNF therapy (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.05-2.03) or immunomodulator exposure (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41-2.40). The incidence of CDI prior to biologic initiation was associated with an increased hazard of subsequent CDI (HR, 5.95; 95% CI, 2.93-12.09). In the subgroup of patients who experienced a CDI, approximately 39.5% had CDI before biologic initiation at a median of 227 days preceding the subsequent event.

“Vedolizumab is one of the safest biologics that we have in the clinic,” said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Colombel, who wasn’t involved in the study, is a gastroenterologist and serves as director of the Feinstein IBD Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and professor of medicine (division of gastroenterology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York. “Findings from this study reinforce the safety profile of vedolizumab” despite the potential concerns regarding gastroenterological infection with the agent, he added.
 

Recurrence worries

Recurrent CDI is an issue in patients with IBD, many of whom are considered at high risk for initial and recurrent infection. During a session on CDI and recurrence at the AIBD meeting, Sahil Khanna, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, explained that there are three different treatment guidelines to manage initial CDI in patients with IBD.

Predominantly, these guidelines also suggest human monoclonal antibody bezlotoxumab could be used for prevention of CDI recurrence in patients at high risk of recurrence, including those who had experienced severe CDI. “One can argue that anyone with IBD who has C. difficile can be a severe CDI patient because of the bad outcomes we can see,” he explained.

“We do know that IBD is a state of chronic microbial dysbiosis compared to our patients without IBD who get C. difficile because of antibiotic exposure, and that’s why these patients have a high risk of recurrence, compared with non-IBD patients,” said Dr. Khanna. He noted that the bezlotoxumab studies showed numerically lower CDI recurrence rates compared with other treatments in patients with IBD who were initially treated with the monoclonal antibody, but this difference was not statistically significant. “But again, this agent has been shown to be safe in this patient population.”

Dr. Dalal reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Colombel has consulted for Takeda, which markets Entyvio for UC. Dr. Khanna has research grants from Rebiotix, as well as consulting fees from Shire Plc, Premier, Facile Therapeutics, and ProbioTech.

Help your patients understand their C. difficile diagnosis by sharing patient education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/Cdiff .

Vedolizumab does not seem to increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies in biologic-naive patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), despite concerns that the gut-selective monoclonal antibody treatment may increase gastrointestinal infections at a greater rate than other biologics in this patient population.

Perturbations of the gut microbiota that occur in IBD predispose patients to CDI. Given that treatment with monoclonal antibody vedolizumab exerts an inhibitory action on lymphocyte trafficking to the intestines, questions have been raised on whether this action could increase the risk of CDI in an already vulnerable population.

In patients with UC, the incidence of CDI typically confers a higher risk of adverse outcomes. Unfortunately, CDI is a common complication associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can lead to disease flares, further adding to the physical and psychological burden associated with the condition, according to recent studies.

These concerns, however, may not be warranted in patients with UC, according to findings from a retrospective study presented at the annual Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases conference by Rahul Dalal, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

In the study, Dr. Dalal and colleagues retrospectively analyzed electronic medical records of adult patients with UC who initiated infliximab, adalimumab, or vedolizumab between June 2014 and December 2020. Patients in this retrospective cohort were followed until there was a documented occurrence of CDI, colectomy, or biologic discontinuation/switch, or until the last recorded gastroenterology encounter.

The researchers analyzed the time from biologic initiation to first CDI, which was characterized by a positive stool for C. difficile toxin or toxigenic C. difficile polymerase chain reaction with CDI-specific antibiotic prescriptions. Additionally, the investigators evaluated rates of CDI-related hospitalization, colectomy, or death within a 30-day period of CDI. The primary analysis compared patients with UC who initiated vedolizumab (n = 195) versus anti-TNF therapy (n = 610).

Compared with those treated with anti-TNF agents, patients who initiated vedolizumab were older and less frequently received systemic corticosteroids or had UC-related hospitalization within 12 months prior to starting biologics.

Over 1,436 patient-years’ worth of follow-up, the investigators observed 43 CDIs. Patients treated with vedolizumab less frequently had CDI (1.0% vs. 6.7%; P =.001) and CDI hospitalization (1.0% vs. 3.8%; P =.042), compared with those treated with anti-TNF therapies. The investigators reported no significant differences in the rates of colectomies or deaths or rates of exposure to antibiotics/corticosteroids during the follow-up period or within 30 days prior to CDI onset.

