User login
VARSITY: Better histologic outcomes with vedolizumab than adalimumab in UC
In patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC), treatment with vedolizumab leads to better histologic outcomes than treatment with adalimumab, according to findings from the VARSITY trial.
The findings come from an analysis in Gastroenterology of prespecified histologic exploratory endpoints from the phase 3, multicenter, randomized, controlled VARSITY trial, which was the first head-to-head comparison of two biologics in the treatment of UC. VARSITY demonstrated improved rates of clinical remission and endoscopic improvement at week 52 with vedolizumab.
The authors, led by Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet of the department of gastroenterology at Nancy (France) University Hospital, noted that there is general consensus that endoscopic improvement is considered the best endpoint for demonstrating effective maintenance therapy in UC. However, they added that “endoscopic changes do not necessarily reflect quiescent microscopic disease, and complete resolution of mucosal inflammation can only be confirmed by histologic assessment.” Still, histologic outcomes are not currently recommended as a goal of therapy in clinical practice, possibly due to a lack of standardized and validated scoring systems suitable for routine clinical use. Nevertheless, histologic outcomes have been shown to predict hospitalization, corticosteroid use, exacerbation, and the risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia.
To assess histologic outcomes in the two treatment regimens, the researchers included the Geboes Index score and the Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI) as two validated scoring systems.
During the 52-week study, 769 patients were assigned to vedolizumab (300 mg IV) or adalimumab (40 mg subcutaneously).
At week 14 and week 52, more patients in the vedolizumab group achieved histologic remission as determined by Geboes Index score less than 2 (week 52, 29.2% vs. 8.3%; difference, 20.9%; 95% confidence interval, 15.6%-26.2%; P < .0001) and RHI score of 2 or less (week 52, 37.6% vs. 19.9%; difference, 17.6%; 95% CI, 11.3%-23.8%; P < .0001).
At week 52, more patients in the vedolizumab group than in the adalimumab group achieved minimum histologic disease activity as determined by Geboes Index score of 3.1 or less (45.7% vs. 30.8%; difference, 14.8%; 95% CI, 8.0%-21.5%; P < .0001) and RHI score of 4 or less(42.3% vs. 25.6%; difference, 16.6%; 95% CI, 10.0%-23.1%; P < .0001).
The investigators performed post hoc analyses of mucosal healing, defined as a composite of the histologic and endoscopic outcomes, with the latter defined as Mayo endoscopic subscore of 1 or less. A greater proportion of patients treated with vedolizumab than with adalimumab met the composite of histologic remission on each score plus endoscopic improvement (Geboes, 35.0% vs. 20.2%; RHI, 33.7% vs. 18.1%), with similar findings for minimal histologic disease activity plus endoscopic improvement (Geboes, 35.0% vs. 20.2%; RHI, 33.7% vs. 18.1%).
The authors noted that the RHI scoring system revealed greater associations between histologic outcomes and endoscopic improvement than did the Geboes Index score, which is an important finding considering the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation’s stance recommending consideration of mucosal healing based on findings from endoscopy and histology.
Some study limitations included how the study design precluded dose escalation and a lack of long-term follow-up among these patients.
The researchers believe that the RHI score may be a better choice than the Geboes score for comparing efficacy in clinical trials because RHI is more reproducible, more sensitive to change, and is comparatively easy to interpret.
The study was funded by Takeda, which makes vedolizumab. The authors disclosed several relationships with industry, including some having stock options with or being employed by Takeda.
Another important element of this study was the exploration of association between endoscopic and histologic outcomes using two validated histologic indices (the Geboes Index score and the Robarts Histopathology Index). While both indices showed moderate agreement overall between histologic activity and endoscopic improvement, the Robarts score correlated better with endoscopic improvement. Therefore, the authors propose that the Robarts scoring system may be the better index for assessing histologic outcomes. This is important because standardized scoring systems would be needed to translate histologic outcomes as a goal in real clinical practice.
The landscape continues to evolve for treatment goals in UC. Symptom control is the tip of the iceberg and endoscopic along with histologic control may lead to a more durable remission.
Robin Dalal, MD, is an assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. She has nothing to disclose.
Another important element of this study was the exploration of association between endoscopic and histologic outcomes using two validated histologic indices (the Geboes Index score and the Robarts Histopathology Index). While both indices showed moderate agreement overall between histologic activity and endoscopic improvement, the Robarts score correlated better with endoscopic improvement. Therefore, the authors propose that the Robarts scoring system may be the better index for assessing histologic outcomes. This is important because standardized scoring systems would be needed to translate histologic outcomes as a goal in real clinical practice.
The landscape continues to evolve for treatment goals in UC. Symptom control is the tip of the iceberg and endoscopic along with histologic control may lead to a more durable remission.
Robin Dalal, MD, is an assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. She has nothing to disclose.
Another important element of this study was the exploration of association between endoscopic and histologic outcomes using two validated histologic indices (the Geboes Index score and the Robarts Histopathology Index). While both indices showed moderate agreement overall between histologic activity and endoscopic improvement, the Robarts score correlated better with endoscopic improvement. Therefore, the authors propose that the Robarts scoring system may be the better index for assessing histologic outcomes. This is important because standardized scoring systems would be needed to translate histologic outcomes as a goal in real clinical practice.
The landscape continues to evolve for treatment goals in UC. Symptom control is the tip of the iceberg and endoscopic along with histologic control may lead to a more durable remission.
Robin Dalal, MD, is an assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. She has nothing to disclose.
In patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC), treatment with vedolizumab leads to better histologic outcomes than treatment with adalimumab, according to findings from the VARSITY trial.
The findings come from an analysis in Gastroenterology of prespecified histologic exploratory endpoints from the phase 3, multicenter, randomized, controlled VARSITY trial, which was the first head-to-head comparison of two biologics in the treatment of UC. VARSITY demonstrated improved rates of clinical remission and endoscopic improvement at week 52 with vedolizumab.
The authors, led by Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet of the department of gastroenterology at Nancy (France) University Hospital, noted that there is general consensus that endoscopic improvement is considered the best endpoint for demonstrating effective maintenance therapy in UC. However, they added that “endoscopic changes do not necessarily reflect quiescent microscopic disease, and complete resolution of mucosal inflammation can only be confirmed by histologic assessment.” Still, histologic outcomes are not currently recommended as a goal of therapy in clinical practice, possibly due to a lack of standardized and validated scoring systems suitable for routine clinical use. Nevertheless, histologic outcomes have been shown to predict hospitalization, corticosteroid use, exacerbation, and the risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia.
To assess histologic outcomes in the two treatment regimens, the researchers included the Geboes Index score and the Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI) as two validated scoring systems.
During the 52-week study, 769 patients were assigned to vedolizumab (300 mg IV) or adalimumab (40 mg subcutaneously).
At week 14 and week 52, more patients in the vedolizumab group achieved histologic remission as determined by Geboes Index score less than 2 (week 52, 29.2% vs. 8.3%; difference, 20.9%; 95% confidence interval, 15.6%-26.2%; P < .0001) and RHI score of 2 or less (week 52, 37.6% vs. 19.9%; difference, 17.6%; 95% CI, 11.3%-23.8%; P < .0001).
At week 52, more patients in the vedolizumab group than in the adalimumab group achieved minimum histologic disease activity as determined by Geboes Index score of 3.1 or less (45.7% vs. 30.8%; difference, 14.8%; 95% CI, 8.0%-21.5%; P < .0001) and RHI score of 4 or less(42.3% vs. 25.6%; difference, 16.6%; 95% CI, 10.0%-23.1%; P < .0001).
The investigators performed post hoc analyses of mucosal healing, defined as a composite of the histologic and endoscopic outcomes, with the latter defined as Mayo endoscopic subscore of 1 or less. A greater proportion of patients treated with vedolizumab than with adalimumab met the composite of histologic remission on each score plus endoscopic improvement (Geboes, 35.0% vs. 20.2%; RHI, 33.7% vs. 18.1%), with similar findings for minimal histologic disease activity plus endoscopic improvement (Geboes, 35.0% vs. 20.2%; RHI, 33.7% vs. 18.1%).
The authors noted that the RHI scoring system revealed greater associations between histologic outcomes and endoscopic improvement than did the Geboes Index score, which is an important finding considering the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation’s stance recommending consideration of mucosal healing based on findings from endoscopy and histology.
Some study limitations included how the study design precluded dose escalation and a lack of long-term follow-up among these patients.
The researchers believe that the RHI score may be a better choice than the Geboes score for comparing efficacy in clinical trials because RHI is more reproducible, more sensitive to change, and is comparatively easy to interpret.
The study was funded by Takeda, which makes vedolizumab. The authors disclosed several relationships with industry, including some having stock options with or being employed by Takeda.
In patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC), treatment with vedolizumab leads to better histologic outcomes than treatment with adalimumab, according to findings from the VARSITY trial.
The findings come from an analysis in Gastroenterology of prespecified histologic exploratory endpoints from the phase 3, multicenter, randomized, controlled VARSITY trial, which was the first head-to-head comparison of two biologics in the treatment of UC. VARSITY demonstrated improved rates of clinical remission and endoscopic improvement at week 52 with vedolizumab.
The authors, led by Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet of the department of gastroenterology at Nancy (France) University Hospital, noted that there is general consensus that endoscopic improvement is considered the best endpoint for demonstrating effective maintenance therapy in UC. However, they added that “endoscopic changes do not necessarily reflect quiescent microscopic disease, and complete resolution of mucosal inflammation can only be confirmed by histologic assessment.” Still, histologic outcomes are not currently recommended as a goal of therapy in clinical practice, possibly due to a lack of standardized and validated scoring systems suitable for routine clinical use. Nevertheless, histologic outcomes have been shown to predict hospitalization, corticosteroid use, exacerbation, and the risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia.
To assess histologic outcomes in the two treatment regimens, the researchers included the Geboes Index score and the Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI) as two validated scoring systems.
During the 52-week study, 769 patients were assigned to vedolizumab (300 mg IV) or adalimumab (40 mg subcutaneously).
At week 14 and week 52, more patients in the vedolizumab group achieved histologic remission as determined by Geboes Index score less than 2 (week 52, 29.2% vs. 8.3%; difference, 20.9%; 95% confidence interval, 15.6%-26.2%; P < .0001) and RHI score of 2 or less (week 52, 37.6% vs. 19.9%; difference, 17.6%; 95% CI, 11.3%-23.8%; P < .0001).
At week 52, more patients in the vedolizumab group than in the adalimumab group achieved minimum histologic disease activity as determined by Geboes Index score of 3.1 or less (45.7% vs. 30.8%; difference, 14.8%; 95% CI, 8.0%-21.5%; P < .0001) and RHI score of 4 or less(42.3% vs. 25.6%; difference, 16.6%; 95% CI, 10.0%-23.1%; P < .0001).
The investigators performed post hoc analyses of mucosal healing, defined as a composite of the histologic and endoscopic outcomes, with the latter defined as Mayo endoscopic subscore of 1 or less. A greater proportion of patients treated with vedolizumab than with adalimumab met the composite of histologic remission on each score plus endoscopic improvement (Geboes, 35.0% vs. 20.2%; RHI, 33.7% vs. 18.1%), with similar findings for minimal histologic disease activity plus endoscopic improvement (Geboes, 35.0% vs. 20.2%; RHI, 33.7% vs. 18.1%).
The authors noted that the RHI scoring system revealed greater associations between histologic outcomes and endoscopic improvement than did the Geboes Index score, which is an important finding considering the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation’s stance recommending consideration of mucosal healing based on findings from endoscopy and histology.
Some study limitations included how the study design precluded dose escalation and a lack of long-term follow-up among these patients.
The researchers believe that the RHI score may be a better choice than the Geboes score for comparing efficacy in clinical trials because RHI is more reproducible, more sensitive to change, and is comparatively easy to interpret.
The study was funded by Takeda, which makes vedolizumab. The authors disclosed several relationships with industry, including some having stock options with or being employed by Takeda.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Three JAK inhibitors get boxed warnings, modified indications
The arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) poses an increased risk of serious cardiac events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death, the Food and Drug Administration announced Sept 1.
Manufacturers of this drug along with other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) must update their boxed warnings to include information about these health risks. The FDA made the determination after new study data from Pfizer, which manufacturers Xeljanz, found an association between a lower dose of Xeljanz and increased risk of blood clots and death.
“Recommendations for healthcare professionals will include consideration of the benefits and risks for the individual patient prior to initiating or continuing therapy,” the agency stated.
The FDA is limiting all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks. Tofacitinib is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA. The FDA included baricitinib and upadacitinib in the warning because of the similar properties they share with tofacitinib, even though they haven’t been studied as extensively.
“We believe this update will bring important clarity for healthcare plans on the risk/benefit profile of Xeljanz, which is a medicine informed by more clinical data than any other JAK inhibitor,” Pfizer said in a statement.
Investigators for the ORAL Surveillance trial compared two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily and 10 mg twice daily) with TNF blockers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor.
For both dose regimens of tofacitinib, they found an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies, thrombosis, and death compared with the TNF blocker regimen. In addition, rates of lung cancers and lymphomas were higher with tofacitinib. In trial data released earlier this year, Pfizer revealed that the tofacitinib group had a much higher incidence of adjudicated malignancies compared with the TNF blocker group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09).
Impact on clinical practice
Physicians treating patients who have rheumatoid arthritis with tofacitinib may initially decrease prescriptions following the FDA’s drug safety communication, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy) – particularly those with a principal mechanism of action slightly different from that of tofacitinib, he added.
“Tofacitinib is principally a JAK 1,3 inhibitor at usual concentrations, whereas upadacitinib and baricitinib are JAK 1,2 inhibitors. Thus, I speculate that the tofacitinib prescriptions will go down more than the upadacitinib and baricitinib prescriptions,” he said in an interview.
Some patients may also be worried about taking tofacitinib, particularly those with previous events or predisposing conditions, Dr. Furst noted.
“First and foremost, I think we need to actually look at the data in a publication rather than just an FDA statement before making huge changes in our practice,” he advised.
“I am looking forward to the data finally being published ... It’s interesting that the full data still isn’t really out there beyond the press releases and an abstract. I think there’s a lot more to learn about how these drugs work and who is really at risk for harmful events,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Pfizer’s data also may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.
“I think many rheumatologists have already taken this information in, and begun to incorporate it into their discussions with their patients” since it has been over a year since the first public release of information about the ORAL Surveillance trial, said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “I don’t know that it will affect the approvals, but it will impact their labels.”
Wariness to prescribing tofacitinib may be lower for patients younger than those in the ORAL Surveillance trial without additional cardiovascular risk factors who are taking tofacitinib for non-RA indications, said gastroenterologist Miguel Regueiro, MD.
“The JAK inhibitor warning by the FDA is an important consideration for any prescriber or patient. The risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism with this class of medicine appears higher in older rheumatoid arthritis patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. While the warning applies to all JAK inhibitors and likely the newer selective JAK inhibitors to come, we need to weigh the risk and benefit based on the indication for prescribing,” said Dr. Regueiro, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute and of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.
“I do think that there will be a heightened awareness and wariness for older RA patients and for the prescribers. However, for inflammatory bowel disease (and other non-RA indications), it does not appear that the risk for cardiovascular disease and VTE are significantly increased. To that end, in my own practice, I still use tofacitinib for ulcerative colitis and will do the same for the selective JAK inhibitors to come for IBD. Of course, as with any medication, we need to have discussions with our patients, alert them to potential side effects and have an open line of communication for any questions or concerns.”
Gastroenterologist Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought that while patients with RA have many other treatment options besides JAK inhibitors, fewer options available to patients with IBD “may motivate the use of oral [sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator] agents such as ozanimod, although IBD patients are younger and [have fewer] MACE risk factors than RA patients, so absolute risk is very small in the ulcerative colitis population.”
Pfizer’s data may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.
The agency’s decision corroborates an earlier 2019 warning about the increased risk of blood clots and of death in patients with ulcerative colitis taking 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily.
The FDA said that two other JAK inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib (Inrebic), are not indicated for the treatment of arthritis and other inflammatory conditions, and so are not a part of the updates being required.
Baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib are currently under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD); a topical formulation of the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is under review for treating AD. Reviews for all 4 have been extended. In September 2020, baricitinib was approved for treating moderate to severe AD in Europe, at a dose of 4 mg once a day, with recommendations that the dose can be reduced to 2 mg once a day when the disease is under control, and that the dose may need to be reduced in patients with impaired kidney function, those with an increased risk of infections, and those older than aged 75 years.
In an interview, Jacob Thyssen, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said that in the EU, there has been “extensive education” about cardiovascular risks with baricitinib “and it is my impression that payers and dermatologists in Europe are confident that it is safe to use in AD.” In addition, there has been an emphasis on the differences in cardiovascular risk factors between RA and AD patients, “given that the latter group is generally young and lean.” In the United States, he added, it will be interesting to see which doses of the JAK inhibitors will be approved for AD.
Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.
*This story was updated 9/3/21 and 9/6/2021.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) poses an increased risk of serious cardiac events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death, the Food and Drug Administration announced Sept 1.
Manufacturers of this drug along with other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) must update their boxed warnings to include information about these health risks. The FDA made the determination after new study data from Pfizer, which manufacturers Xeljanz, found an association between a lower dose of Xeljanz and increased risk of blood clots and death.
“Recommendations for healthcare professionals will include consideration of the benefits and risks for the individual patient prior to initiating or continuing therapy,” the agency stated.
The FDA is limiting all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks. Tofacitinib is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA. The FDA included baricitinib and upadacitinib in the warning because of the similar properties they share with tofacitinib, even though they haven’t been studied as extensively.
“We believe this update will bring important clarity for healthcare plans on the risk/benefit profile of Xeljanz, which is a medicine informed by more clinical data than any other JAK inhibitor,” Pfizer said in a statement.
Investigators for the ORAL Surveillance trial compared two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily and 10 mg twice daily) with TNF blockers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor.
For both dose regimens of tofacitinib, they found an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies, thrombosis, and death compared with the TNF blocker regimen. In addition, rates of lung cancers and lymphomas were higher with tofacitinib. In trial data released earlier this year, Pfizer revealed that the tofacitinib group had a much higher incidence of adjudicated malignancies compared with the TNF blocker group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09).
Impact on clinical practice
Physicians treating patients who have rheumatoid arthritis with tofacitinib may initially decrease prescriptions following the FDA’s drug safety communication, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy) – particularly those with a principal mechanism of action slightly different from that of tofacitinib, he added.
“Tofacitinib is principally a JAK 1,3 inhibitor at usual concentrations, whereas upadacitinib and baricitinib are JAK 1,2 inhibitors. Thus, I speculate that the tofacitinib prescriptions will go down more than the upadacitinib and baricitinib prescriptions,” he said in an interview.
Some patients may also be worried about taking tofacitinib, particularly those with previous events or predisposing conditions, Dr. Furst noted.
“First and foremost, I think we need to actually look at the data in a publication rather than just an FDA statement before making huge changes in our practice,” he advised.
“I am looking forward to the data finally being published ... It’s interesting that the full data still isn’t really out there beyond the press releases and an abstract. I think there’s a lot more to learn about how these drugs work and who is really at risk for harmful events,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Pfizer’s data also may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.
“I think many rheumatologists have already taken this information in, and begun to incorporate it into their discussions with their patients” since it has been over a year since the first public release of information about the ORAL Surveillance trial, said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “I don’t know that it will affect the approvals, but it will impact their labels.”
Wariness to prescribing tofacitinib may be lower for patients younger than those in the ORAL Surveillance trial without additional cardiovascular risk factors who are taking tofacitinib for non-RA indications, said gastroenterologist Miguel Regueiro, MD.
“The JAK inhibitor warning by the FDA is an important consideration for any prescriber or patient. The risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism with this class of medicine appears higher in older rheumatoid arthritis patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. While the warning applies to all JAK inhibitors and likely the newer selective JAK inhibitors to come, we need to weigh the risk and benefit based on the indication for prescribing,” said Dr. Regueiro, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute and of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.
“I do think that there will be a heightened awareness and wariness for older RA patients and for the prescribers. However, for inflammatory bowel disease (and other non-RA indications), it does not appear that the risk for cardiovascular disease and VTE are significantly increased. To that end, in my own practice, I still use tofacitinib for ulcerative colitis and will do the same for the selective JAK inhibitors to come for IBD. Of course, as with any medication, we need to have discussions with our patients, alert them to potential side effects and have an open line of communication for any questions or concerns.”
Gastroenterologist Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought that while patients with RA have many other treatment options besides JAK inhibitors, fewer options available to patients with IBD “may motivate the use of oral [sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator] agents such as ozanimod, although IBD patients are younger and [have fewer] MACE risk factors than RA patients, so absolute risk is very small in the ulcerative colitis population.”
Pfizer’s data may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.
The agency’s decision corroborates an earlier 2019 warning about the increased risk of blood clots and of death in patients with ulcerative colitis taking 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily.
The FDA said that two other JAK inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib (Inrebic), are not indicated for the treatment of arthritis and other inflammatory conditions, and so are not a part of the updates being required.
Baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib are currently under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD); a topical formulation of the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is under review for treating AD. Reviews for all 4 have been extended. In September 2020, baricitinib was approved for treating moderate to severe AD in Europe, at a dose of 4 mg once a day, with recommendations that the dose can be reduced to 2 mg once a day when the disease is under control, and that the dose may need to be reduced in patients with impaired kidney function, those with an increased risk of infections, and those older than aged 75 years.
In an interview, Jacob Thyssen, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said that in the EU, there has been “extensive education” about cardiovascular risks with baricitinib “and it is my impression that payers and dermatologists in Europe are confident that it is safe to use in AD.” In addition, there has been an emphasis on the differences in cardiovascular risk factors between RA and AD patients, “given that the latter group is generally young and lean.” In the United States, he added, it will be interesting to see which doses of the JAK inhibitors will be approved for AD.
Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.
*This story was updated 9/3/21 and 9/6/2021.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) poses an increased risk of serious cardiac events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death, the Food and Drug Administration announced Sept 1.
Manufacturers of this drug along with other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) must update their boxed warnings to include information about these health risks. The FDA made the determination after new study data from Pfizer, which manufacturers Xeljanz, found an association between a lower dose of Xeljanz and increased risk of blood clots and death.
“Recommendations for healthcare professionals will include consideration of the benefits and risks for the individual patient prior to initiating or continuing therapy,” the agency stated.
The FDA is limiting all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks. Tofacitinib is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA. The FDA included baricitinib and upadacitinib in the warning because of the similar properties they share with tofacitinib, even though they haven’t been studied as extensively.
“We believe this update will bring important clarity for healthcare plans on the risk/benefit profile of Xeljanz, which is a medicine informed by more clinical data than any other JAK inhibitor,” Pfizer said in a statement.
Investigators for the ORAL Surveillance trial compared two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily and 10 mg twice daily) with TNF blockers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor.
For both dose regimens of tofacitinib, they found an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies, thrombosis, and death compared with the TNF blocker regimen. In addition, rates of lung cancers and lymphomas were higher with tofacitinib. In trial data released earlier this year, Pfizer revealed that the tofacitinib group had a much higher incidence of adjudicated malignancies compared with the TNF blocker group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09).
Impact on clinical practice
Physicians treating patients who have rheumatoid arthritis with tofacitinib may initially decrease prescriptions following the FDA’s drug safety communication, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy) – particularly those with a principal mechanism of action slightly different from that of tofacitinib, he added.
“Tofacitinib is principally a JAK 1,3 inhibitor at usual concentrations, whereas upadacitinib and baricitinib are JAK 1,2 inhibitors. Thus, I speculate that the tofacitinib prescriptions will go down more than the upadacitinib and baricitinib prescriptions,” he said in an interview.
Some patients may also be worried about taking tofacitinib, particularly those with previous events or predisposing conditions, Dr. Furst noted.
“First and foremost, I think we need to actually look at the data in a publication rather than just an FDA statement before making huge changes in our practice,” he advised.
“I am looking forward to the data finally being published ... It’s interesting that the full data still isn’t really out there beyond the press releases and an abstract. I think there’s a lot more to learn about how these drugs work and who is really at risk for harmful events,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Pfizer’s data also may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.
“I think many rheumatologists have already taken this information in, and begun to incorporate it into their discussions with their patients” since it has been over a year since the first public release of information about the ORAL Surveillance trial, said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “I don’t know that it will affect the approvals, but it will impact their labels.”
Wariness to prescribing tofacitinib may be lower for patients younger than those in the ORAL Surveillance trial without additional cardiovascular risk factors who are taking tofacitinib for non-RA indications, said gastroenterologist Miguel Regueiro, MD.
“The JAK inhibitor warning by the FDA is an important consideration for any prescriber or patient. The risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism with this class of medicine appears higher in older rheumatoid arthritis patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. While the warning applies to all JAK inhibitors and likely the newer selective JAK inhibitors to come, we need to weigh the risk and benefit based on the indication for prescribing,” said Dr. Regueiro, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute and of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.
“I do think that there will be a heightened awareness and wariness for older RA patients and for the prescribers. However, for inflammatory bowel disease (and other non-RA indications), it does not appear that the risk for cardiovascular disease and VTE are significantly increased. To that end, in my own practice, I still use tofacitinib for ulcerative colitis and will do the same for the selective JAK inhibitors to come for IBD. Of course, as with any medication, we need to have discussions with our patients, alert them to potential side effects and have an open line of communication for any questions or concerns.”
Gastroenterologist Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought that while patients with RA have many other treatment options besides JAK inhibitors, fewer options available to patients with IBD “may motivate the use of oral [sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator] agents such as ozanimod, although IBD patients are younger and [have fewer] MACE risk factors than RA patients, so absolute risk is very small in the ulcerative colitis population.”
Pfizer’s data may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.
The agency’s decision corroborates an earlier 2019 warning about the increased risk of blood clots and of death in patients with ulcerative colitis taking 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily.
The FDA said that two other JAK inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib (Inrebic), are not indicated for the treatment of arthritis and other inflammatory conditions, and so are not a part of the updates being required.
Baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib are currently under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD); a topical formulation of the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is under review for treating AD. Reviews for all 4 have been extended. In September 2020, baricitinib was approved for treating moderate to severe AD in Europe, at a dose of 4 mg once a day, with recommendations that the dose can be reduced to 2 mg once a day when the disease is under control, and that the dose may need to be reduced in patients with impaired kidney function, those with an increased risk of infections, and those older than aged 75 years.
In an interview, Jacob Thyssen, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said that in the EU, there has been “extensive education” about cardiovascular risks with baricitinib “and it is my impression that payers and dermatologists in Europe are confident that it is safe to use in AD.” In addition, there has been an emphasis on the differences in cardiovascular risk factors between RA and AD patients, “given that the latter group is generally young and lean.” In the United States, he added, it will be interesting to see which doses of the JAK inhibitors will be approved for AD.
Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.
*This story was updated 9/3/21 and 9/6/2021.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19: New GI symptoms don’t raise death risk in IBD
Death from COVID-19 was not more likely among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who had COVID-19 who developed new GI symptoms after becoming infected, according to international registry data from nearly 3,000 adults.
Although GI symptoms may arise in the general population of COVID-19 patients, data on the association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 in patients with IBD are limited, as are data on the association of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes in this population, Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.
In a study published in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, the researchers identified 2,917 adults with IBD who developed COVID-19 using the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a global registry created to understand COVID-19 outcomes in IBD patients.
The researchers recorded all new GI symptoms experienced by the patients while they were infected with COVID-19. Overall, 764 (26.2%) experienced new GI symptoms and 2,153 did not. The most common symptom was diarrhea, reported by 80% of the patients, followed by abdominal pain in 34%. Nausea and vomiting were reported by 24% and 12%, respectively, of all patients.
The average age of the patients was 43 years for those with no new GI symptoms and 40 for those without new GI symptoms; overall, approximately half were women and approximately three-quarters were White. Overall, 50% of those with new GI symptoms were in remission, as was the case for 58.4% of those without.
IBD patients who developed new GI symptoms were significantly more likely to be women, of Asian race, older, or have at least one comorbidity.
The researchers found no difference in new GI symptoms in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. “Patients on any medication – but in particular [tumor necrosis factor] antagonist monotherapy – were less likely to report new GI symptoms.” they wrote.
Although IBD patients with new GI symptoms were significantly more likely than were those without new GI symptoms to be hospitalized for COVID-19 in bivariate analyses (31.4% vs. 19.2%; P < .001), they were not more likely to need a ventilator or intensive care (5.8% vs. 4.6%; P < .18). In a multivariate analysis, IBD patients with new GI symptoms had no greater risk of death from COVID-19 than did those without new GI symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.36).
The new-onset GI symptoms common to IBD patients with COVID-19 are not likely caused by underlying disease activity, given the number of patients in remission who reported new GI symptoms, the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, potential reporting bias, and reliance on physician global assessment for disease assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, by the ability to assess GI symptoms before and after COVID-19, and by the evaluation of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes.
“In summary, new GI symptoms are common in IBD patients with COVID-19 and are not associated with an increased risk of death due to COVID-19,” the researchers concluded. “Our findings suggest that an increase in GI symptoms in IBD patients should prompt consideration of a COVID-19 diagnosis.”
Data to guide clinical care
“There are several potential causes for common GI symptoms, such as diarrhea and abdominal pain, among patients with IBD,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “These can be the initial presentation of an IBD flare, a noninflammatory cause such as irritable bowel syndrome, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, or an infection such as Clostridioides difficile or SARS-CoV-2. Each of these diagnoses require different treatments. An IBD flare may require escalation of immunosuppressive medications such as biologics or corticosteroids, which can cause harm in the context of an untreated infection. Therefore, any guidance that will increase health care providers’ awareness of the possible causes of similar GI symptoms is important in caring for our patients with IBD. This is especially true in context of a newer entity such as COVID-19 with which we are overall less familiar.”
Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg said the lack of association between GI symptoms and death in IBD is reassuring. “It is interesting to note that GI symptoms, and particularly new diarrhea, were very common among patients with IBD and COVID-19,” she added.
“Every study has its limitations, which need to be considered in interpreting findings,” Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg noted . “SECURE-IBD has provided great insight into COVID-19 infections among patients with IBD. However, the registry relies on individuals reporting cases, so there is the potential for underreporting, particularly with less symptomatic or subclinical cases.”
“Health care providers who treat patients with IBD should have a high-index of suspicion for SARS-CoV-2 infections when patients with IBD present with GI symptoms,” said Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg. “The data from the current study may help us to consider standard testing to rule out COVID-19 as an alternative diagnosis when considering whether to treat patients with IBD who develop new GI symptoms for an IBD flare. This would be similar to how we currently test for C. difficile and other enteric infections before treating IBD flares.
“This approach – considering the possibility of COVID-19 in the context of new GI symptoms – is consistent with the AGA’s published guidelines and best practices,” said David Leiman, MD, MSHP, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Chair of the AGA’s Quality Committee. “Clinicians should also be aware of the possibility for variation in implementation of this approach, with some patients potentially at risk for disparate testing practices.” As outlined by the AGA’s Quality Committee, tracking adherence to this clinical approach through ongoing quality improvement may limit the development of such gaps in care.
The study was supported in part by the Helmsley Charitable Trust with additional funding provided by Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, and Arenapharm. Lead author Dr. Ungaro disclosed serving as an advisory board member or consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda and research support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed similar relationships with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg and Dr. Leiman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Death from COVID-19 was not more likely among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who had COVID-19 who developed new GI symptoms after becoming infected, according to international registry data from nearly 3,000 adults.
Although GI symptoms may arise in the general population of COVID-19 patients, data on the association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 in patients with IBD are limited, as are data on the association of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes in this population, Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.
In a study published in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, the researchers identified 2,917 adults with IBD who developed COVID-19 using the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a global registry created to understand COVID-19 outcomes in IBD patients.
The researchers recorded all new GI symptoms experienced by the patients while they were infected with COVID-19. Overall, 764 (26.2%) experienced new GI symptoms and 2,153 did not. The most common symptom was diarrhea, reported by 80% of the patients, followed by abdominal pain in 34%. Nausea and vomiting were reported by 24% and 12%, respectively, of all patients.
The average age of the patients was 43 years for those with no new GI symptoms and 40 for those without new GI symptoms; overall, approximately half were women and approximately three-quarters were White. Overall, 50% of those with new GI symptoms were in remission, as was the case for 58.4% of those without.
IBD patients who developed new GI symptoms were significantly more likely to be women, of Asian race, older, or have at least one comorbidity.
The researchers found no difference in new GI symptoms in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. “Patients on any medication – but in particular [tumor necrosis factor] antagonist monotherapy – were less likely to report new GI symptoms.” they wrote.
Although IBD patients with new GI symptoms were significantly more likely than were those without new GI symptoms to be hospitalized for COVID-19 in bivariate analyses (31.4% vs. 19.2%; P < .001), they were not more likely to need a ventilator or intensive care (5.8% vs. 4.6%; P < .18). In a multivariate analysis, IBD patients with new GI symptoms had no greater risk of death from COVID-19 than did those without new GI symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.36).
The new-onset GI symptoms common to IBD patients with COVID-19 are not likely caused by underlying disease activity, given the number of patients in remission who reported new GI symptoms, the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, potential reporting bias, and reliance on physician global assessment for disease assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, by the ability to assess GI symptoms before and after COVID-19, and by the evaluation of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes.