In the unadjusted Cox model, the researchers reported that vedolizumab featured a lower hazard of CDI, compared with anti-TNF (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.71). The multivariable Cox model found no significant difference in hazard of CDI for vedolizumab when compared with anti-TNF therapy (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.05-2.03) or immunomodulator exposure (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41-2.40). The incidence of CDI prior to biologic initiation was associated with an increased hazard of subsequent CDI (HR, 5.95; 95% CI, 2.93-12.09). In the subgroup of patients who experienced a CDI, approximately 39.5% had CDI before biologic initiation at a median of 227 days preceding the subsequent event.

“Vedolizumab is one of the safest biologics that we have in the clinic,” said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Colombel, who wasn’t involved in the study, is a gastroenterologist and serves as director of the Feinstein IBD Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and professor of medicine (division of gastroenterology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York. “Findings from this study reinforce the safety profile of vedolizumab” despite the potential concerns regarding gastroenterological infection with the agent, he added.
 

Recurrence worries

Recurrent CDI is also an issue in patients with IBD, many of whom are considered at high risk for initial and recurrent infection. During a session on CDI and recurrence at the AIBD meeting, Sahil Khanna, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, explained that there are three different treatment guidelines to manage initial CDI in patients with IBD.

Predominantly, these guidelines also suggest human monoclonal antibody bezlotoxumab could be used for prevention of CDI recurrence in patients at high risk of recurrence, including those who had experienced severe CDI. “One can argue that anyone with IBD who has C. difficile can be a severe CDI patient because of the bad outcomes we can see,” he explained.

“We do know that IBD is a state of chronic microbial dysbiosis compared to our patients without IBD who get C. difficile because of antibiotic exposure, and that’s why these patients have a high risk of recurrence, compared with non-IBD patients,” said Dr. Khanna. He noted that the bezlotoxumab studies showed numerically lower CDI recurrence rates compared with other treatments in patients with IBD who were initially treated with the monoclonal antibody, but this difference was not statistically significant. “But again, this agent has been shown to be safe in this patient population.”

Dr. Dalal reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Colombel has consulted for Takeda, which markets Entyvio for UC. Dr. Khanna has research grants from Rebiotix, as well as consulting fees from Shire Plc, Premier, Facile Therapeutics, and ProbioTech.

This article was updated on Jan. 3, 2022.

Vedolizumab does not seem to increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies in biologic-naive patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), despite concerns that the gut-selective monoclonal antibody treatment may increase gastrointestinal infections at a greater rate than other biologics in this patient population.

Perturbations of the gut microbiota that occur in IBD predispose patients to CDI. Given that treatment with monoclonal antibody vedolizumab exerts an inhibitory action on lymphocyte trafficking to the intestines, questions have been raised on whether this action could increase the risk of CDI in an already vulnerable population.

In patients with UC, the incidence of CDI typically confers a higher risk of adverse outcomes. Unfortunately, CDI is a common complication associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can lead to disease flares, further adding to the physical and psychological burden associated with the condition, according to recent studies.

These concerns, however, may not be warranted in patients with UC, according to findings from a retrospective study presented at the annual Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases conference by Rahul Dalal, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

In the study, Dr. Dalal and colleagues retrospectively analyzed electronic medical records of adult patients with UC who initiated infliximab, adalimumab, or vedolizumab between June 2014 and December 2020. Patients in this retrospective cohort were followed until there was a documented occurrence of CDI, colectomy, or biologic discontinuation/switch, or until the last recorded gastroenterology encounter.

The researchers analyzed the time from biologic initiation to first CDI, which was characterized by a positive stool for C. difficile toxin or toxigenic C. difficile polymerase chain reaction with CDI-specific antibiotic prescriptions. Additionally, the investigators evaluated rates of CDI-related hospitalization, colectomy, or death within a 30-day period of CDI. The primary analysis compared patients with UC who initiated vedolizumab (n = 195) versus anti-TNF therapy (n = 610).

Compared with those treated with anti-TNF agents, patients who initiated vedolizumab were older and less frequently received systemic corticosteroids or had UC-related hospitalization within 12 months prior to starting biologics.