“In summary, new GI symptoms are common in IBD patients with COVID-19 and are not associated with an increased risk of death due to COVID-19,” the researchers concluded. “Our findings suggest that an increase in GI symptoms in IBD patients should prompt consideration of a COVID-19 diagnosis.”
Data to guide clinical care
“There are several potential causes for common GI symptoms, such as diarrhea and abdominal pain, among patients with IBD,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “These can be the initial presentation of an IBD flare, a noninflammatory cause such as irritable bowel syndrome, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, or an infection such as Clostridioides difficile or SARS-CoV-2. Each of these diagnoses require different treatments. An IBD flare may require escalation of immunosuppressive medications such as biologics or corticosteroids, which can cause harm in the context of an untreated infection. Therefore, any guidance that will increase health care providers’ awareness of the possible causes of similar GI symptoms is important in caring for our patients with IBD. This is especially true in context of a newer entity such as COVID-19 with which we are overall less familiar.”
Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg said the lack of association between GI symptoms and death in IBD is reassuring. “It is interesting to note that GI symptoms, and particularly new diarrhea, were very common among patients with IBD and COVID-19,” she added.
“Every study has its limitations, which need to be considered in interpreting findings,” Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg noted . “SECURE-IBD has provided great insight into COVID-19 infections among patients with IBD. However, the registry relies on individuals reporting cases, so there is the potential for underreporting, particularly with less symptomatic or subclinical cases.”
“Health care providers who treat patients with IBD should have a high-index of suspicion for SARS-CoV-2 infections when patients with IBD present with GI symptoms,” said Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg. “The data from the current study may help us to consider standard testing to rule out COVID-19 as an alternative diagnosis when considering whether to treat patients with IBD who develop new GI symptoms for an IBD flare. This would be similar to how we currently test for C. difficile and other enteric infections before treating IBD flares.
“This approach – considering the possibility of COVID-19 in the context of new GI symptoms – is consistent with the AGA’s published guidelines and best practices,” said David Leiman, MD, MSHP, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Chair of the AGA’s Quality Committee. “Clinicians should also be aware of the possibility for variation in implementation of this approach, with some patients potentially at risk for disparate testing practices.” As outlined by the AGA’s Quality Committee, tracking adherence to this clinical approach through ongoing quality improvement may limit the development of such gaps in care.
The study was supported in part by the Helmsley Charitable Trust with additional funding provided by Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, and Arenapharm. Lead author Dr. Ungaro disclosed serving as an advisory board member or consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda and research support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed similar relationships with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg and Dr. Leiman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Death from COVID-19 was not more likely among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who had COVID-19 who developed new GI symptoms after becoming infected, according to international registry data from nearly 3,000 adults.
Although GI symptoms may arise in the general population of COVID-19 patients, data on the association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 in patients with IBD are limited, as are data on the association of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes in this population, Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.
In a study published in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, the researchers identified 2,917 adults with IBD who developed COVID-19 using the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a global registry created to understand COVID-19 outcomes in IBD patients.
The researchers recorded all new GI symptoms experienced by the patients while they were infected with COVID-19. Overall, 764 (26.2%) experienced new GI symptoms and 2,153 did not. The most common symptom was diarrhea, reported by 80% of the patients, followed by abdominal pain in 34%. Nausea and vomiting were reported by 24% and 12%, respectively, of all patients.
The average age of the patients was 43 years for those with no new GI symptoms and 40 for those without new GI symptoms; overall, approximately half were women and approximately three-quarters were White. Overall, 50% of those with new GI symptoms were in remission, as was the case for 58.4% of those without.
IBD patients who developed new GI symptoms were significantly more likely to be women, of Asian race, older, or have at least one comorbidity.
The researchers found no difference in new GI symptoms in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. “Patients on any medication – but in particular [tumor necrosis factor] antagonist monotherapy – were less likely to report new GI symptoms.” they wrote.
Although IBD patients with new GI symptoms were significantly more likely than were those without new GI symptoms to be hospitalized for COVID-19 in bivariate analyses (31.4% vs. 19.2%; P < .001), they were not more likely to need a ventilator or intensive care (5.8% vs. 4.6%; P < .18). In a multivariate analysis, IBD patients with new GI symptoms had no greater risk of death from COVID-19 than did those without new GI symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.36).
The new-onset GI symptoms common to IBD patients with COVID-19 are not likely caused by underlying disease activity, given the number of patients in remission who reported new GI symptoms, the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, potential reporting bias, and reliance on physician global assessment for disease assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, by the ability to assess GI symptoms before and after COVID-19, and by the evaluation of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes.
“In summary, new GI symptoms are common in IBD patients with COVID-19 and are not associated with an increased risk of death due to COVID-19,” the researchers concluded. “Our findings suggest that an increase in GI symptoms in IBD patients should prompt consideration of a COVID-19 diagnosis.”
Data to guide clinical care
“There are several potential causes for common GI symptoms, such as diarrhea and abdominal pain, among patients with IBD,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “These can be the initial presentation of an IBD flare, a noninflammatory cause such as irritable bowel syndrome, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, or an infection such as Clostridioides difficile or SARS-CoV-2. Each of these diagnoses require different treatments. An IBD flare may require escalation of immunosuppressive medications such as biologics or corticosteroids, which can cause harm in the context of an untreated infection. Therefore, any guidance that will increase health care providers’ awareness of the possible causes of similar GI symptoms is important in caring for our patients with IBD. This is especially true in context of a newer entity such as COVID-19 with which we are overall less familiar.”
Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg said the lack of association between GI symptoms and death in IBD is reassuring. “It is interesting to note that GI symptoms, and particularly new diarrhea, were very common among patients with IBD and COVID-19,” she added.
“Every study has its limitations, which need to be considered in interpreting findings,” Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg noted . “SECURE-IBD has provided great insight into COVID-19 infections among patients with IBD. However, the registry relies on individuals reporting cases, so there is the potential for underreporting, particularly with less symptomatic or subclinical cases.”
“Health care providers who treat patients with IBD should have a high-index of suspicion for SARS-CoV-2 infections when patients with IBD present with GI symptoms,” said Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg. “The data from the current study may help us to consider standard testing to rule out COVID-19 as an alternative diagnosis when considering whether to treat patients with IBD who develop new GI symptoms for an IBD flare. This would be similar to how we currently test for C. difficile and other enteric infections before treating IBD flares.
“This approach – considering the possibility of COVID-19 in the context of new GI symptoms – is consistent with the AGA’s published guidelines and best practices,” said David Leiman, MD, MSHP, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Chair of the AGA’s Quality Committee. “Clinicians should also be aware of the possibility for variation in implementation of this approach, with some patients potentially at risk for disparate testing practices.” As outlined by the AGA’s Quality Committee, tracking adherence to this clinical approach through ongoing quality improvement may limit the development of such gaps in care.
The study was supported in part by the Helmsley Charitable Trust with additional funding provided by Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, and Arenapharm. Lead author Dr. Ungaro disclosed serving as an advisory board member or consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda and research support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed similar relationships with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg and Dr. Leiman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES
Should IBD biologics be offered in combination or as monotherapy?
Adding or switching biologics is a common practice in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but there is a dearth of clinical data on whether patients should receive their first or second biologic as monotherapy or combined with immunomodulatory therapies. It’s a clinical conundrum made more difficult by the increasing number of biologics and drugs available to treat IBD, and the fact that some first-line biologics may fail because of immune responses.
The authors of a new review by Roni Aoun, MD, published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology sought to provide some much-needed advice on these issues, surveying the literature that does exist in order to offer evidence-based recommendations for how and when biologics should be used.
A confusing array of therapeutic choices
The review arrives at a moment when IBD treatments have hit a therapeutic plateau, producing remission rates of only around 30%-35%, despite new treatments and mechanisms of action. “That’s just not where we want to be [so] there’s a lot of interest in how we can make our therapies better,” said David Rubin, MD, a professor of medicine and the codirector of the Digestive Diseases Center at the University of Chicago, and the chair of the scientific advisory committee for the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.
Dr. Rubin, who did not participate in authoring the review, added that the field also faces questions of what patients should receive after their first has either failed to work entirely or the initial response has waned.
“Understanding sequencing is important,” he said. “The best way to assess that right now has been through claims data, which are notoriously missing important information like [disease activity].”
The landmark SONIC and SUCCESS studies concluded that combining antibodies with immunomodulatory drugs was the best approach, but times have changed since these results were published. One recent study showed that the patient’s HLA subtype can be associated with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) immune responses.
“We now know that you can be much more specific and precise about this. You can predict the likelihood someone’s going to have antidrug antibodies against an anti-TNF [agent],” said Dr. Rubin.
Factors that go into the decision of whether or not to prescribe an immunomodulator include the class of biologic, whether it is a first or second biologic, the presence or absence of antidrug antibodies, patient preference, and any comorbid conditions.
Anti-TNF agents often lose efficacy, with one study finding an average 41% loss of response to certolizumab, 33% to infliximab, and 30% to adalimumab. Another problem is posed by the intrinsic risk of immunogenicity with biologics, with rates reported to be as high as 65.3% for infliximab and 38% for adalimumab.
Immunogenicity to one anti-TNF agent often predicts immunogenicity to other anti-TNF biologics. Some data suggest that, in patients who produced antibodies to an initial anti-TNF agent, combination therapy can provide benefit with a second anti-TNF biologic. However, there are some scenarios that call for monotherapy, such as when a patient can’t take immunomodulators or when over-suppression could be risky. According to Dr. Aoun and colleagues, limited data and lessons from clinical practice suggest that monotherapy anti-TNF biologics with proactive therapeutic drug monitoring is a reasonable approach in these cases. Monitoring may also reduce the risk of immunogenicity.
What the authors recommended
For those reasons, if the first biologic is an anti-TNF agent, the authors recommend an immunomodulator combined with anti-TNF agents for induction or maintenance treatment of either ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease. If immunogenicity is present after a loss of response, they recommend a second anti-TNF agent with an immunomodulator. If there is no immunogenicity and the failure is mechanistic, they recommend switching to vedolizumab monotherapy or ustekinumab monotherapy. Immunomodulators can be prescribed on an individualized basis.
When vedolizumab or ustekinumab are the patient’s first biologic, they should be used as monotherapy. Both have very low rates of immunogenicity, and an immunomodulator is unlikely to confer a meaningful benefit, according to the review authors, who nonetheless called for prospective trials to explore these questions further. If there is a loss of response, they recommend anti-TNF agents combined with an immunomodulator, or monotherapy if the second agent is ustekinumab or vedolizumab.
In severe IBD cases, when combining agents with different mechanisms of action, or in patients who have immunogenicity to more than one class of biologic, the authors don’t provide general recommendations. Instead, they noted that the risks and benefits to individual patients should be weighed for combinations with immunomodulators.
The authors declare that they have nothing to disclose. Dr. Rubin has consulted for Janssen, AbbVie, and Takeda.
Help your patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.
Adding or switching biologics is a common practice in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but there is a dearth of clinical data on whether patients should receive their first or second biologic as monotherapy or combined with immunomodulatory therapies. It’s a clinical conundrum made more difficult by the increasing number of biologics and drugs available to treat IBD, and the fact that some first-line biologics may fail because of immune responses.
The authors of a new review by Roni Aoun, MD, published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology sought to provide some much-needed advice on these issues, surveying the literature that does exist in order to offer evidence-based recommendations for how and when biologics should be used.
A confusing array of therapeutic choices
The review arrives at a moment when IBD treatments have hit a therapeutic plateau, producing remission rates of only around 30%-35%, despite new treatments and mechanisms of action. “That’s just not where we want to be [so] there’s a lot of interest in how we can make our therapies better,” said David Rubin, MD, a professor of medicine and the codirector of the Digestive Diseases Center at the University of Chicago, and the chair of the scientific advisory committee for the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.
Dr. Rubin, who did not participate in authoring the review, added that the field also faces questions of what patients should receive after their first has either failed to work entirely or the initial response has waned.
“Understanding sequencing is important,” he said. “The best way to assess that right now has been through claims data, which are notoriously missing important information like [disease activity].”
The landmark SONIC and SUCCESS studies concluded that combining antibodies with immunomodulatory drugs was the best approach, but times have changed since these results were published. One recent study showed that the patient’s HLA subtype can be associated with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) immune responses.
“We now know that you can be much more specific and precise about this. You can predict the likelihood someone’s going to have antidrug antibodies against an anti-TNF [agent],” said Dr. Rubin.
Factors that go into the decision of whether or not to prescribe an immunomodulator include the class of biologic, whether it is a first or second biologic, the presence or absence of antidrug antibodies, patient preference, and any comorbid conditions.
Anti-TNF agents often lose efficacy, with one study finding an average 41% loss of response to certolizumab, 33% to infliximab, and 30% to adalimumab. Another problem is posed by the intrinsic risk of immunogenicity with biologics, with rates reported to be as high as 65.3% for infliximab and 38% for adalimumab.
Immunogenicity to one anti-TNF agent often predicts immunogenicity to other anti-TNF biologics. Some data suggest that, in patients who produced antibodies to an initial anti-TNF agent, combination therapy can provide benefit with a second anti-TNF biologic. However, there are some scenarios that call for monotherapy, such as when a patient can’t take immunomodulators or when over-suppression could be risky. According to Dr. Aoun and colleagues, limited data and lessons from clinical practice suggest that monotherapy anti-TNF biologics with proactive therapeutic drug monitoring is a reasonable approach in these cases. Monitoring may also reduce the risk of immunogenicity.
What the authors recommended
For those reasons, if the first biologic is an anti-TNF agent, the authors recommend an immunomodulator combined with anti-TNF agents for induction or maintenance treatment of either ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease. If immunogenicity is present after a loss of response, they recommend a second anti-TNF agent with an immunomodulator. If there is no immunogenicity and the failure is mechanistic, they recommend switching to vedolizumab monotherapy or ustekinumab monotherapy. Immunomodulators can be prescribed on an individualized basis.
When vedolizumab or ustekinumab are the patient’s first biologic, they should be used as monotherapy. Both have very low rates of immunogenicity, and an immunomodulator is unlikely to confer a meaningful benefit, according to the review authors, who nonetheless called for prospective trials to explore these questions further. If there is a loss of response, they recommend anti-TNF agents combined with an immunomodulator, or monotherapy if the second agent is ustekinumab or vedolizumab.
In severe IBD cases, when combining agents with different mechanisms of action, or in patients who have immunogenicity to more than one class of biologic, the authors don’t provide general recommendations. Instead, they noted that the risks and benefits to individual patients should be weighed for combinations with immunomodulators.
The authors declare that they have nothing to disclose. Dr. Rubin has consulted for Janssen, AbbVie, and Takeda.
Help your patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.
Adding or switching biologics is a common practice in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but there is a dearth of clinical data on whether patients should receive their first or second biologic as monotherapy or combined with immunomodulatory therapies. It’s a clinical conundrum made more difficult by the increasing number of biologics and drugs available to treat IBD, and the fact that some first-line biologics may fail because of immune responses.
The authors of a new review by Roni Aoun, MD, published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology sought to provide some much-needed advice on these issues, surveying the literature that does exist in order to offer evidence-based recommendations for how and when biologics should be used.
A confusing array of therapeutic choices
The review arrives at a moment when IBD treatments have hit a therapeutic plateau, producing remission rates of only around 30%-35%, despite new treatments and mechanisms of action. “That’s just not where we want to be [so] there’s a lot of interest in how we can make our therapies better,” said David Rubin, MD, a professor of medicine and the codirector of the Digestive Diseases Center at the University of Chicago, and the chair of the scientific advisory committee for the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.
Dr. Rubin, who did not participate in authoring the review, added that the field also faces questions of what patients should receive after their first has either failed to work entirely or the initial response has waned.
“Understanding sequencing is important,” he said. “The best way to assess that right now has been through claims data, which are notoriously missing important information like [disease activity].”
The landmark SONIC and SUCCESS studies concluded that combining antibodies with immunomodulatory drugs was the best approach, but times have changed since these results were published. One recent study showed that the patient’s HLA subtype can be associated with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) immune responses.
“We now know that you can be much more specific and precise about this. You can predict the likelihood someone’s going to have antidrug antibodies against an anti-TNF [agent],” said Dr. Rubin.
Factors that go into the decision of whether or not to prescribe an immunomodulator include the class of biologic, whether it is a first or second biologic, the presence or absence of antidrug antibodies, patient preference, and any comorbid conditions.
Anti-TNF agents often lose efficacy, with one study finding an average 41% loss of response to certolizumab, 33% to infliximab, and 30% to adalimumab. Another problem is posed by the intrinsic risk of immunogenicity with biologics, with rates reported to be as high as 65.3% for infliximab and 38% for adalimumab.
Immunogenicity to one anti-TNF agent often predicts immunogenicity to other anti-TNF biologics. Some data suggest that, in patients who produced antibodies to an initial anti-TNF agent, combination therapy can provide benefit with a second anti-TNF biologic. However, there are some scenarios that call for monotherapy, such as when a patient can’t take immunomodulators or when over-suppression could be risky. According to Dr. Aoun and colleagues, limited data and lessons from clinical practice suggest that monotherapy anti-TNF biologics with proactive therapeutic drug monitoring is a reasonable approach in these cases. Monitoring may also reduce the risk of immunogenicity.
What the authors recommended
For those reasons, if the first biologic is an anti-TNF agent, the authors recommend an immunomodulator combined with anti-TNF agents for induction or maintenance treatment of either ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease. If immunogenicity is present after a loss of response, they recommend a second anti-TNF agent with an immunomodulator. If there is no immunogenicity and the failure is mechanistic, they recommend switching to vedolizumab monotherapy or ustekinumab monotherapy. Immunomodulators can be prescribed on an individualized basis.
When vedolizumab or ustekinumab are the patient’s first biologic, they should be used as monotherapy. Both have very low rates of immunogenicity, and an immunomodulator is unlikely to confer a meaningful benefit, according to the review authors, who nonetheless called for prospective trials to explore these questions further. If there is a loss of response, they recommend anti-TNF agents combined with an immunomodulator, or monotherapy if the second agent is ustekinumab or vedolizumab.
In severe IBD cases, when combining agents with different mechanisms of action, or in patients who have immunogenicity to more than one class of biologic, the authors don’t provide general recommendations. Instead, they noted that the risks and benefits to individual patients should be weighed for combinations with immunomodulators.
The authors declare that they have nothing to disclose. Dr. Rubin has consulted for Janssen, AbbVie, and Takeda.
Help your patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY
Antibiotics, microbiome may affect immunogenicity in IBD
The use fluoroquinolones or macrolides reduced immunogenicity risk in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, according to data from nearly 2,000 individuals.
Anti-TNF therapy with monoclonal antibodies is an established treatment for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, but approximately 40% of patients fail to respond initially and even more fail to achieve complete remission, wrote Yuri Gorelik, MD, of Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel, and colleagues.
“Immunogenicity, which refers to the development of antidrug antibodies [ADA] is considered as the main factor driving secondary loss of response and is likely involved in primary nonresponse as well,” but data on how to predict the risk for ADA formation are limited, they said.
In a study published in Gut, the researchers identified data from 1,946 IBD patients using the epi-IIRN (epidemiology group of the Israeli IBD research nucleus), a nationwide registry of all IBD patients in Israel.
A total of 363 patients had positive ADA after a median follow-up period of 651 days after starting therapy. Overall, the risk of ADA development was significantly higher in patients on cephalosporins (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.58-2.44) or penicillin with beta-lactamase inhibitors (BLIs) (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.13-1.74) during anti-TNF therapy, and it was higher still for patients using both. By contrast, the risk was lower in patients on macrolides (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82) or fluoroquinolones (aHR, 0.20; 95% CI; 95% CI, 0.12-0.35). All P values were less than .05 when compared with nontreated groups.
In the same study, the researchers reported data on mice treated with antibiotics and challenged with infliximab to evaluate the causative effect of antibiotics and the associated disruption to the gut microbiome on the formation of ADA. After 14 days, the researchers found significantly increased ADA production in mice treated with cephalosporins, compared with those treated with macrolides, but germ-free mice produced no ADA, which supports the role of microbial composition on ADA production.
The investigators cited previous research into the microbiome as a biomarker for prediction response to anti-TNF therapy; past results have also suggested that the effect of cephalosporins and penicillin-BLIs could be explained by the particular dysbiosis induced by those agents.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and potential for selection bias, as well as the inability to adjust antibiotic exposure according to type and severity of infection, they noted. However, “this is the first large scale study that extensively evaluated the effect of different antibiotic classes on immunogenicity of anti-TNF therapy,” and the results suggest that ADA development during anti-TNF therapy may to reduced by the use of fluoroquinolones and macrolides.
“Specific microbial manipulation may serve as a tool to modify immunogenicity which is preferably turned on for protective immunizations and off for biological therapy,” they noted. “Further studies involving detailed analysis of the antibiotic effects on the human microbiome and immune milieu are needed, as well as comparative experiments with other medications used to reduce immunogenicity.”
Unexpected findings may drive future drug choices
“Development of antidrug antibodies in patients on biologics for inflammatory bowel disease is an important mechanism for loss of response to a therapeutic agent,” Kim L. Isaacs, MD, AGAF, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. “To date the causes of development of ADAs is relatively understudied. Our approach to prevent ADA includes increasing immunosuppression in patients most commonly with combination therapy with thiopurines. If factors that provoke or prevent antibody formation are elucidated, therapy can be tailored to prevent ADAs and maximize the duration of response of many of our biologic therapies.”
A prior study performed by the ABIRISK European consortium demonstrated associations with antibiotics. “In the current study, there was a differential effect of cephalosporins/penicillins (increased immunogenicity) and macrolides (decreased immunogenicity),” she said. “These studies suggest that the microbiome may be important in ADA formation to biologics – this is a concept that is novel and unexpected.
“The rationale for the choice of antibiotics in the population studied is not known, and it is possible that different infections may have led to different antibiotic choices, which in turn may have affected immunogenicity,” said Dr. Isaacs. However, clinicians might be able to tailor antibiotic choice in the future if the microbiome is playing a major role in risk for development of ADA.
“Further research is needed to further correlate microbiome changes with immunogenicity, to look at other classes of antibiotics and their role in immunogenicity, and to clarify the infections or reasons that these patients are receiving antibiotics,” Dr. Isaacs concluded.
Understanding the microbiome
Recent observations have shown associations between clinical response to anti-TNF and gut microbiota composition, noted Jatin Roper, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. “More broadly, a growing body of evidence suggests that the gut microbiota modulates the metabolism of many therapeutic agents, as well as immune responses to infections.”
That said, Dr. Roper was surprised that “clinical use of different antibiotics, often short term, had such distinct effects on ADA levels.” Furthermore, “these findings suggest that distinct microbiota or microbial metabolic products impact antibody development to common immunomodulatory therapies in opposite ways,” which is itself a surprising finding.
Such antibodies to anti-TNF therapy are common in IBD, he said, but one implication of the study is how antibiotics could be carefully used “to reduce risk of ADAs and enhance efficacy of anti-TNF therapy.”
However, because any antibiotic therapy will modify the gut microbiome and lead to unwanted effects, “further research is needed on how these agents impact the gut microbiome, with the ultimate goal of identifying specific microbiota or microbial metabolic products that can reproduce the intriguing findings of this paper.”
The study was supported in part by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Israeli Ministry of Science and Technology. Dr. Gorelik had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, CytoReason, Takeda, and Pfizer. Dr. Isaacs had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the GI&Hepatology News board of editors. Dr. Roper had no relevant disclosures.
Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.
The use fluoroquinolones or macrolides reduced immunogenicity risk in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, according to data from nearly 2,000 individuals.
Anti-TNF therapy with monoclonal antibodies is an established treatment for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, but approximately 40% of patients fail to respond initially and even more fail to achieve complete remission, wrote Yuri Gorelik, MD, of Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel, and colleagues.
“Immunogenicity, which refers to the development of antidrug antibodies [ADA] is considered as the main factor driving secondary loss of response and is likely involved in primary nonresponse as well,” but data on how to predict the risk for ADA formation are limited, they said.
In a study published in Gut, the researchers identified data from 1,946 IBD patients using the epi-IIRN (epidemiology group of the Israeli IBD research nucleus), a nationwide registry of all IBD patients in Israel.
A total of 363 patients had positive ADA after a median follow-up period of 651 days after starting therapy. Overall, the risk of ADA development was significantly higher in patients on cephalosporins (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.58-2.44) or penicillin with beta-lactamase inhibitors (BLIs) (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.13-1.74) during anti-TNF therapy, and it was higher still for patients using both. By contrast, the risk was lower in patients on macrolides (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82) or fluoroquinolones (aHR, 0.20; 95% CI; 95% CI, 0.12-0.35). All P values were less than .05 when compared with nontreated groups.
In the same study, the researchers reported data on mice treated with antibiotics and challenged with infliximab to evaluate the causative effect of antibiotics and the associated disruption to the gut microbiome on the formation of ADA. After 14 days, the researchers found significantly increased ADA production in mice treated with cephalosporins, compared with those treated with macrolides, but germ-free mice produced no ADA, which supports the role of microbial composition on ADA production.
The investigators cited previous research into the microbiome as a biomarker for prediction response to anti-TNF therapy; past results have also suggested that the effect of cephalosporins and penicillin-BLIs could be explained by the particular dysbiosis induced by those agents.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and potential for selection bias, as well as the inability to adjust antibiotic exposure according to type and severity of infection, they noted. However, “this is the first large scale study that extensively evaluated the effect of different antibiotic classes on immunogenicity of anti-TNF therapy,” and the results suggest that ADA development during anti-TNF therapy may to reduced by the use of fluoroquinolones and macrolides.
“Specific microbial manipulation may serve as a tool to modify immunogenicity which is preferably turned on for protective immunizations and off for biological therapy,” they noted. “Further studies involving detailed analysis of the antibiotic effects on the human microbiome and immune milieu are needed, as well as comparative experiments with other medications used to reduce immunogenicity.”
Unexpected findings may drive future drug choices
“Development of antidrug antibodies in patients on biologics for inflammatory bowel disease is an important mechanism for loss of response to a therapeutic agent,” Kim L. Isaacs, MD, AGAF, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. “To date the causes of development of ADAs is relatively understudied. Our approach to prevent ADA includes increasing immunosuppression in patients most commonly with combination therapy with thiopurines. If factors that provoke or prevent antibody formation are elucidated, therapy can be tailored to prevent ADAs and maximize the duration of response of many of our biologic therapies.”
A prior study performed by the ABIRISK European consortium demonstrated associations with antibiotics. “In the current study, there was a differential effect of cephalosporins/penicillins (increased immunogenicity) and macrolides (decreased immunogenicity),” she said. “These studies suggest that the microbiome may be important in ADA formation to biologics – this is a concept that is novel and unexpected.
“The rationale for the choice of antibiotics in the population studied is not known, and it is possible that different infections may have led to different antibiotic choices, which in turn may have affected immunogenicity,” said Dr. Isaacs. However, clinicians might be able to tailor antibiotic choice in the future if the microbiome is playing a major role in risk for development of ADA.
“Further research is needed to further correlate microbiome changes with immunogenicity, to look at other classes of antibiotics and their role in immunogenicity, and to clarify the infections or reasons that these patients are receiving antibiotics,” Dr. Isaacs concluded.
Understanding the microbiome
Recent observations have shown associations between clinical response to anti-TNF and gut microbiota composition, noted Jatin Roper, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. “More broadly, a growing body of evidence suggests that the gut microbiota modulates the metabolism of many therapeutic agents, as well as immune responses to infections.”
That said, Dr. Roper was surprised that “clinical use of different antibiotics, often short term, had such distinct effects on ADA levels.” Furthermore, “these findings suggest that distinct microbiota or microbial metabolic products impact antibody development to common immunomodulatory therapies in opposite ways,” which is itself a surprising finding.
Such antibodies to anti-TNF therapy are common in IBD, he said, but one implication of the study is how antibiotics could be carefully used “to reduce risk of ADAs and enhance efficacy of anti-TNF therapy.”
However, because any antibiotic therapy will modify the gut microbiome and lead to unwanted effects, “further research is needed on how these agents impact the gut microbiome, with the ultimate goal of identifying specific microbiota or microbial metabolic products that can reproduce the intriguing findings of this paper.”
The study was supported in part by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Israeli Ministry of Science and Technology. Dr. Gorelik had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, CytoReason, Takeda, and Pfizer. Dr. Isaacs had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the GI&Hepatology News board of editors. Dr. Roper had no relevant disclosures.
Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.
The use fluoroquinolones or macrolides reduced immunogenicity risk in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, according to data from nearly 2,000 individuals.
Anti-TNF therapy with monoclonal antibodies is an established treatment for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, but approximately 40% of patients fail to respond initially and even more fail to achieve complete remission, wrote Yuri Gorelik, MD, of Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel, and colleagues.
“Immunogenicity, which refers to the development of antidrug antibodies [ADA] is considered as the main factor driving secondary loss of response and is likely involved in primary nonresponse as well,” but data on how to predict the risk for ADA formation are limited, they said.
In a study published in Gut, the researchers identified data from 1,946 IBD patients using the epi-IIRN (epidemiology group of the Israeli IBD research nucleus), a nationwide registry of all IBD patients in Israel.
A total of 363 patients had positive ADA after a median follow-up period of 651 days after starting therapy. Overall, the risk of ADA development was significantly higher in patients on cephalosporins (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.58-2.44) or penicillin with beta-lactamase inhibitors (BLIs) (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.13-1.74) during anti-TNF therapy, and it was higher still for patients using both. By contrast, the risk was lower in patients on macrolides (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82) or fluoroquinolones (aHR, 0.20; 95% CI; 95% CI, 0.12-0.35). All P values were less than .05 when compared with nontreated groups.
In the same study, the researchers reported data on mice treated with antibiotics and challenged with infliximab to evaluate the causative effect of antibiotics and the associated disruption to the gut microbiome on the formation of ADA. After 14 days, the researchers found significantly increased ADA production in mice treated with cephalosporins, compared with those treated with macrolides, but germ-free mice produced no ADA, which supports the role of microbial composition on ADA production.
The investigators cited previous research into the microbiome as a biomarker for prediction response to anti-TNF therapy; past results have also suggested that the effect of cephalosporins and penicillin-BLIs could be explained by the particular dysbiosis induced by those agents.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and potential for selection bias, as well as the inability to adjust antibiotic exposure according to type and severity of infection, they noted. However, “this is the first large scale study that extensively evaluated the effect of different antibiotic classes on immunogenicity of anti-TNF therapy,” and the results suggest that ADA development during anti-TNF therapy may to reduced by the use of fluoroquinolones and macrolides.
“Specific microbial manipulation may serve as a tool to modify immunogenicity which is preferably turned on for protective immunizations and off for biological therapy,” they noted. “Further studies involving detailed analysis of the antibiotic effects on the human microbiome and immune milieu are needed, as well as comparative experiments with other medications used to reduce immunogenicity.”
Unexpected findings may drive future drug choices
“Development of antidrug antibodies in patients on biologics for inflammatory bowel disease is an important mechanism for loss of response to a therapeutic agent,” Kim L. Isaacs, MD, AGAF, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. “To date the causes of development of ADAs is relatively understudied. Our approach to prevent ADA includes increasing immunosuppression in patients most commonly with combination therapy with thiopurines. If factors that provoke or prevent antibody formation are elucidated, therapy can be tailored to prevent ADAs and maximize the duration of response of many of our biologic therapies.”
A prior study performed by the ABIRISK European consortium demonstrated associations with antibiotics. “In the current study, there was a differential effect of cephalosporins/penicillins (increased immunogenicity) and macrolides (decreased immunogenicity),” she said. “These studies suggest that the microbiome may be important in ADA formation to biologics – this is a concept that is novel and unexpected.
“The rationale for the choice of antibiotics in the population studied is not known, and it is possible that different infections may have led to different antibiotic choices, which in turn may have affected immunogenicity,” said Dr. Isaacs. However, clinicians might be able to tailor antibiotic choice in the future if the microbiome is playing a major role in risk for development of ADA.
“Further research is needed to further correlate microbiome changes with immunogenicity, to look at other classes of antibiotics and their role in immunogenicity, and to clarify the infections or reasons that these patients are receiving antibiotics,” Dr. Isaacs concluded.
Understanding the microbiome
Recent observations have shown associations between clinical response to anti-TNF and gut microbiota composition, noted Jatin Roper, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. “More broadly, a growing body of evidence suggests that the gut microbiota modulates the metabolism of many therapeutic agents, as well as immune responses to infections.”
That said, Dr. Roper was surprised that “clinical use of different antibiotics, often short term, had such distinct effects on ADA levels.” Furthermore, “these findings suggest that distinct microbiota or microbial metabolic products impact antibody development to common immunomodulatory therapies in opposite ways,” which is itself a surprising finding.
Such antibodies to anti-TNF therapy are common in IBD, he said, but one implication of the study is how antibiotics could be carefully used “to reduce risk of ADAs and enhance efficacy of anti-TNF therapy.”
However, because any antibiotic therapy will modify the gut microbiome and lead to unwanted effects, “further research is needed on how these agents impact the gut microbiome, with the ultimate goal of identifying specific microbiota or microbial metabolic products that can reproduce the intriguing findings of this paper.”