Over 1,436 patient-years’ worth of follow-up, the investigators observed 43 CDIs. Patients treated with vedolizumab less frequently had CDI (1.0% vs. 6.7%; P =.001) and CDI hospitalization (1.0% vs. 3.8%; P =.042), compared with those treated with anti-TNF therapies. The investigators reported no significant differences in the rates of colectomies or deaths or rates of exposure to antibiotics/corticosteroids during the follow-up period or within 30 days prior to CDI onset.

In the unadjusted Cox model, the researchers reported that vedolizumab featured a lower hazard of CDI, compared with anti-TNF (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.71). The multivariable Cox model found no significant difference in hazard of CDI for vedolizumab when compared with anti-TNF therapy (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.05-2.03) or immunomodulator exposure (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41-2.40). The incidence of CDI prior to biologic initiation was associated with an increased hazard of subsequent CDI (HR, 5.95; 95% CI, 2.93-12.09). In the subgroup of patients who experienced a CDI, approximately 39.5% had CDI before biologic initiation at a median of 227 days preceding the subsequent event.

“Vedolizumab is one of the safest biologics that we have in the clinic,” said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Colombel, who wasn’t involved in the study, is a gastroenterologist and serves as director of the Feinstein IBD Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and professor of medicine (division of gastroenterology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York. “Findings from this study reinforce the safety profile of vedolizumab” despite the potential concerns regarding gastroenterological infection with the agent, he added.
 

Recurrence worries

Recurrent CDI is also an issue in patients with IBD, many of whom are considered at high risk for initial and recurrent infection. During a session on CDI and recurrence at the AIBD meeting, Sahil Khanna, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, explained that there are three different treatment guidelines to manage initial CDI in patients with IBD.

Predominantly, these guidelines also suggest human monoclonal antibody bezlotoxumab could be used for prevention of CDI recurrence in patients at high risk of recurrence, including those who had experienced severe CDI. “One can argue that anyone with IBD who has C. difficile can be a severe CDI patient because of the bad outcomes we can see,” he explained.

“We do know that IBD is a state of chronic microbial dysbiosis compared to our patients without IBD who get C. difficile because of antibiotic exposure, and that’s why these patients have a high risk of recurrence, compared with non-IBD patients,” said Dr. Khanna. He noted that the bezlotoxumab studies showed numerically lower CDI recurrence rates compared with other treatments in patients with IBD who were initially treated with the monoclonal antibody, but this difference was not statistically significant. “But again, this agent has been shown to be safe in this patient population.”

Dr. Dalal reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Colombel has consulted for Takeda, which markets Entyvio for UC. Dr. Khanna has research grants from Rebiotix, as well as consulting fees from Shire Plc, Premier, Facile Therapeutics, and ProbioTech.

This article was updated on Jan. 3, 2022.

Vedolizumab does not seem to increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies in biologic-naive patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), despite concerns that the gut-selective monoclonal antibody treatment may increase gastrointestinal infections at a greater rate than other biologics in this patient population.

Perturbations of the gut microbiota that occur in IBD predispose patients to CDI. Given that treatment with monoclonal antibody vedolizumab exerts an inhibitory action on lymphocyte trafficking to the intestines, questions have been raised on whether this action could increase the risk of CDI in an already vulnerable population.

In patients with UC, the incidence of CDI typically confers a higher risk of adverse outcomes. Unfortunately, CDI is a common complication associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can lead to disease flares, further adding to the physical and psychological burden associated with the condition, according to recent studies.

These concerns, however, may not be warranted in patients with UC, according to findings from a retrospective study presented at the annual Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases conference by Rahul Dalal, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

In the study, Dr. Dalal and colleagues retrospectively analyzed electronic medical records of adult patients with UC who initiated infliximab, adalimumab, or vedolizumab between June 2014 and December 2020. Patients in this retrospective cohort were followed until there was a documented occurrence of CDI, colectomy, or biologic discontinuation/switch, or until the last recorded gastroenterology encounter.

The researchers analyzed the time from biologic initiation to first CDI, which was characterized by a positive stool for C. difficile toxin or toxigenic C. difficile polymerase chain reaction with CDI-specific antibiotic prescriptions. Additionally, the investigators evaluated rates of CDI-related hospitalization, colectomy, or death within a 30-day period of CDI. The primary analysis compared patients with UC who initiated vedolizumab (n = 195) versus anti-TNF therapy (n = 610).