The study was supported in part by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Israeli Ministry of Science and Technology. Dr. Gorelik had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, CytoReason, Takeda, and Pfizer. Dr. Isaacs had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the GI&Hepatology News board of editors. Dr. Roper had no relevant disclosures.
Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.
FROM GUT
At-home fecal calprotectin test for IBD shows real-world efficacy
In a real-life setting, fecal calprotectin (FC) home testing performed well at predicting disease endoscopic activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) being treated with adalimumab.
The study, published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, could be a boon to patients and physicians employing the treat-to-target (T2T) strategy, which relies on disease monitoring through methods like endoscopy, histology, and serum and fecal biomarkers.
One goal of T2T is to identify patients who are asymptomatic in order to prevent or minimize flare-ups. Colonoscopy is the preferred approach for achieving this, but cost, risk, and patient reluctance limit its use. FC has gained attention in recent years, as it outperforms serum biomarkers in its correlation with clinical, endoscopic, and histological disease activity. Consecutive FC measurements predict disease relapse among asymptomatic patients with high specificity and sensitivity. There’s also evidence that it could be useful for perioperative monitoring.
FC is typically assessed in a lab, but the recent availability of smartphone-based tests has allowed patients to collect and test their stool at home. The method has been tested through clinical research, but real-world data have so far been lacking.
First real-life results
In what they described as the first real-life study of its kind, researchers offered at-home FC testing every 4 months to all 72 current IBD patients taking adalimumab at the University Hospital of Heraklion, University of Crete, Irakleio, Greece; seven patients (10%) declined to take part in at-home FC testing. Of the remaining 65, the mean age was 42.3 years, and 58% were male; 89% had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease. The mean disease duration was 13.3 years.
Abnormal FC values were confirmed with a follow-up test 1 month later, after which point a colonoscopy was scheduled to inform treatment modification. Twenty-four patients (37% of the population) had two positive tests, and 19 who were able underwent colonoscopy. Twelve patients (19%) underwent adalimumab dose intensification, 9 (14%) switched to a different biologic, and 2 (3%) had surgery.
The group of patients who required treatment modification had a significantly higher median FC concentration of 761 mcg/g (37% had values ≥ 1,000 mcg/g), compared with a median concentration of 108 mcg/g for those who did not have their dose modified (P < .0001). With a cutoff of 250 mcg/g, FC correctly identified a need for treatment with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) value of 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.96).
FC was significantly correlated to endoscopic activity (r = 0.543, P < .001), and patients with endoscopic disease had higher median FC concentrations (689 vs. 99 mcg/g; P < .001).
The researchers calculated that a cutoff value of FC levels greater than 413 mcg/g is optimal for predicting endoscopic disease, with a sensitivity of 75%, a specificity of 76%, a positive likelihood ratio of 3.12, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.33.
Diabeteslike home monitoring for IBD?
“Home monitoring of disease activity and drug levels will be a paradigm shift in management of IBD, because it will place in the patient’s hands the opportunity to assess their disease activity and to have a better understanding of what’s going on when they have symptoms or concerns about their disease control,” commented David Rubin, MD, who did not participate in the study.
He noted that patients are often unsure whether a new symptom is the beginning of another episode of IBD or something unrelated.
“One of the biggest challenges of having IBD is just the perception of loss of control of the disease and knowing when things are going to happen,” said Dr. Rubin, a professor of medicine and the codirector of the digestive diseases center at the University of Chicago, and the chair of the scientific advisory committee for the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. “I often explain to people that using a tool like this would be similar to patients with diabetes checking their blood sugar – getting a feel for what’s actually happening closer to the time that it’s happening, rather than waiting for it to progress. I really think that the general idea of home monitoring is going to be a major advance in our field.”
Although the new study proved the technique’s acceptability and efficacy, it isn’t without pitfalls, according to Dr. Rubin. False positives or negatives are a concern, and other factors might influence the results. For example, proton pump inhibitors can increase FC levels. Another concern is that some patients can become obsessed with their FC levels, and may want to test themselves at any sign of illness. They may develop unrealistic expectations about the impact of medications on their FC levels.
“That’s going to open up a whole dialogue with people, so that we all are on the same page about it. But I think that the benefits of having this far outweigh those potential risks,” said Dr. Rubin.
The authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rubin has consulted for TECHLAB.
Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.
In a real-life setting, fecal calprotectin (FC) home testing performed well at predicting disease endoscopic activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) being treated with adalimumab.
The study, published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, could be a boon to patients and physicians employing the treat-to-target (T2T) strategy, which relies on disease monitoring through methods like endoscopy, histology, and serum and fecal biomarkers.
One goal of T2T is to identify patients who are asymptomatic in order to prevent or minimize flare-ups. Colonoscopy is the preferred approach for achieving this, but cost, risk, and patient reluctance limit its use. FC has gained attention in recent years, as it outperforms serum biomarkers in its correlation with clinical, endoscopic, and histological disease activity. Consecutive FC measurements predict disease relapse among asymptomatic patients with high specificity and sensitivity. There’s also evidence that it could be useful for perioperative monitoring.
FC is typically assessed in a lab, but the recent availability of smartphone-based tests has allowed patients to collect and test their stool at home. The method has been tested through clinical research, but real-world data have so far been lacking.
First real-life results
In what they described as the first real-life study of its kind, researchers offered at-home FC testing every 4 months to all 72 current IBD patients taking adalimumab at the University Hospital of Heraklion, University of Crete, Irakleio, Greece; seven patients (10%) declined to take part in at-home FC testing. Of the remaining 65, the mean age was 42.3 years, and 58% were male; 89% had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease. The mean disease duration was 13.3 years.
Abnormal FC values were confirmed with a follow-up test 1 month later, after which point a colonoscopy was scheduled to inform treatment modification. Twenty-four patients (37% of the population) had two positive tests, and 19 who were able underwent colonoscopy. Twelve patients (19%) underwent adalimumab dose intensification, 9 (14%) switched to a different biologic, and 2 (3%) had surgery.
The group of patients who required treatment modification had a significantly higher median FC concentration of 761 mcg/g (37% had values ≥ 1,000 mcg/g), compared with a median concentration of 108 mcg/g for those who did not have their dose modified (P < .0001). With a cutoff of 250 mcg/g, FC correctly identified a need for treatment with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) value of 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.96).
FC was significantly correlated to endoscopic activity (r = 0.543, P < .001), and patients with endoscopic disease had higher median FC concentrations (689 vs. 99 mcg/g; P < .001).
The researchers calculated that a cutoff value of FC levels greater than 413 mcg/g is optimal for predicting endoscopic disease, with a sensitivity of 75%, a specificity of 76%, a positive likelihood ratio of 3.12, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.33.
Diabeteslike home monitoring for IBD?
“Home monitoring of disease activity and drug levels will be a paradigm shift in management of IBD, because it will place in the patient’s hands the opportunity to assess their disease activity and to have a better understanding of what’s going on when they have symptoms or concerns about their disease control,” commented David Rubin, MD, who did not participate in the study.
He noted that patients are often unsure whether a new symptom is the beginning of another episode of IBD or something unrelated.
“One of the biggest challenges of having IBD is just the perception of loss of control of the disease and knowing when things are going to happen,” said Dr. Rubin, a professor of medicine and the codirector of the digestive diseases center at the University of Chicago, and the chair of the scientific advisory committee for the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. “I often explain to people that using a tool like this would be similar to patients with diabetes checking their blood sugar – getting a feel for what’s actually happening closer to the time that it’s happening, rather than waiting for it to progress. I really think that the general idea of home monitoring is going to be a major advance in our field.”
Although the new study proved the technique’s acceptability and efficacy, it isn’t without pitfalls, according to Dr. Rubin. False positives or negatives are a concern, and other factors might influence the results. For example, proton pump inhibitors can increase FC levels. Another concern is that some patients can become obsessed with their FC levels, and may want to test themselves at any sign of illness. They may develop unrealistic expectations about the impact of medications on their FC levels.
“That’s going to open up a whole dialogue with people, so that we all are on the same page about it. But I think that the benefits of having this far outweigh those potential risks,” said Dr. Rubin.
The authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rubin has consulted for TECHLAB.
Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.
In a real-life setting, fecal calprotectin (FC) home testing performed well at predicting disease endoscopic activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) being treated with adalimumab.
The study, published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, could be a boon to patients and physicians employing the treat-to-target (T2T) strategy, which relies on disease monitoring through methods like endoscopy, histology, and serum and fecal biomarkers.
One goal of T2T is to identify patients who are asymptomatic in order to prevent or minimize flare-ups. Colonoscopy is the preferred approach for achieving this, but cost, risk, and patient reluctance limit its use. FC has gained attention in recent years, as it outperforms serum biomarkers in its correlation with clinical, endoscopic, and histological disease activity. Consecutive FC measurements predict disease relapse among asymptomatic patients with high specificity and sensitivity. There’s also evidence that it could be useful for perioperative monitoring.
FC is typically assessed in a lab, but the recent availability of smartphone-based tests has allowed patients to collect and test their stool at home. The method has been tested through clinical research, but real-world data have so far been lacking.
First real-life results
In what they described as the first real-life study of its kind, researchers offered at-home FC testing every 4 months to all 72 current IBD patients taking adalimumab at the University Hospital of Heraklion, University of Crete, Irakleio, Greece; seven patients (10%) declined to take part in at-home FC testing. Of the remaining 65, the mean age was 42.3 years, and 58% were male; 89% had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease. The mean disease duration was 13.3 years.
Abnormal FC values were confirmed with a follow-up test 1 month later, after which point a colonoscopy was scheduled to inform treatment modification. Twenty-four patients (37% of the population) had two positive tests, and 19 who were able underwent colonoscopy. Twelve patients (19%) underwent adalimumab dose intensification, 9 (14%) switched to a different biologic, and 2 (3%) had surgery.
The group of patients who required treatment modification had a significantly higher median FC concentration of 761 mcg/g (37% had values ≥ 1,000 mcg/g), compared with a median concentration of 108 mcg/g for those who did not have their dose modified (P < .0001). With a cutoff of 250 mcg/g, FC correctly identified a need for treatment with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) value of 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.96).
FC was significantly correlated to endoscopic activity (r = 0.543, P < .001), and patients with endoscopic disease had higher median FC concentrations (689 vs. 99 mcg/g; P < .001).
The researchers calculated that a cutoff value of FC levels greater than 413 mcg/g is optimal for predicting endoscopic disease, with a sensitivity of 75%, a specificity of 76%, a positive likelihood ratio of 3.12, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.33.
Diabeteslike home monitoring for IBD?
“Home monitoring of disease activity and drug levels will be a paradigm shift in management of IBD, because it will place in the patient’s hands the opportunity to assess their disease activity and to have a better understanding of what’s going on when they have symptoms or concerns about their disease control,” commented David Rubin, MD, who did not participate in the study.
He noted that patients are often unsure whether a new symptom is the beginning of another episode of IBD or something unrelated.
“One of the biggest challenges of having IBD is just the perception of loss of control of the disease and knowing when things are going to happen,” said Dr. Rubin, a professor of medicine and the codirector of the digestive diseases center at the University of Chicago, and the chair of the scientific advisory committee for the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. “I often explain to people that using a tool like this would be similar to patients with diabetes checking their blood sugar – getting a feel for what’s actually happening closer to the time that it’s happening, rather than waiting for it to progress. I really think that the general idea of home monitoring is going to be a major advance in our field.”
Although the new study proved the technique’s acceptability and efficacy, it isn’t without pitfalls, according to Dr. Rubin. False positives or negatives are a concern, and other factors might influence the results. For example, proton pump inhibitors can increase FC levels. Another concern is that some patients can become obsessed with their FC levels, and may want to test themselves at any sign of illness. They may develop unrealistic expectations about the impact of medications on their FC levels.
“That’s going to open up a whole dialogue with people, so that we all are on the same page about it. But I think that the benefits of having this far outweigh those potential risks,” said Dr. Rubin.
The authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rubin has consulted for TECHLAB.
Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.
FROM THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
IBD: COVID-19 vaccination still effective in immunosuppressed
In a real-world setting, full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was more than 80% effective at reducing infection in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who were taking immunosuppressive medications.
The study, which examined postvaccine infection rates in a Veterans Affairs cohort, further validates the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in a subgroup most at risk for having compromised immune systems. Furthermore, the findings “may serve to increase patient and provider willingness to pursue vaccination in these settings,” wrote study authors Nabeel Khan, MD, of the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center and Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia. The report was published in Gastroenterology. In addition, the researchers said the findings “should provide positive reinforcement to IBD patients taking immunosuppressive agents who may otherwise be reluctant to receive vaccination.”
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised regarding the possible heightened risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD and other diseases associated with immune system dysregulation. Despite these fears, patients with IBD appear to have comparable rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection to that of the general population.
Pfizer’s BNT162b2 and Moderna’s RNA-1273 vaccines are the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. These vaccines have demonstrated over 90% efficacy for preventing infection and severe disease in late-stage trials; however, few trials have examined their pooled effectiveness in immunocompromised patients and those taking immunosuppressive therapies.
To address this gap, researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study that included 14,697 patients (median age, 68 years) from the Veterans Health Administration database who had been diagnosed with IBD before the start date of the administration’s vaccination program. A total of 7,321 patients in the cohort had received at least 1 dose of either the Pfizer (45.2%) or Moderna (54.8%) vaccines.
Approximately 61.8% of patients had ulcerative colitis, while the remaining patients had Crohn’s disease. In terms of medications, vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients in the study were exposed to mesalamine alone (54.9% vs. 54.6%), thiopurines (10.8% vs. 10.5%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic monotherapy (18.8% vs. 20.9%), vedolizumab (7.2% vs. 6.0%), ustekinumab (1.0% vs. 1.1%), tofacitinib (0.7% vs. 0.8%), methotrexate (2.3% vs. 2.0%%), and/or corticosteroids (6.8% vs. 5.6%).
A total of 3,561 patients who received the Moderna vaccine and 3,017 patients who received the Pfizer vaccine received both doses. The median time between each dose was 21 days for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna.
Patients who were unvaccinated had significantly fewer comorbidities (P < .001). The majority of patients in the overall cohort were men (92.2%), a group identified as having a much greater risk of worse COVID-19–related outcomes.
Unvaccinated patients in the study had a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the fully vaccinated group (1.34% vs. 0.11%, respectively) in follow-up data reported through April 20, 2021. Over a median follow-up duration of 20 days, researchers found 14 infections with SARS-CoV-2 (0.28%) in partially vaccinated individuals. Seven infections (0.11%) were reported in fully vaccinated individuals over a median 38-day follow-up period.
Compared with unvaccinated patients, full vaccination status was associated with a 69% reduction in the hazard ratio of infection (HR, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56; P < .001). Corresponding vaccine efficacy rates were 25.1% for partial vaccination and 80.4% for full vaccination.
There were no significant interactions between vaccination status and exposure to steroids (P =.64), mesalamine versus immunosuppressive agents (P =.46), or anti-TNFs with immunomodulators or steroids versus other therapies (P =.34). In addition, no difference was found in the association between vaccination status and infection for patients who received the Moderna versus the Pfizer vaccines (P =.09).
Unvaccinated individuals had the highest raw proportions of severe infection with the novel coronavirus (0.32%) and all-cause mortality (0.66%), compared with people who were partially vaccinated or fully vaccinated. In adjusted Cox regression analyses, there was no significant association between vaccination status and severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P = .18) or all-cause mortality (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P =.11). The researchers wrote that, “future studies with larger sample size and/or longer follow-up are needed to evaluate this further.”
An important limitation of this study was the inclusion of mostly older men who were also predominantly White (80.4%). Ultimately, this population may limit the generalizability of the findings for women and patients of other races/ethnicities.
While the study received no financial support, Dr. Khan has received research grants from several pharmaceutical companies, but Dr. Mahmud disclosed no conflicts.
There is a need for evidence to clarify the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in select subpopulations like inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that were underrepresented in the vaccine clinical trials. Patients on select immune modifying therapies have historically had suboptimal immunologic responses to vaccines in the pre-COVID era, and early data from national and international IBD registries suggest that, while patients generally do mount humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, absolute postvaccination antibody titers may be blunted by specific drug mechanisms such as anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha therapies or corticosteroids. These reports, however, do not tell the whole story. Postvaccination humoral and cellular (T-cell) immunity appear to be independently mediated, and the thresholds correlating antibody titers with rates of COVID-19 infection or prevention of serious complications have yet to be determined.