Compared with those treated with anti-TNF agents, patients who initiated vedolizumab were older and less frequently received systemic corticosteroids or had UC-related hospitalization within 12 months prior to starting biologics.

Over 1,436 patient-years’ worth of follow-up, the investigators observed 43 CDIs. Patients treated with vedolizumab less frequently had CDI (1.0% vs. 6.7%; P =.001) and CDI hospitalization (1.0% vs. 3.8%; P =.042), compared with those treated with anti-TNF therapies. The investigators reported no significant differences in the rates of colectomies or deaths or rates of exposure to antibiotics/corticosteroids during the follow-up period or within 30 days prior to CDI onset.

In the unadjusted Cox model, the researchers reported that vedolizumab featured a lower hazard of CDI, compared with anti-TNF (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.71). The multivariable Cox model found no significant difference in hazard of CDI for vedolizumab when compared with anti-TNF therapy (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.05-2.03) or immunomodulator exposure (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41-2.40). The incidence of CDI prior to biologic initiation was associated with an increased hazard of subsequent CDI (HR, 5.95; 95% CI, 2.93-12.09). In the subgroup of patients who experienced a CDI, approximately 39.5% had CDI before biologic initiation at a median of 227 days preceding the subsequent event.

“Vedolizumab is one of the safest biologics that we have in the clinic,” said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Colombel, who wasn’t involved in the study, is a gastroenterologist and serves as director of the Feinstein IBD Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and professor of medicine (division of gastroenterology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York. “Findings from this study reinforce the safety profile of vedolizumab” despite the potential concerns regarding gastroenterological infection with the agent, he added.
 

Recurrence worries

Recurrent CDI is also an issue in patients with IBD, many of whom are considered at high risk for initial and recurrent infection. During a session on CDI and recurrence at the AIBD meeting, Sahil Khanna, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, explained that there are three different treatment guidelines to manage initial CDI in patients with IBD.

Predominantly, these guidelines also suggest human monoclonal antibody bezlotoxumab could be used for prevention of CDI recurrence in patients at high risk of recurrence, including those who had experienced severe CDI. “One can argue that anyone with IBD who has C. difficile can be a severe CDI patient because of the bad outcomes we can see,” he explained.

“We do know that IBD is a state of chronic microbial dysbiosis compared to our patients without IBD who get C. difficile because of antibiotic exposure, and that’s why these patients have a high risk of recurrence, compared with non-IBD patients,” said Dr. Khanna. He noted that the bezlotoxumab studies showed numerically lower CDI recurrence rates compared with other treatments in patients with IBD who were initially treated with the monoclonal antibody, but this difference was not statistically significant. “But again, this agent has been shown to be safe in this patient population.”

Dr. Dalal reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Colombel has consulted for Takeda, which markets Entyvio for UC. Dr. Khanna has research grants from Rebiotix, as well as consulting fees from Shire Plc, Premier, Facile Therapeutics, and ProbioTech.

This article was updated on Jan. 3, 2022.

Real-world practice data show that less than 10% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) receive early treatment with monoclonal antibody vedolizumab, despite better outcomes with earlier initiation. That said, earlier initiation of vedolizumab appears to be more common in younger patients and women, according to the study findings.

Previous research supports the early use of biologics in the management of IBD, given findings that show earlier treatment is associated with increased likelihood of response and remission compared with delayed management. In actual clinical practice, biologic agents are often delayed, potentially contributing to suboptimal outcomes and increased risks of IBD-associated adverse effects.

In a real-world study presented during the 2021 Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (AIBD) meeting by Maja Kuharic, a PhD candidate at the University of Illinois at Chicago, researchers assessed administrative datasets to gauge the timing of vedolizumab utilization in adult patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC).

Data from the 2017 to 2019 MarketScan commercial and Medicare claims databases were examined in the study. Patients with continuous enrollment in the same health plan for 12 months or longer both before and after their initial IBD diagnosis were included. Additionally, the analysis included patients with 1 or more vedolizumab claim following the index IBD diagnosis.

A total of five treatment pathways were predefined for the study. First, early vedolizumab use was defined as treatment with the monoclonal antibody therapy within 30 days of the first IBD diagnostic claim. A “delayed vedolizumab 1” initiation group was defined as initial treatment with immunomodulators followed by switching to vedolizumab. Additionally, “delayed vedolizumab 2” was defined by initial utilization of corticosteroids with immunomodulators prior to vedolizumab initiation. “Delayed vedolizumab 3” was characterized by the initial use of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) with corticosteroids before vedolizumab. Finally, “delayed vedolizumab 4” was defined by the use of 5-ASA with corticosteroids and immunomodulators before vedolizumab.

The real-world cohort study included 1,342 patients with UC (median age, 43 years; 51.0% male) and 964 patients with CD (median age, 45 years; 43.6% male) who received vedolizumab. Early vedolizumab initiation was observed in 6.6% of patients with UC and 9.6% of patients with CD. In the UC population, the proportions of patients classified in the delayed vedolizumab 1, 2, 3, and 4 groups were 7.5%, 14.8%, 37.6%, and 33.4%, respectively. Among the CD group, the proportions of patients in each delayed vedolizumab arms were 19.0%, 36.8%, 19.0%, and 15.6%, respectively.

In the UC cohort, patients who experienced early vedolizumab initiation had a median younger age than those in the delayed groups (40 vs. 44 years, respectively). Additionally, the proportion of men was lower in the early vedolizumab cohort (46.1% vs. 51.4%). Similar findings were observed in the CD group: those who initiated vedolizumab earlier had a lower median age (43 vs. 45 years) and were less frequently men (39.8%% vs. 43.9%).

Across both treatment indications, there were no clinically meaningful differences between treatment groups in terms of geographic location, payer type (that is, commercial vs. Medicare), or year of diagnosis.

According to Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, a limitation of the findings is the lack of explanation as to why early initiation of vedolizumab is higher in younger patients and women. “Rather, it just reflects clinical practice in the real world with no justification,” said Dr. Colombel, a gastroenterologist and director of the Feinstein IBD Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and professor of medicine (division of gastroenterology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“[The findings] may look surprising since the drug, because of its safety, could be considered first-line in elderly fragile patients with higher risk of infection,” added Dr. Colombel. He noted that what is missing from the study is the longitudinal assessment of early treatment in terms of disease modification. In particular, he asked, what needs to be further explored is the “long-term impact of early vedolizumab initiation on the risk of surgery and complications.”

During another session at the AIBD 2021 meeting on the positioning of therapies in IBD, Anita Afzali, MD, of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Hilliard, Ohio, noted that for newly diagnosed patients, early initiation of vedolizumab may be most appropriate for patients with unfavorable pharmacokinetics. For instance, Dr. Afzali said, vedolizumab or ustekinumab could be the biologics of choice for an older woman with ileocolonic CD and the HLA-DQA1*04 genotype in whom clinicians would want to avoid an immunomodulator.

“When you look at different factors, whether you’re discussing the drug itself or the patient, there’s different considerations” for selecting a therapy in IBD, explained Dr. Afzali. These considerations, she stated, include those related to drug efficacy and safety as well as disease and individual characteristics such as age, comorbidities, preferences, and costs.

Ms. Kuharic is a PhD candidate and is also a Health Economics and Outcomes Research Fellow at Takeda. Dr. Colombel has consulted for Takeda, which markets vedolizumab for CD and UC. Dr. Afzali has reported relationships with several pharmaceutical companies, including BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, IBD Horizons, AbbVie, Takeda, and Janssen.

Real-world practice data show that less than 10% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) receive early treatment with monoclonal antibody vedolizumab, despite better outcomes with earlier initiation. That said, earlier initiation of vedolizumab appears to be more common in younger patients and women, according to the study findings.

Previous research supports the early use of biologics in the management of IBD, given findings that show earlier treatment is associated with increased likelihood of response and remission compared with delayed management. In actual clinical practice, biologic agents are often delayed, potentially contributing to suboptimal outcomes and increased risks of IBD-associated adverse effects.

In a real-world study presented during the 2021 Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (AIBD) meeting by Maja Kuharic, a PhD candidate at the University of Illinois at Chicago, researchers assessed administrative datasets to gauge the timing of vedolizumab utilization in adult patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC).