Gil Y. Melmed, MD, MS, is a professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles. He reports being a consultant to AbbVie, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Shionogi, and Takeda. He is principal investigator of CORALE-IBD, a registry evaluating postvaccine outcomes in IBD after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
There is a need for evidence to clarify the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in select subpopulations like inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that were underrepresented in the vaccine clinical trials. Patients on select immune modifying therapies have historically had suboptimal immunologic responses to vaccines in the pre-COVID era, and early data from national and international IBD registries suggest that, while patients generally do mount humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, absolute postvaccination antibody titers may be blunted by specific drug mechanisms such as anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha therapies or corticosteroids. These reports, however, do not tell the whole story. Postvaccination humoral and cellular (T-cell) immunity appear to be independently mediated, and the thresholds correlating antibody titers with rates of COVID-19 infection or prevention of serious complications have yet to be determined.
Gil Y. Melmed, MD, MS, is a professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles. He reports being a consultant to AbbVie, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Shionogi, and Takeda. He is principal investigator of CORALE-IBD, a registry evaluating postvaccine outcomes in IBD after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
There is a need for evidence to clarify the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in select subpopulations like inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that were underrepresented in the vaccine clinical trials. Patients on select immune modifying therapies have historically had suboptimal immunologic responses to vaccines in the pre-COVID era, and early data from national and international IBD registries suggest that, while patients generally do mount humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, absolute postvaccination antibody titers may be blunted by specific drug mechanisms such as anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha therapies or corticosteroids. These reports, however, do not tell the whole story. Postvaccination humoral and cellular (T-cell) immunity appear to be independently mediated, and the thresholds correlating antibody titers with rates of COVID-19 infection or prevention of serious complications have yet to be determined.
Gil Y. Melmed, MD, MS, is a professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles. He reports being a consultant to AbbVie, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Shionogi, and Takeda. He is principal investigator of CORALE-IBD, a registry evaluating postvaccine outcomes in IBD after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
In a real-world setting, full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was more than 80% effective at reducing infection in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who were taking immunosuppressive medications.
The study, which examined postvaccine infection rates in a Veterans Affairs cohort, further validates the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in a subgroup most at risk for having compromised immune systems. Furthermore, the findings “may serve to increase patient and provider willingness to pursue vaccination in these settings,” wrote study authors Nabeel Khan, MD, of the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center and Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia. The report was published in Gastroenterology. In addition, the researchers said the findings “should provide positive reinforcement to IBD patients taking immunosuppressive agents who may otherwise be reluctant to receive vaccination.”
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised regarding the possible heightened risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD and other diseases associated with immune system dysregulation. Despite these fears, patients with IBD appear to have comparable rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection to that of the general population.
Pfizer’s BNT162b2 and Moderna’s RNA-1273 vaccines are the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. These vaccines have demonstrated over 90% efficacy for preventing infection and severe disease in late-stage trials; however, few trials have examined their pooled effectiveness in immunocompromised patients and those taking immunosuppressive therapies.
To address this gap, researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study that included 14,697 patients (median age, 68 years) from the Veterans Health Administration database who had been diagnosed with IBD before the start date of the administration’s vaccination program. A total of 7,321 patients in the cohort had received at least 1 dose of either the Pfizer (45.2%) or Moderna (54.8%) vaccines.
Approximately 61.8% of patients had ulcerative colitis, while the remaining patients had Crohn’s disease. In terms of medications, vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients in the study were exposed to mesalamine alone (54.9% vs. 54.6%), thiopurines (10.8% vs. 10.5%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic monotherapy (18.8% vs. 20.9%), vedolizumab (7.2% vs. 6.0%), ustekinumab (1.0% vs. 1.1%), tofacitinib (0.7% vs. 0.8%), methotrexate (2.3% vs. 2.0%%), and/or corticosteroids (6.8% vs. 5.6%).
A total of 3,561 patients who received the Moderna vaccine and 3,017 patients who received the Pfizer vaccine received both doses. The median time between each dose was 21 days for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna.
Patients who were unvaccinated had significantly fewer comorbidities (P < .001). The majority of patients in the overall cohort were men (92.2%), a group identified as having a much greater risk of worse COVID-19–related outcomes.
Unvaccinated patients in the study had a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the fully vaccinated group (1.34% vs. 0.11%, respectively) in follow-up data reported through April 20, 2021. Over a median follow-up duration of 20 days, researchers found 14 infections with SARS-CoV-2 (0.28%) in partially vaccinated individuals. Seven infections (0.11%) were reported in fully vaccinated individuals over a median 38-day follow-up period.
Compared with unvaccinated patients, full vaccination status was associated with a 69% reduction in the hazard ratio of infection (HR, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56; P < .001). Corresponding vaccine efficacy rates were 25.1% for partial vaccination and 80.4% for full vaccination.
There were no significant interactions between vaccination status and exposure to steroids (P =.64), mesalamine versus immunosuppressive agents (P =.46), or anti-TNFs with immunomodulators or steroids versus other therapies (P =.34). In addition, no difference was found in the association between vaccination status and infection for patients who received the Moderna versus the Pfizer vaccines (P =.09).
Unvaccinated individuals had the highest raw proportions of severe infection with the novel coronavirus (0.32%) and all-cause mortality (0.66%), compared with people who were partially vaccinated or fully vaccinated. In adjusted Cox regression analyses, there was no significant association between vaccination status and severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P = .18) or all-cause mortality (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P =.11). The researchers wrote that, “future studies with larger sample size and/or longer follow-up are needed to evaluate this further.”
An important limitation of this study was the inclusion of mostly older men who were also predominantly White (80.4%). Ultimately, this population may limit the generalizability of the findings for women and patients of other races/ethnicities.
While the study received no financial support, Dr. Khan has received research grants from several pharmaceutical companies, but Dr. Mahmud disclosed no conflicts.
In a real-world setting, full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was more than 80% effective at reducing infection in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who were taking immunosuppressive medications.
The study, which examined postvaccine infection rates in a Veterans Affairs cohort, further validates the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in a subgroup most at risk for having compromised immune systems. Furthermore, the findings “may serve to increase patient and provider willingness to pursue vaccination in these settings,” wrote study authors Nabeel Khan, MD, of the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center and Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia. The report was published in Gastroenterology. In addition, the researchers said the findings “should provide positive reinforcement to IBD patients taking immunosuppressive agents who may otherwise be reluctant to receive vaccination.”
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised regarding the possible heightened risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD and other diseases associated with immune system dysregulation. Despite these fears, patients with IBD appear to have comparable rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection to that of the general population.
Pfizer’s BNT162b2 and Moderna’s RNA-1273 vaccines are the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. These vaccines have demonstrated over 90% efficacy for preventing infection and severe disease in late-stage trials; however, few trials have examined their pooled effectiveness in immunocompromised patients and those taking immunosuppressive therapies.
To address this gap, researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study that included 14,697 patients (median age, 68 years) from the Veterans Health Administration database who had been diagnosed with IBD before the start date of the administration’s vaccination program. A total of 7,321 patients in the cohort had received at least 1 dose of either the Pfizer (45.2%) or Moderna (54.8%) vaccines.
Approximately 61.8% of patients had ulcerative colitis, while the remaining patients had Crohn’s disease. In terms of medications, vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients in the study were exposed to mesalamine alone (54.9% vs. 54.6%), thiopurines (10.8% vs. 10.5%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic monotherapy (18.8% vs. 20.9%), vedolizumab (7.2% vs. 6.0%), ustekinumab (1.0% vs. 1.1%), tofacitinib (0.7% vs. 0.8%), methotrexate (2.3% vs. 2.0%%), and/or corticosteroids (6.8% vs. 5.6%).
A total of 3,561 patients who received the Moderna vaccine and 3,017 patients who received the Pfizer vaccine received both doses. The median time between each dose was 21 days for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna.
Patients who were unvaccinated had significantly fewer comorbidities (P < .001). The majority of patients in the overall cohort were men (92.2%), a group identified as having a much greater risk of worse COVID-19–related outcomes.
Unvaccinated patients in the study had a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the fully vaccinated group (1.34% vs. 0.11%, respectively) in follow-up data reported through April 20, 2021. Over a median follow-up duration of 20 days, researchers found 14 infections with SARS-CoV-2 (0.28%) in partially vaccinated individuals. Seven infections (0.11%) were reported in fully vaccinated individuals over a median 38-day follow-up period.
Compared with unvaccinated patients, full vaccination status was associated with a 69% reduction in the hazard ratio of infection (HR, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56; P < .001). Corresponding vaccine efficacy rates were 25.1% for partial vaccination and 80.4% for full vaccination.
There were no significant interactions between vaccination status and exposure to steroids (P =.64), mesalamine versus immunosuppressive agents (P =.46), or anti-TNFs with immunomodulators or steroids versus other therapies (P =.34). In addition, no difference was found in the association between vaccination status and infection for patients who received the Moderna versus the Pfizer vaccines (P =.09).
Unvaccinated individuals had the highest raw proportions of severe infection with the novel coronavirus (0.32%) and all-cause mortality (0.66%), compared with people who were partially vaccinated or fully vaccinated. In adjusted Cox regression analyses, there was no significant association between vaccination status and severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P = .18) or all-cause mortality (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P =.11). The researchers wrote that, “future studies with larger sample size and/or longer follow-up are needed to evaluate this further.”
An important limitation of this study was the inclusion of mostly older men who were also predominantly White (80.4%). Ultimately, this population may limit the generalizability of the findings for women and patients of other races/ethnicities.
While the study received no financial support, Dr. Khan has received research grants from several pharmaceutical companies, but Dr. Mahmud disclosed no conflicts.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
CAG Clinical Practice Guideline: Vaccination in patients with IBD
The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) has published a two-part clinical practice guideline for immunizing patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that covers both live and inactivated vaccines across pediatric and adult patients.
The guideline, which has been endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, is composed of recommendations drawn from a broader body of data than prior publications on the same topic, according to Eric I. Benchimol, MD, PhD, of the University of Ottawa and the University of Toronto, and colleagues.
“Previous guidelines on immunizations of patients with IBD considered only the limited available evidence of vaccine safety and effectiveness in IBD populations, and failed to consider the ample evidence available in the general population or in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases when assessing the certainty of evidence or developing their recommendations,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.
Part 1: Live vaccine recommendations
The first part of the guideline includes seven recommendations for use of live vaccines in patients with IBD.
In this area, decision-making is largely dependent upon use of immunosuppressive therapy, which the investigators defined as “corticosteroids, thiopurines, biologics, small molecules such as JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, and combinations thereof,” with the caveat that “there is no standard definition of immunosuppression,” and “the degree to which immunosuppressive therapy causes clinically significant immunosuppression generally is dose related and varies by drug.”
Before offering specific recommendations, Dr. Benchimol and colleagues provided three general principles to abide by: 1. Clinicians should review each patient’s history of immunization and vaccine-preventable diseases at diagnosis and on a routine basis; 2. Appropriate vaccinations should ideally be given prior to starting immunosuppressive therapy; and 3. Immunosuppressive therapy (when urgently needed) should not be delayed so that immunizations can be given in advance.
“[Delaying therapy] could lead to more anticipated harms than benefits, due to the risk of progression of the inflammatory activity and resulting complications,” the investigators wrote.
Specific recommendations in the guideline address measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR); and varicella. Both vaccines are recommended for susceptible pediatric and adult patients not taking immunosuppressive therapy. In contrast, neither vaccine is recommended for immunosuppressed patients of any age. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.
Concerning vaccination within the first 6 months of life for infants born of mothers taking biologics, the expert panel did not reach a consensus.
“[T]he group was unable to recommend for or against their routine use because the desirable and undesirable effects were closely balanced and the evidence on safety outcomes was insufficient to justify a recommendation,” wrote Dr. Benchimol and colleagues. “Health care providers should be cautious with the administration of live vaccines in the first year of life in the infants of mothers using biologics. These infants should be evaluated by clinicians with expertise in the impact of exposure to monoclonal antibody biologics in utero.”
Part 2: Inactivated vaccine recommendations
The second part of the guideline, by lead author Jennifer L. Jones, MD, of Dalhousie University, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Center, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues, provides 15 recommendations for giving inactivated vaccines to patients with IBD.
The panel considered eight vaccines: Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib); herpes zoster (HZ); hepatitis B; influenza; Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcal vaccine); Neisseria meningitidis (meningococcal vaccine); human papillomavirus (HPV); and diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.
Generally, the above vaccines are recommended on an age-appropriate basis, regardless of immunosuppression status, albeit with varying levels of confidence. For example, the Hib vaccine is strongly recommended for pediatric patients 5 years and younger, whereas the same recommendation for older children and adults is conditional.
For several patient populations and vaccines, the guideline panel did not reach a consensus, including use of double-dose hepatitis B vaccine for immunosuppressed adults, timing seasonal flu shots with dosing of biologics, use of pneumococcal vaccines in nonimmunosuppressed patents without a risk factor for pneumococcal disease, use of meningococcal vaccines in adults not at risk for invasive meningococcal disease, and use of HPV vaccine in patients aged 27-45 years.
While immunosuppressive therapy is not a contraindication for giving inactivated vaccines, Dr. Jones and colleagues noted that immunosuppression may hinder vaccine responses.
“Given that patients with IBD on immunosuppressive therapy may have lower immune response to vaccine, further research will be needed to assess the safety and effectiveness of high-dose vs. standard-dose vaccination strategy,” they wrote, also noting that more work is needed to determine if accelerated vaccinations strategies may be feasible prior to initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.
Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline panel did not issue IBD-specific recommendations for vaccines against SARS-CoV-2; however, Dr. Jones and colleagues suggested that clinicians reference a CAG publication on the subject published earlier this year.
The guideline was supported by grants to the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes; and CANImmunize. Dr. Benchimol disclosed additional relationships with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Crohn’s and Colitis Canada; and the Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program.
The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) has published a two-part clinical practice guideline for immunizing patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that covers both live and inactivated vaccines across pediatric and adult patients.
The guideline, which has been endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, is composed of recommendations drawn from a broader body of data than prior publications on the same topic, according to Eric I. Benchimol, MD, PhD, of the University of Ottawa and the University of Toronto, and colleagues.
“Previous guidelines on immunizations of patients with IBD considered only the limited available evidence of vaccine safety and effectiveness in IBD populations, and failed to consider the ample evidence available in the general population or in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases when assessing the certainty of evidence or developing their recommendations,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.
Part 1: Live vaccine recommendations
The first part of the guideline includes seven recommendations for use of live vaccines in patients with IBD.
In this area, decision-making is largely dependent upon use of immunosuppressive therapy, which the investigators defined as “corticosteroids, thiopurines, biologics, small molecules such as JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, and combinations thereof,” with the caveat that “there is no standard definition of immunosuppression,” and “the degree to which immunosuppressive therapy causes clinically significant immunosuppression generally is dose related and varies by drug.”
Before offering specific recommendations, Dr. Benchimol and colleagues provided three general principles to abide by: 1. Clinicians should review each patient’s history of immunization and vaccine-preventable diseases at diagnosis and on a routine basis; 2. Appropriate vaccinations should ideally be given prior to starting immunosuppressive therapy; and 3. Immunosuppressive therapy (when urgently needed) should not be delayed so that immunizations can be given in advance.
“[Delaying therapy] could lead to more anticipated harms than benefits, due to the risk of progression of the inflammatory activity and resulting complications,” the investigators wrote.
Specific recommendations in the guideline address measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR); and varicella. Both vaccines are recommended for susceptible pediatric and adult patients not taking immunosuppressive therapy. In contrast, neither vaccine is recommended for immunosuppressed patients of any age. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.
Concerning vaccination within the first 6 months of life for infants born of mothers taking biologics, the expert panel did not reach a consensus.
“[T]he group was unable to recommend for or against their routine use because the desirable and undesirable effects were closely balanced and the evidence on safety outcomes was insufficient to justify a recommendation,” wrote Dr. Benchimol and colleagues. “Health care providers should be cautious with the administration of live vaccines in the first year of life in the infants of mothers using biologics. These infants should be evaluated by clinicians with expertise in the impact of exposure to monoclonal antibody biologics in utero.”
Part 2: Inactivated vaccine recommendations
The second part of the guideline, by lead author Jennifer L. Jones, MD, of Dalhousie University, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Center, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues, provides 15 recommendations for giving inactivated vaccines to patients with IBD.
The panel considered eight vaccines: Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib); herpes zoster (HZ); hepatitis B; influenza; Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcal vaccine); Neisseria meningitidis (meningococcal vaccine); human papillomavirus (HPV); and diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.
Generally, the above vaccines are recommended on an age-appropriate basis, regardless of immunosuppression status, albeit with varying levels of confidence. For example, the Hib vaccine is strongly recommended for pediatric patients 5 years and younger, whereas the same recommendation for older children and adults is conditional.
For several patient populations and vaccines, the guideline panel did not reach a consensus, including use of double-dose hepatitis B vaccine for immunosuppressed adults, timing seasonal flu shots with dosing of biologics, use of pneumococcal vaccines in nonimmunosuppressed patents without a risk factor for pneumococcal disease, use of meningococcal vaccines in adults not at risk for invasive meningococcal disease, and use of HPV vaccine in patients aged 27-45 years.