Data from the 2017 to 2019 MarketScan commercial and Medicare claims databases were examined in the study. Patients with continuous enrollment in the same health plan for 12 months or longer both before and after their initial IBD diagnosis were included. Additionally, the analysis included patients with 1 or more vedolizumab claim following the index IBD diagnosis.

A total of five treatment pathways were predefined for the study. First, early vedolizumab use was defined as treatment with the monoclonal antibody therapy within 30 days of the first IBD diagnostic claim. A “delayed vedolizumab 1” initiation group was defined as initial treatment with immunomodulators followed by switching to vedolizumab. Additionally, “delayed vedolizumab 2” was defined by initial utilization of corticosteroids with immunomodulators prior to vedolizumab initiation. “Delayed vedolizumab 3” was characterized by the initial use of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) with corticosteroids before vedolizumab. Finally, “delayed vedolizumab 4” was defined by the use of 5-ASA with corticosteroids and immunomodulators before vedolizumab.

The real-world cohort study included 1,342 patients with UC (median age, 43 years; 51.0% male) and 964 patients with CD (median age, 45 years; 43.6% male) who received vedolizumab. Early vedolizumab initiation was observed in 6.6% of patients with UC and 9.6% of patients with CD. In the UC population, the proportions of patients classified in the delayed vedolizumab 1, 2, 3, and 4 groups were 7.5%, 14.8%, 37.6%, and 33.4%, respectively. Among the CD group, the proportions of patients in each delayed vedolizumab arms were 19.0%, 36.8%, 19.0%, and 15.6%, respectively.

In the UC cohort, patients who experienced early vedolizumab initiation had a median younger age than those in the delayed groups (40 vs. 44 years, respectively). Additionally, the proportion of men was lower in the early vedolizumab cohort (46.1% vs. 51.4%). Similar findings were observed in the CD group: those who initiated vedolizumab earlier had a lower median age (43 vs. 45 years) and were less frequently men (39.8%% vs. 43.9%).

Across both treatment indications, there were no clinically meaningful differences between treatment groups in terms of geographic location, payer type (that is, commercial vs. Medicare), or year of diagnosis.

According to Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, a limitation of the findings is the lack of explanation as to why early initiation of vedolizumab is higher in younger patients and women. “Rather, it just reflects clinical practice in the real world with no justification,” said Dr. Colombel, a gastroenterologist and director of the Feinstein IBD Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and professor of medicine (division of gastroenterology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“[The findings] may look surprising since the drug, because of its safety, could be considered first-line in elderly fragile patients with higher risk of infection,” added Dr. Colombel. He noted that what is missing from the study is the longitudinal assessment of early treatment in terms of disease modification. In particular, he asked, what needs to be further explored is the “long-term impact of early vedolizumab initiation on the risk of surgery and complications.”

During another session at the AIBD 2021 meeting on the positioning of therapies in IBD, Anita Afzali, MD, of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Hilliard, Ohio, noted that for newly diagnosed patients, early initiation of vedolizumab may be most appropriate for patients with unfavorable pharmacokinetics. For instance, Dr. Afzali said, vedolizumab or ustekinumab could be the biologics of choice for an older woman with ileocolonic CD and the HLA-DQA1*04 genotype in whom clinicians would want to avoid an immunomodulator.

“When you look at different factors, whether you’re discussing the drug itself or the patient, there’s different considerations” for selecting a therapy in IBD, explained Dr. Afzali. These considerations, she stated, include those related to drug efficacy and safety as well as disease and individual characteristics such as age, comorbidities, preferences, and costs.

Ms. Kuharic is a PhD candidate and is also a Health Economics and Outcomes Research Fellow at Takeda. Dr. Colombel has consulted for Takeda, which markets vedolizumab for CD and UC. Dr. Afzali has reported relationships with several pharmaceutical companies, including BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, IBD Horizons, AbbVie, Takeda, and Janssen.

Real-world practice data show that less than 10% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) receive early treatment with monoclonal antibody vedolizumab, despite better outcomes with earlier initiation. That said, earlier initiation of vedolizumab appears to be more common in younger patients and women, according to the study findings.

Previous research supports the early use of biologics in the management of IBD, given findings that show earlier treatment is associated with increased likelihood of response and remission compared with delayed management. In actual clinical practice, biologic agents are often delayed, potentially contributing to suboptimal outcomes and increased risks of IBD-associated adverse effects.

In a real-world study presented during the 2021 Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (AIBD) meeting by Maja Kuharic, a PhD candidate at the University of Illinois at Chicago, researchers assessed administrative datasets to gauge the timing of vedolizumab utilization in adult patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC).

Data from the 2017 to 2019 MarketScan commercial and Medicare claims databases were examined in the study. Patients with continuous enrollment in the same health plan for 12 months or longer both before and after their initial IBD diagnosis were included. Additionally, the analysis included patients with 1 or more vedolizumab claim following the index IBD diagnosis.

A total of five treatment pathways were predefined for the study. First, early vedolizumab use was defined as treatment with the monoclonal antibody therapy within 30 days of the first IBD diagnostic claim. A “delayed vedolizumab 1” initiation group was defined as initial treatment with immunomodulators followed by switching to vedolizumab. Additionally, “delayed vedolizumab 2” was defined by initial utilization of corticosteroids with immunomodulators prior to vedolizumab initiation. “Delayed vedolizumab 3” was characterized by the initial use of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) with corticosteroids before vedolizumab. Finally, “delayed vedolizumab 4” was defined by the use of 5-ASA with corticosteroids and immunomodulators before vedolizumab.

The real-world cohort study included 1,342 patients with UC (median age, 43 years; 51.0% male) and 964 patients with CD (median age, 45 years; 43.6% male) who received vedolizumab. Early vedolizumab initiation was observed in 6.6% of patients with UC and 9.6% of patients with CD. In the UC population, the proportions of patients classified in the delayed vedolizumab 1, 2, 3, and 4 groups were 7.5%, 14.8%, 37.6%, and 33.4%, respectively. Among the CD group, the proportions of patients in each delayed vedolizumab arms were 19.0%, 36.8%, 19.0%, and 15.6%, respectively.

In the UC cohort, patients who experienced early vedolizumab initiation had a median younger age than those in the delayed groups (40 vs. 44 years, respectively). Additionally, the proportion of men was lower in the early vedolizumab cohort (46.1% vs. 51.4%). Similar findings were observed in the CD group: those who initiated vedolizumab earlier had a lower median age (43 vs. 45 years) and were less frequently men (39.8%% vs. 43.9%).

Across both treatment indications, there were no clinically meaningful differences between treatment groups in terms of geographic location, payer type (that is, commercial vs. Medicare), or year of diagnosis.

According to Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, a limitation of the findings is the lack of explanation as to why early initiation of vedolizumab is higher in younger patients and women. “Rather, it just reflects clinical practice in the real world with no justification,” said Dr. Colombel, a gastroenterologist and director of the Feinstein IBD Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and professor of medicine (division of gastroenterology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“[The findings] may look surprising since the drug, because of its safety, could be considered first-line in elderly fragile patients with higher risk of infection,” added Dr. Colombel. He noted that what is missing from the study is the longitudinal assessment of early treatment in terms of disease modification. In particular, he asked, what needs to be further explored is the “long-term impact of early vedolizumab initiation on the risk of surgery and complications.”

During another session at the AIBD 2021 meeting on the positioning of therapies in IBD, Anita Afzali, MD, of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Hilliard, Ohio, noted that for newly diagnosed patients, early initiation of vedolizumab may be most appropriate for patients with unfavorable pharmacokinetics. For instance, Dr. Afzali said, vedolizumab or ustekinumab could be the biologics of choice for an older woman with ileocolonic CD and the HLA-DQA1*04 genotype in whom clinicians would want to avoid an immunomodulator.

“When you look at different factors, whether you’re discussing the drug itself or the patient, there’s different considerations” for selecting a therapy in IBD, explained Dr. Afzali. These considerations, she stated, include those related to drug efficacy and safety as well as disease and individual characteristics such as age, comorbidities, preferences, and costs.

Ms. Kuharic is a PhD candidate and is also a Health Economics and Outcomes Research Fellow at Takeda. Dr. Colombel has consulted for Takeda, which markets vedolizumab for CD and UC. Dr. Afzali has reported relationships with several pharmaceutical companies, including BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, IBD Horizons, AbbVie, Takeda, and Janssen.