While immunosuppressive therapy is not a contraindication for giving inactivated vaccines, Dr. Jones and colleagues noted that immunosuppression may hinder vaccine responses.
“Given that patients with IBD on immunosuppressive therapy may have lower immune response to vaccine, further research will be needed to assess the safety and effectiveness of high-dose vs. standard-dose vaccination strategy,” they wrote, also noting that more work is needed to determine if accelerated vaccinations strategies may be feasible prior to initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.
Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline panel did not issue IBD-specific recommendations for vaccines against SARS-CoV-2; however, Dr. Jones and colleagues suggested that clinicians reference a CAG publication on the subject published earlier this year.
The guideline was supported by grants to the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes; and CANImmunize. Dr. Benchimol disclosed additional relationships with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Crohn’s and Colitis Canada; and the Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program.
The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) has published a two-part clinical practice guideline for immunizing patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that covers both live and inactivated vaccines across pediatric and adult patients.
The guideline, which has been endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, is composed of recommendations drawn from a broader body of data than prior publications on the same topic, according to Eric I. Benchimol, MD, PhD, of the University of Ottawa and the University of Toronto, and colleagues.
“Previous guidelines on immunizations of patients with IBD considered only the limited available evidence of vaccine safety and effectiveness in IBD populations, and failed to consider the ample evidence available in the general population or in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases when assessing the certainty of evidence or developing their recommendations,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.
Part 1: Live vaccine recommendations
The first part of the guideline includes seven recommendations for use of live vaccines in patients with IBD.
In this area, decision-making is largely dependent upon use of immunosuppressive therapy, which the investigators defined as “corticosteroids, thiopurines, biologics, small molecules such as JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, and combinations thereof,” with the caveat that “there is no standard definition of immunosuppression,” and “the degree to which immunosuppressive therapy causes clinically significant immunosuppression generally is dose related and varies by drug.”
Before offering specific recommendations, Dr. Benchimol and colleagues provided three general principles to abide by: 1. Clinicians should review each patient’s history of immunization and vaccine-preventable diseases at diagnosis and on a routine basis; 2. Appropriate vaccinations should ideally be given prior to starting immunosuppressive therapy; and 3. Immunosuppressive therapy (when urgently needed) should not be delayed so that immunizations can be given in advance.
“[Delaying therapy] could lead to more anticipated harms than benefits, due to the risk of progression of the inflammatory activity and resulting complications,” the investigators wrote.
Specific recommendations in the guideline address measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR); and varicella. Both vaccines are recommended for susceptible pediatric and adult patients not taking immunosuppressive therapy. In contrast, neither vaccine is recommended for immunosuppressed patients of any age. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.
Concerning vaccination within the first 6 months of life for infants born of mothers taking biologics, the expert panel did not reach a consensus.
“[T]he group was unable to recommend for or against their routine use because the desirable and undesirable effects were closely balanced and the evidence on safety outcomes was insufficient to justify a recommendation,” wrote Dr. Benchimol and colleagues. “Health care providers should be cautious with the administration of live vaccines in the first year of life in the infants of mothers using biologics. These infants should be evaluated by clinicians with expertise in the impact of exposure to monoclonal antibody biologics in utero.”
Part 2: Inactivated vaccine recommendations
The second part of the guideline, by lead author Jennifer L. Jones, MD, of Dalhousie University, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Center, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues, provides 15 recommendations for giving inactivated vaccines to patients with IBD.
The panel considered eight vaccines: Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib); herpes zoster (HZ); hepatitis B; influenza; Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcal vaccine); Neisseria meningitidis (meningococcal vaccine); human papillomavirus (HPV); and diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.
Generally, the above vaccines are recommended on an age-appropriate basis, regardless of immunosuppression status, albeit with varying levels of confidence. For example, the Hib vaccine is strongly recommended for pediatric patients 5 years and younger, whereas the same recommendation for older children and adults is conditional.
For several patient populations and vaccines, the guideline panel did not reach a consensus, including use of double-dose hepatitis B vaccine for immunosuppressed adults, timing seasonal flu shots with dosing of biologics, use of pneumococcal vaccines in nonimmunosuppressed patents without a risk factor for pneumococcal disease, use of meningococcal vaccines in adults not at risk for invasive meningococcal disease, and use of HPV vaccine in patients aged 27-45 years.
While immunosuppressive therapy is not a contraindication for giving inactivated vaccines, Dr. Jones and colleagues noted that immunosuppression may hinder vaccine responses.
“Given that patients with IBD on immunosuppressive therapy may have lower immune response to vaccine, further research will be needed to assess the safety and effectiveness of high-dose vs. standard-dose vaccination strategy,” they wrote, also noting that more work is needed to determine if accelerated vaccinations strategies may be feasible prior to initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.
Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline panel did not issue IBD-specific recommendations for vaccines against SARS-CoV-2; however, Dr. Jones and colleagues suggested that clinicians reference a CAG publication on the subject published earlier this year.
The guideline was supported by grants to the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes; and CANImmunize. Dr. Benchimol disclosed additional relationships with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Crohn’s and Colitis Canada; and the Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
IBD risk rises with higher ultraprocessed food intake
Individuals who consumed more ultraprocessed foods had a significantly increased risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) than those who consumed less, according to data from more than 100,000 adults.
“Diet alters the microbiome and modifies the intestinal immune response and so could play a role in the pathogenesis of IBD,” Neeraj Narula, MD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues wrote. Although previous studies have investigated the impact of dietary risk factors on IBD, an association with ultraprocessed foods (defined as foods containing additives and preservatives) in particular has not been examined, they wrote.
In a study published in BMJ, the researchers examined data from 116,087 adults aged 35-70 years from 21 countries between 2003 and 2016 who were part of the large Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Cohort. Participants completed baseline food frequency questionnaires and were followed at least every 3 years; the median follow-up time was 9.7 years. The primary outcome was the development of Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis. In this study, ultraprocessed food included all packaged and formulated foods and beverages that contained food additives, artificial flavors or colors, or other chemical ingredients.
The categories of ultraprocessed foods included processed meat, cold breakfast cereal, various sauces, soft drinks, and fruit drinks, and refined sweetened foods such as candy, chocolate, jam, jelly, and brownies.
Overall, 467 participants developed IBD, including 90 with Crohn’s disease and 377 with ulcerative colitis.
After controlling for confounding factors, the investigators found that increased consumption of ultraprocessed foods was significantly associated with an increased risk of incident IBD. Compared with individuals who consumed less than 1 serving per day of ultraprocessed foods, the hazard ratio was 1.82 for those who consumed 5 or more servings and 1.67 for those who consumed 1-4 servings daily (P = .006).
“The pattern of increased ultraprocessed food intake and higher risk of IBD persisted within each of the regions examined, and effect estimates were generally similar, with overlapping confidence intervals and no significant heterogeneity,” the researchers noted.
The risk of IBD increased among individuals who consumed 1 serving per week or more of processed meat, compared with those who consumed less than 1 serving per week, and the risk increased with the amount consumed (HR, 2.07 for 1 or more servings per day). Similarly, IBD risk was higher among individuals who consumed 100 g/day or more of refined sweetened foods compared with no intake of these foods (HR, 2.58).
Individuals who consumed at least one serving of fried foods per day had the highest risk of IBD (HR, 3.02), the researchers noted. The reason for the association is uncertain, but may occur not only because many fried foods are also processed but also because the action of frying food and the processing of oil, as well as type and quality of oil, might modify the nutrients.
In the subgroup analysis, higher consumption of salty snacks and soft drinks also was associated with higher risk for IBD. However, the researchers found no association between increased risk of IBD and consumption of white meat, unprocessed red meat, dairy, starchy foods, and fruit/vegetables/legumes.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small number of individuals with Crohn’s disease, potential lack of generalizability to those who develop IBD in childhood or young adulthood, and possible confounding from unmeasured variables. The study also did not account for dietary changes over time, the investigators reported. However, the longitudinal design allowed them “to focus on people with incident IBD and to use medical record review and central adjudication to validate a sample of the diagnoses.”
The results suggest that the way food is processed or ultraprocessed, rather than the food itself, may be what confers the risk for IBD, given the lack of association between IBD and other food categories such as unprocessed red meat and dairy, the researchers concluded.
Next steps: Pin down driving factors
“There is significant interest in the apparent increase in the incidence and prevalence of IBD, particularly in previously low incidence areas,” Edward L. Barnes, MD, MPH, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said in an interview.
“Many research groups and clinicians suspect that environmental exposures, including dietary exposures, may play a critical role in these trends,” said Dr. Barnes. “This study utilized a large, multinational prospective cohort design to assess the influence of diet on the risk of developing IBD,” which is particularly important considering the potential for processed foods and food additives to impact the gastrointestinal tract.
“The strong associations demonstrated by the authors were impressive, particularly given that the authors performed multiple subanalyses, including evaluations by participant age and evaluations of particular food groups/types [e.g., processed meat, soft drinks, and refined sweet foods],” he noted. Dr. Barnes also found the lack of association with intake of white meat and unprocessed red meat interesting. “In my opinion, these subanalyses strengthen the overall associations demonstrated by the authors given their prospective study design and their attention to evaluating all potential associations that may be driving the relationships present in this cohort.
“At this point, the take-home message for clinicians treating patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis should be that this association exists,” said Dr. Barnes. “One question that remains is whether the same risk factors that are present for developing disease also influence the disease course, given that the primary outcome of this study was the development of IBD. Given that much of our data with regard to the interplay between diet and IBD are still emerging, physicians treating patients with IBD can make patients aware of these associations and the potential benefit of limiting ultraprocessed foods in their diet.”
For these important results to become actionable, “further research is likely necessary to identify the factors that are driving this association,” Dr. Barnes explained. “This would likely build on prior animal models that have demonstrated an association between food additives such as emulsifiers and changes in the gastrointestinal tract that could ultimately lead to increased inflammation and the development of IBD.” Such information about specific drivers “would then allow clinicians to determine which population would benefit most from dietary changes/recommendations.”
The overall PURE study was supported by the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, CIHR’s Strategy for Patient Oriented Research through the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. PURE also was supported in part by unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies, notably AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Barnes disclosed serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Gilead, Pfizer, Takeda, and Target RWE.
Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.
Individuals who consumed more ultraprocessed foods had a significantly increased risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) than those who consumed less, according to data from more than 100,000 adults.
“Diet alters the microbiome and modifies the intestinal immune response and so could play a role in the pathogenesis of IBD,” Neeraj Narula, MD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues wrote. Although previous studies have investigated the impact of dietary risk factors on IBD, an association with ultraprocessed foods (defined as foods containing additives and preservatives) in particular has not been examined, they wrote.
In a study published in BMJ, the researchers examined data from 116,087 adults aged 35-70 years from 21 countries between 2003 and 2016 who were part of the large Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Cohort. Participants completed baseline food frequency questionnaires and were followed at least every 3 years; the median follow-up time was 9.7 years. The primary outcome was the development of Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis. In this study, ultraprocessed food included all packaged and formulated foods and beverages that contained food additives, artificial flavors or colors, or other chemical ingredients.
The categories of ultraprocessed foods included processed meat, cold breakfast cereal, various sauces, soft drinks, and fruit drinks, and refined sweetened foods such as candy, chocolate, jam, jelly, and brownies.
Overall, 467 participants developed IBD, including 90 with Crohn’s disease and 377 with ulcerative colitis.
After controlling for confounding factors, the investigators found that increased consumption of ultraprocessed foods was significantly associated with an increased risk of incident IBD. Compared with individuals who consumed less than 1 serving per day of ultraprocessed foods, the hazard ratio was 1.82 for those who consumed 5 or more servings and 1.67 for those who consumed 1-4 servings daily (P = .006).
“The pattern of increased ultraprocessed food intake and higher risk of IBD persisted within each of the regions examined, and effect estimates were generally similar, with overlapping confidence intervals and no significant heterogeneity,” the researchers noted.
The risk of IBD increased among individuals who consumed 1 serving per week or more of processed meat, compared with those who consumed less than 1 serving per week, and the risk increased with the amount consumed (HR, 2.07 for 1 or more servings per day). Similarly, IBD risk was higher among individuals who consumed 100 g/day or more of refined sweetened foods compared with no intake of these foods (HR, 2.58).
Individuals who consumed at least one serving of fried foods per day had the highest risk of IBD (HR, 3.02), the researchers noted. The reason for the association is uncertain, but may occur not only because many fried foods are also processed but also because the action of frying food and the processing of oil, as well as type and quality of oil, might modify the nutrients.
In the subgroup analysis, higher consumption of salty snacks and soft drinks also was associated with higher risk for IBD. However, the researchers found no association between increased risk of IBD and consumption of white meat, unprocessed red meat, dairy, starchy foods, and fruit/vegetables/legumes.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small number of individuals with Crohn’s disease, potential lack of generalizability to those who develop IBD in childhood or young adulthood, and possible confounding from unmeasured variables. The study also did not account for dietary changes over time, the investigators reported. However, the longitudinal design allowed them “to focus on people with incident IBD and to use medical record review and central adjudication to validate a sample of the diagnoses.”
The results suggest that the way food is processed or ultraprocessed, rather than the food itself, may be what confers the risk for IBD, given the lack of association between IBD and other food categories such as unprocessed red meat and dairy, the researchers concluded.
Next steps: Pin down driving factors
“There is significant interest in the apparent increase in the incidence and prevalence of IBD, particularly in previously low incidence areas,” Edward L. Barnes, MD, MPH, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said in an interview.
“Many research groups and clinicians suspect that environmental exposures, including dietary exposures, may play a critical role in these trends,” said Dr. Barnes. “This study utilized a large, multinational prospective cohort design to assess the influence of diet on the risk of developing IBD,” which is particularly important considering the potential for processed foods and food additives to impact the gastrointestinal tract.
“The strong associations demonstrated by the authors were impressive, particularly given that the authors performed multiple subanalyses, including evaluations by participant age and evaluations of particular food groups/types [e.g., processed meat, soft drinks, and refined sweet foods],” he noted. Dr. Barnes also found the lack of association with intake of white meat and unprocessed red meat interesting. “In my opinion, these subanalyses strengthen the overall associations demonstrated by the authors given their prospective study design and their attention to evaluating all potential associations that may be driving the relationships present in this cohort.
“At this point, the take-home message for clinicians treating patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis should be that this association exists,” said Dr. Barnes. “One question that remains is whether the same risk factors that are present for developing disease also influence the disease course, given that the primary outcome of this study was the development of IBD. Given that much of our data with regard to the interplay between diet and IBD are still emerging, physicians treating patients with IBD can make patients aware of these associations and the potential benefit of limiting ultraprocessed foods in their diet.”
For these important results to become actionable, “further research is likely necessary to identify the factors that are driving this association,” Dr. Barnes explained. “This would likely build on prior animal models that have demonstrated an association between food additives such as emulsifiers and changes in the gastrointestinal tract that could ultimately lead to increased inflammation and the development of IBD.” Such information about specific drivers “would then allow clinicians to determine which population would benefit most from dietary changes/recommendations.”
The overall PURE study was supported by the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, CIHR’s Strategy for Patient Oriented Research through the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. PURE also was supported in part by unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies, notably AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Barnes disclosed serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Gilead, Pfizer, Takeda, and Target RWE.
Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.
Individuals who consumed more ultraprocessed foods had a significantly increased risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) than those who consumed less, according to data from more than 100,000 adults.
“Diet alters the microbiome and modifies the intestinal immune response and so could play a role in the pathogenesis of IBD,” Neeraj Narula, MD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues wrote. Although previous studies have investigated the impact of dietary risk factors on IBD, an association with ultraprocessed foods (defined as foods containing additives and preservatives) in particular has not been examined, they wrote.
In a study published in BMJ, the researchers examined data from 116,087 adults aged 35-70 years from 21 countries between 2003 and 2016 who were part of the large Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Cohort. Participants completed baseline food frequency questionnaires and were followed at least every 3 years; the median follow-up time was 9.7 years. The primary outcome was the development of Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis. In this study, ultraprocessed food included all packaged and formulated foods and beverages that contained food additives, artificial flavors or colors, or other chemical ingredients.
The categories of ultraprocessed foods included processed meat, cold breakfast cereal, various sauces, soft drinks, and fruit drinks, and refined sweetened foods such as candy, chocolate, jam, jelly, and brownies.
Overall, 467 participants developed IBD, including 90 with Crohn’s disease and 377 with ulcerative colitis.
After controlling for confounding factors, the investigators found that increased consumption of ultraprocessed foods was significantly associated with an increased risk of incident IBD. Compared with individuals who consumed less than 1 serving per day of ultraprocessed foods, the hazard ratio was 1.82 for those who consumed 5 or more servings and 1.67 for those who consumed 1-4 servings daily (P = .006).
“The pattern of increased ultraprocessed food intake and higher risk of IBD persisted within each of the regions examined, and effect estimates were generally similar, with overlapping confidence intervals and no significant heterogeneity,” the researchers noted.
The risk of IBD increased among individuals who consumed 1 serving per week or more of processed meat, compared with those who consumed less than 1 serving per week, and the risk increased with the amount consumed (HR, 2.07 for 1 or more servings per day). Similarly, IBD risk was higher among individuals who consumed 100 g/day or more of refined sweetened foods compared with no intake of these foods (HR, 2.58).
Individuals who consumed at least one serving of fried foods per day had the highest risk of IBD (HR, 3.02), the researchers noted. The reason for the association is uncertain, but may occur not only because many fried foods are also processed but also because the action of frying food and the processing of oil, as well as type and quality of oil, might modify the nutrients.
In the subgroup analysis, higher consumption of salty snacks and soft drinks also was associated with higher risk for IBD. However, the researchers found no association between increased risk of IBD and consumption of white meat, unprocessed red meat, dairy, starchy foods, and fruit/vegetables/legumes.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small number of individuals with Crohn’s disease, potential lack of generalizability to those who develop IBD in childhood or young adulthood, and possible confounding from unmeasured variables. The study also did not account for dietary changes over time, the investigators reported. However, the longitudinal design allowed them “to focus on people with incident IBD and to use medical record review and central adjudication to validate a sample of the diagnoses.”
The results suggest that the way food is processed or ultraprocessed, rather than the food itself, may be what confers the risk for IBD, given the lack of association between IBD and other food categories such as unprocessed red meat and dairy, the researchers concluded.
Next steps: Pin down driving factors
“There is significant interest in the apparent increase in the incidence and prevalence of IBD, particularly in previously low incidence areas,” Edward L. Barnes, MD, MPH, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said in an interview.
“Many research groups and clinicians suspect that environmental exposures, including dietary exposures, may play a critical role in these trends,” said Dr. Barnes. “This study utilized a large, multinational prospective cohort design to assess the influence of diet on the risk of developing IBD,” which is particularly important considering the potential for processed foods and food additives to impact the gastrointestinal tract.
“The strong associations demonstrated by the authors were impressive, particularly given that the authors performed multiple subanalyses, including evaluations by participant age and evaluations of particular food groups/types [e.g., processed meat, soft drinks, and refined sweet foods],” he noted. Dr. Barnes also found the lack of association with intake of white meat and unprocessed red meat interesting. “In my opinion, these subanalyses strengthen the overall associations demonstrated by the authors given their prospective study design and their attention to evaluating all potential associations that may be driving the relationships present in this cohort.
“At this point, the take-home message for clinicians treating patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis should be that this association exists,” said Dr. Barnes. “One question that remains is whether the same risk factors that are present for developing disease also influence the disease course, given that the primary outcome of this study was the development of IBD. Given that much of our data with regard to the interplay between diet and IBD are still emerging, physicians treating patients with IBD can make patients aware of these associations and the potential benefit of limiting ultraprocessed foods in their diet.”
For these important results to become actionable, “further research is likely necessary to identify the factors that are driving this association,” Dr. Barnes explained. “This would likely build on prior animal models that have demonstrated an association between food additives such as emulsifiers and changes in the gastrointestinal tract that could ultimately lead to increased inflammation and the development of IBD.” Such information about specific drivers “would then allow clinicians to determine which population would benefit most from dietary changes/recommendations.”
The overall PURE study was supported by the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, CIHR’s Strategy for Patient Oriented Research through the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. PURE also was supported in part by unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies, notably AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Barnes disclosed serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Gilead, Pfizer, Takeda, and Target RWE.
Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.
FROM THE BMJ
C. diff eradication not necessary for clinical cure of recurrent infections with fecal transplant
It’s not necessary to completely eradicate all Clostridioides difficile to successfully treat recurrent C. difficile infections with fecal microbiota transplant (FMT), according to a study presented online July 12 at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.
C. difficile colonization persisted for 3 weeks after FMT in about one-quarter of patients, but it’s not clear whether this is a persistent infection, a newly acquired infection, or partial persistence of a mixed infection, said Elisabeth Terveer, MD, a medical microbiologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. In addition, “82% of patients with detectable C. diff do not relapse, so it’s absolutely not necessary for a cure,” she said.
Several mechanisms explain why FMT is a highly effective therapy for recurrent C. difficile infections, including restoration of bacterial metabolism in the gut, immune modulation, and direct competition between bacteria, Dr. Terveer said, but it’s less clear whether eradication of C. difficile spores is among these mechanisms.
Between May 2016 and April 2020, the researchers analyzed fecal samples from 84 patients who took vancomycin for at least 4 days before undergoing FMT. The researchers took fecal samples from patients before FMT and 3 weeks after FMT to culture them and the donor samples for presence of C. difficile, and they assessed clinical outcomes at 3 weeks and 6 months after FMT.
After antibiotic treatment but prior to FMT, 19% of patients (n = 16) still had a toxigenic C. difficile culture while the other 81% had a negative culture. None of the donor samples had a positive C. difficile culture. After FMT treatment, five patients who had a positive pre-FMT culture remained positive, and the other 11 were negative. Among the 81% of patients (n = 68) who had a negative culture just before FMT, 22 had a positive culture and 46 had a negative culture after FMT. Overall, 26% of patients post FMT had a positive C. difficile culture, a finding that was 10-fold higher than another study that assessed C. difficile with PCR testing, Dr. Terveer said.
The clinical cure rate after FMT was 94%, and five patients had relapses within 2 months of their FMT. These relapses were more prevalent in patients with a positive C. difficile culture prior to FMT (odds ratio [OR], 7.6; P = .045) and a positive C. difficile culture after FMT (OR, 13.6; P = .016). Still, 82% of patients who had a positive C. difficile culture post FMT remained clinically cured 2 months later.
It’s unclear why 19% of patients had a positive culture after their antibiotic pretreatment prior to FMT, Dr. Terveer said, but it may be because the pretreatment was of such a short duration.
“I think the advice should be: Give a full anti–C. diff antibiotic course to treat the C. diff infection, and then give FMT afterward to restore the microbiota and prevent further relapses,” Dr. Terveer told attendees.
Dimitri Drekonja, MD, chief of the Minneapolis VA Infectious Disease Section, said the findings were not necessarily surprising, but it would have been interesting for the researchers to have conducted DNA sequencing of the patients’ fecal samples post FMT to see what the biological diversity looked like.
“One school of thought has been that you have to repopulate the normal diverse microbiota of the colon” with FMT, and the other “is that you need to get rid of the C. diff that›s there,” Dr. Drekonja, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “I think more people think it’s the diverse microbiota because if it’s just getting rid of C. diff, we can get do that with antibiotics – but that gets rid of the other organisms.”
As long as you have a diverse microbiota post FMT, Dr. Drekonja said, then “having a few residual organisms, even if they get magnified in the culture process, is probably not that big a deal.”
But there’s a third school of thought that Dr. Drekonja said he himself falls into: “I don’t really care how it works, just that in well-done trials, it does work.” As long as large, robust, well-blinded trials show that FMT works, “I’m open to all sorts of ideas of what the mechanism is,” he said. “The main thing is that it does or doesn’t work.”
These findings basically reinforce current guidance not to test patients’ stools if they are asymptomatic, Dr. Drekonja said. In the past, clinicians sometimes tested patients’ stool after therapy to ensure the C. difficile was eradicated, regardless of whether the patient had symptoms of infection, he said.
“We’ve since become much more attuned that there are lots of people who have detectable C. diff in their stool without any symptoms,” whether detectable by culture or PCR, Dr. Drekonja said. “Generally, if you’re doing well and you’re not having diarrhea, don’t test, and if someone does test and finds it, pretend you didn’t see the test,” he advised. “This is a big part of diagnostic stewardship, which is: You don’t go testing people who are doing well.”
The Netherlands Donor Feces Bank used in the research is funded by a grant from Vedanta Biosciences. Dr. Drekonja had no disclosures.
Help your patients understand their C. difficile diagnosis by sharing patient education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/Cdiff.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s not necessary to completely eradicate all Clostridioides difficile to successfully treat recurrent C. difficile infections with fecal microbiota transplant (FMT), according to a study presented online July 12 at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.
C. difficile colonization persisted for 3 weeks after FMT in about one-quarter of patients, but it’s not clear whether this is a persistent infection, a newly acquired infection, or partial persistence of a mixed infection, said Elisabeth Terveer, MD, a medical microbiologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. In addition, “82% of patients with detectable C. diff do not relapse, so it’s absolutely not necessary for a cure,” she said.
Several mechanisms explain why FMT is a highly effective therapy for recurrent C. difficile infections, including restoration of bacterial metabolism in the gut, immune modulation, and direct competition between bacteria, Dr. Terveer said, but it’s less clear whether eradication of C. difficile spores is among these mechanisms.
Between May 2016 and April 2020, the researchers analyzed fecal samples from 84 patients who took vancomycin for at least 4 days before undergoing FMT. The researchers took fecal samples from patients before FMT and 3 weeks after FMT to culture them and the donor samples for presence of C. difficile, and they assessed clinical outcomes at 3 weeks and 6 months after FMT.
After antibiotic treatment but prior to FMT, 19% of patients (n = 16) still had a toxigenic C. difficile culture while the other 81% had a negative culture. None of the donor samples had a positive C. difficile culture. After FMT treatment, five patients who had a positive pre-FMT culture remained positive, and the other 11 were negative. Among the 81% of patients (n = 68) who had a negative culture just before FMT, 22 had a positive culture and 46 had a negative culture after FMT. Overall, 26% of patients post FMT had a positive C. difficile culture, a finding that was 10-fold higher than another study that assessed C. difficile with PCR testing, Dr. Terveer said.
The clinical cure rate after FMT was 94%, and five patients had relapses within 2 months of their FMT. These relapses were more prevalent in patients with a positive C. difficile culture prior to FMT (odds ratio [OR], 7.6; P = .045) and a positive C. difficile culture after FMT (OR, 13.6; P = .016). Still, 82% of patients who had a positive C. difficile culture post FMT remained clinically cured 2 months later.
It’s unclear why 19% of patients had a positive culture after their antibiotic pretreatment prior to FMT, Dr. Terveer said, but it may be because the pretreatment was of such a short duration.
“I think the advice should be: Give a full anti–C. diff antibiotic course to treat the C. diff infection, and then give FMT afterward to restore the microbiota and prevent further relapses,” Dr. Terveer told attendees.
Dimitri Drekonja, MD, chief of the Minneapolis VA Infectious Disease Section, said the findings were not necessarily surprising, but it would have been interesting for the researchers to have conducted DNA sequencing of the patients’ fecal samples post FMT to see what the biological diversity looked like.
“One school of thought has been that you have to repopulate the normal diverse microbiota of the colon” with FMT, and the other “is that you need to get rid of the C. diff that›s there,” Dr. Drekonja, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “I think more people think it’s the diverse microbiota because if it’s just getting rid of C. diff, we can get do that with antibiotics – but that gets rid of the other organisms.”
As long as you have a diverse microbiota post FMT, Dr. Drekonja said, then “having a few residual organisms, even if they get magnified in the culture process, is probably not that big a deal.”
But there’s a third school of thought that Dr. Drekonja said he himself falls into: “I don’t really care how it works, just that in well-done trials, it does work.” As long as large, robust, well-blinded trials show that FMT works, “I’m open to all sorts of ideas of what the mechanism is,” he said. “The main thing is that it does or doesn’t work.”
These findings basically reinforce current guidance not to test patients’ stools if they are asymptomatic, Dr. Drekonja said. In the past, clinicians sometimes tested patients’ stool after therapy to ensure the C. difficile was eradicated, regardless of whether the patient had symptoms of infection, he said.
“We’ve since become much more attuned that there are lots of people who have detectable C. diff in their stool without any symptoms,” whether detectable by culture or PCR, Dr. Drekonja said. “Generally, if you’re doing well and you’re not having diarrhea, don’t test, and if someone does test and finds it, pretend you didn’t see the test,” he advised. “This is a big part of diagnostic stewardship, which is: You don’t go testing people who are doing well.”
The Netherlands Donor Feces Bank used in the research is funded by a grant from Vedanta Biosciences. Dr. Drekonja had no disclosures.
Help your patients understand their C. difficile diagnosis by sharing patient education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/Cdiff.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s not necessary to completely eradicate all Clostridioides difficile to successfully treat recurrent C. difficile infections with fecal microbiota transplant (FMT), according to a study presented online July 12 at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.
C. difficile colonization persisted for 3 weeks after FMT in about one-quarter of patients, but it’s not clear whether this is a persistent infection, a newly acquired infection, or partial persistence of a mixed infection, said Elisabeth Terveer, MD, a medical microbiologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. In addition, “82% of patients with detectable C. diff do not relapse, so it’s absolutely not necessary for a cure,” she said.
Several mechanisms explain why FMT is a highly effective therapy for recurrent C. difficile infections, including restoration of bacterial metabolism in the gut, immune modulation, and direct competition between bacteria, Dr. Terveer said, but it’s less clear whether eradication of C. difficile spores is among these mechanisms.
Between May 2016 and April 2020, the researchers analyzed fecal samples from 84 patients who took vancomycin for at least 4 days before undergoing FMT. The researchers took fecal samples from patients before FMT and 3 weeks after FMT to culture them and the donor samples for presence of C. difficile, and they assessed clinical outcomes at 3 weeks and 6 months after FMT.
After antibiotic treatment but prior to FMT, 19% of patients (n = 16) still had a toxigenic C. difficile culture while the other 81% had a negative culture. None of the donor samples had a positive C. difficile culture. After FMT treatment, five patients who had a positive pre-FMT culture remained positive, and the other 11 were negative. Among the 81% of patients (n = 68) who had a negative culture just before FMT, 22 had a positive culture and 46 had a negative culture after FMT. Overall, 26% of patients post FMT had a positive C. difficile culture, a finding that was 10-fold higher than another study that assessed C. difficile with PCR testing, Dr. Terveer said.
The clinical cure rate after FMT was 94%, and five patients had relapses within 2 months of their FMT. These relapses were more prevalent in patients with a positive C. difficile culture prior to FMT (odds ratio [OR], 7.6; P = .045) and a positive C. difficile culture after FMT (OR, 13.6; P = .016). Still, 82% of patients who had a positive C. difficile culture post FMT remained clinically cured 2 months later.
It’s unclear why 19% of patients had a positive culture after their antibiotic pretreatment prior to FMT, Dr. Terveer said, but it may be because the pretreatment was of such a short duration.
“I think the advice should be: Give a full anti–C. diff antibiotic course to treat the C. diff infection, and then give FMT afterward to restore the microbiota and prevent further relapses,” Dr. Terveer told attendees.
Dimitri Drekonja, MD, chief of the Minneapolis VA Infectious Disease Section, said the findings were not necessarily surprising, but it would have been interesting for the researchers to have conducted DNA sequencing of the patients’ fecal samples post FMT to see what the biological diversity looked like.
“One school of thought has been that you have to repopulate the normal diverse microbiota of the colon” with FMT, and the other “is that you need to get rid of the C. diff that›s there,” Dr. Drekonja, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “I think more people think it’s the diverse microbiota because if it’s just getting rid of C. diff, we can get do that with antibiotics – but that gets rid of the other organisms.”
As long as you have a diverse microbiota post FMT, Dr. Drekonja said, then “having a few residual organisms, even if they get magnified in the culture process, is probably not that big a deal.”
But there’s a third school of thought that Dr. Drekonja said he himself falls into: “I don’t really care how it works, just that in well-done trials, it does work.” As long as large, robust, well-blinded trials show that FMT works, “I’m open to all sorts of ideas of what the mechanism is,” he said. “The main thing is that it does or doesn’t work.”
These findings basically reinforce current guidance not to test patients’ stools if they are asymptomatic, Dr. Drekonja said. In the past, clinicians sometimes tested patients’ stool after therapy to ensure the C. difficile was eradicated, regardless of whether the patient had symptoms of infection, he said.
“We’ve since become much more attuned that there are lots of people who have detectable C. diff in their stool without any symptoms,” whether detectable by culture or PCR, Dr. Drekonja said. “Generally, if you’re doing well and you’re not having diarrhea, don’t test, and if someone does test and finds it, pretend you didn’t see the test,” he advised. “This is a big part of diagnostic stewardship, which is: You don’t go testing people who are doing well.”
The Netherlands Donor Feces Bank used in the research is funded by a grant from Vedanta Biosciences. Dr. Drekonja had no disclosures.
Help your patients understand their C. difficile diagnosis by sharing patient education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/Cdiff.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.